Will Elon Musk's leadership lead to Twitter's ultimate demise?

On April 25, Twitter and Elon Musk announced that the billionaire would purchase the social media platform for $44 billion. As a result, users are feeling anxious about what the future holds for the platform.

Musk’s purchase of Twitter comes as the company finds itself treading a narrow path between enabling free speech and policing dangerous content, such as COVID-19 misinformation to harassment to posts inciting political violence. Musk is a self-described “free-speech absolutist,” leading to speculation about what changes he would bring us, the new private owner of the company, which had previously been a public company held by shareholders. So what does this mean for the future of the enormously influential site, which serves as an essential tool for business and political leaders and a daily news and information home for millions of people?

While Twitter’s active user base of 330 million falls far short of rivals Facebook and TikTok, it influences its numbers. Politicians, journalists, activists, and intellectuals are particularly active on the site, which means it influences public debate and the media. “ I think for me, Elon buying Twitter exposes an underlying problem … There are just too few companies that have too much power over what can be seen and heard and done online,” said Veronica Bell, a third-year sociology major. According to the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Twitter's US users say the platform is an important — if not the most important — source of news.  Twitter's agenda-setting power seems precise to what interests Musk and what makes his control of the platform potentially disruptive.

Musk's main critique of Twitter today is that it is too restrictive. Under his ownership, Musk has suggested Twitter would treat content more permissively, pivoting away from content removals and account bans. He has also proposed opening up Twitter's algorithm to public review so that, in theory, users could understand how it makes decisions. Musk's approach is rooted more toward how much content moderation Twitter needs rather than whether it should have any. One of the most significant underlying questions is whether the company will restore Trump's account privileges. “If Twitter welcomes back banned accounts, I'm hopping off. There’s no reason I should have to deal with those accounts. They were banned for a reason,” said Tony Green, a freshman music major. Relaxing enforcement of the types of policies that got him banned could affect many more than just Trump. Several figures who have had accounts banned from Twitter celebrated the deal on Monday, with some, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, expressing optimism that their access may be fully restored soon.

 Musk stated that he hopes even his strongest critics will remain on the platform in his first tweet after the big purchase, "...because that is what free speech means.”

However, some users have threatened to leave Twitter, while others have already quit.

In her last tweet, actor Jameela Jamil stated she “[Expects the platform to] become an, even more, lawless, hateful, xenophobic, bigoted, misogynistic space.”

It's important to recall that social media platforms are a highly iterative space and that, in reality, these sites have always had a lifespan of 15-20 years. No one remembers their Myspace or Friendster logins, yet we survive. These are private companies subject to the vulnerabilities and vagaries of private capital. More critical than anxieties about this purchase is thinking soberly about what we want all social media to represent in our public spheres.

Musk’s move continues a tradition of billionaires' buying control of influential media platforms, including Jeff Bezos’ 2013 acquisition of the Washington Post. Under the pretense of trying to accomplish the benefit of others and not for their benefit.