After a seven-month battle and a trip to Twitter HQ with a bathroom sink, Elon Musk is now the owner of Twitter
In April, experts on digital rights warned that letting billionaires control online spaces could be dangerous. Many people are worried that under Musk's leadership, online safety, public debate, and democratic participation on Twitter will suffer, while misinformation and hate speech will rise.
Twitter, however, is about more than just news and politics. It also serves as a hub for culture, creativity, and community. Digital platforms are worthless unless they are populated with content, so what will Musk's proposed changes mean for the creative industries?
Musk announced the first major change to Twitter less than a week after acquiring it, despite fears that he would reinstate Donald Trump's account. Users will have to pay for the blue check.
"Twitter's current lords and peasants system for who has or does not have a blue checkmark is BS," Musk wrote on Twitter. "People's power!" Blue for $8 per month.
Nothing says "power to the people" like paying your monthly dues to Twitter's new feudal overlord. Musk's ability to create a wealth hierarchy for something that was previously free and call it populist may be the pinnacle of modern capitalism. It's also darkly ironic that a billionaire whose company has blocked employee unionization attempts is claiming to be a man of the people.
In addition to a blue checkmark, Musk has promised that those willing (and able) to pay will receive "priority in replies, mentions, and searches." Musk claims that this will "provide a revenue stream for Twitter to reward content creators."
It's easy to laugh at the absurdity of this suggestion, and content creators were quick to point out the logical flaws of requiring them to pay a fee based on a flimsy promise of later reward.
For those who aren't on Twitter on a regular basis, the blue tick is only available to "verified" users; anyone can apply to be verified, but you must meet certain criteria, including being "authentic, notable, and active." Over time, the blue check has become a status symbol, but it is also an important way to stop people from spreading false information and trolls from pretending to be famous people online. It wasn't a perfect system, but putting a price tag on verification will undermine trust and ultimately lead to an increase in misinformation, with potentially disastrous consequences for online and offline safety. It will certainly not help creators.
Musk is also rumored to be planning the launch of "Paywalled Video," which will allow people to charge a fee to access video content, with Twitter taking a cut. The team working on it has been reported to have flagged it as high-risk, citing issues with copyright, safety, and legal compliance. In the long run, none of these risks benefit creators. Musk's Twitter, on the other hand, is charging ahead and is set to launch in two weeks. It's very "move fast and break things" a la early 2000s Facebook.
This feature is likely to be used for adult content, especially since Twitter has historically been one of the most welcoming platforms for nudity and consensual pornography. In theory, this could be a significant step toward assisting sex workers and adult content creators. However, there is concern that Musk may turn out to be a deceptive friend, only allying with marginalized creators for the sake of making a buck.
Paying for verification and video content would represent a significant change in Twitter's relationship with content creators. However, even if these ideas succeed, an increase in profit for Musk does not necessarily translate into support for creative and cultural workers or general users. Indeed, if the other major (and more profitable) social media platforms are any indication, Twitter under Musk's leadership is more likely to find yet another way to wedge itself between audiences and creative or media workers in order to capture the value that flows between them.
This is an issue that Digital Rights Watch has been actively researching as part of a recent community-based research project looking at power imbalances in the internet economy. We discovered that the growing power and profit of big tech platforms is undermining creative industries rather than empowering and liberating people in creative industries, as promised in the early days of the internet.
Eilish Gilligan, a singer-songwriter from Melbourne, says that "artists and creators add so much value to digital platforms; it's what makes them lively and interesting." "And, while the platforms profit by the billions off the backs of creative workers, the artists themselves are unable to earn a living wage."
Despite Musk's enthusiastic tweet, "Creators need to make a living!" does anyone really believe the world's richest man cares about supporting creatives?
Given that Musk must pay approximately $950 million in annual interest on the debt he incurred when purchasing the company, it's difficult to imagine Musk's priorities being anything other than economic.
Digital platforms are an important part of social life in the 21st century, and the cultural content on them is what makes them interesting and worth using. Rather than hoping Musk will throw some crumbs to creators, we should start seriously thinking about what publicly controlled platforms might look like. Why should we willingly allow yet another billionaire to create his own nightmare playground in order to wield power and control? We deserve to have a real say in how online spaces operate and for whom they operate.