When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


Elon Musk Wants Twitter For The Big Data, Not The Free Speech

Oligarchs of the ‘Second Gilded Age’ in the like of Elon Musk are already able to influence the public's minds through media ownership. But getting a hand on Twitter means having access to its users' data and exploiting it for financial purposes.

Profile of Elon Musk with a black and white background

Elon Musk attending the opening of a Tesla factory in Germany in March 2022.

Nolan Higdon

During the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, and the early decades of the 20th century, U.S. captains of industry such as William Randolph Hearst and Jay Gould used their massive wealth to dominate facets of the economy, including the news media. They were, in many ways, prototype oligarchs — by the dictionary definition, “very rich business leaders with a great deal of political influence.”

Some have argued that the U.S. is in the midst of a Second Gilded Age defined — like the first — by vast wealth inequality, hyper-partisanship, xenophobia and a new crop of oligarchs using their vast wealth to purchase media and political influence.

Which brings us to the announcement on April 25, 2022, that Tesla billionaire Elon Musk is, barring any last-minute hitches, purchasing the social media platform Twitter. It will put the wealthiest man on the planet in control of one of the most influential means of communications in world today.

As a media scholar, I suspect Musk’s desire in buying Twitter goes beyond a desire to control and shape public discourse. Today’s equivalent of the Gilded Age oligarchs — the handful of super-rich Americans gobbling up increasing chunks of the media landscape — will have that, but they will also have access to a trove of personal data of users and news consumers.

Elon Musk's Twitter profile.

Elon Musk has been an active Twitter user since June 2009.

Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/ZUMA

All the newspapers fit to buy

Over the past decade, numerous American billionaires have purchased news media outlets such as the Boston Globe, Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Atlantic and the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps the most famous example is Jeff Bezos, the founder and executive chairman of Amazon, who spent US$250 million of his roughly $170 billion net worth to purchase The Washington Post in 2013.

Media scholars have aired concern for decades that unfettered wealth and tepid government regulation have enabled a handful of corporations to dominate news media coverage in the U.S. Indeed, the companies that produce the majority of news media in the U.S. has dwindled from 50 in the 1980s to roughly six today.

This consolidation of the media industry in the hands of wealthy individuals is, as media scholar Robert McChesney has argued, especially concerning for a healthy democracy, which necessitates that the electorate has access to an abundance of diverse views and free-flowing information.

The companies that produce the majority of news media in the U.S. has dwindled from 50 in the 1980s to roughly six today.

The public relies on journalists to relay stories that they can interpret to determine how they vote; if they will vote; and if they should organize and engage in civil disobedience. The negative consequences of this concentration of ownership are that it can enabled a handful of corporate news outlets to normalize baseless or false reporting that turns out to be misleading, such as the reporting on weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Just like the U.S. oligarchs of the 19th century and early 20th century, today’s billionaires recognize that by controlling the free flow of information they can control or shape the electorate’s democratic participation. For example, soon after casino mogul Sheldon Adelson purchased the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports surfaced that stories about the billionaire were being censored or altered so he could manage the public’s image of his businesses in the gambling-centric city.

Similarly, some critics have suggested that after Bezos purchased The Washington Post, the newspaper’s coverage became noticeably soft in its coverage of Amazon, and tough on Bezos’ political opponents. The Washington Post deniesboth of these claims.

The user as a product

With an estimated fortune of $268 billion as of April 2022, Musk is just the latest and wealthiest to purchase a media platform. In opting to buy into social media rather than a traditional news outlet, the Tesla CEO is getting control of an important news delivery system. A 2021 Pew survey found that 23% of Americans use Twitter — and 7 in 10 Twitter users said they received news from the platform.

But the potential threats posed by an individual billionaire controlling Twitter are much more complicated and dangerous than that of earlier wealthy media proprietors, who primarily could only sway the news.

Even before Musk vied to buy Twitter, Silicon Valley was already controlled by billionaires who operated a handful of companies known as the FAANGs — Facebook (now Meta), Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google (now Alphabet). These companies’ profits are derived from a new economic order that Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff has dubbed “surveillance capitalism.” Under surveillance capitalism, the user is the product — that is to say, companies collect and sell information about users to those interested in predicting, or in some cases nudging, human behavior.

In this new economic order, tech companies constantly surveil users on and off their platforms for the purpose of collecting and analyzing data — which include audio, video, typed words, GPS or even DNA — to open a window into a user’s thoughts and cognitive processes.

In order to keep the data pouring in, big tech companies rely on techniques from the gambling industry to keep people addicted to their screen. Essentially, they keep users chasing the initial dopamine rush that comes from a “like” or “friend request” on Facebook, on a “retweet” or “new follower” on Twitter. Similar to the gambling industry, reports have found that these techniques are used with little regard for users’ mental health.

In 2022, for example, a Facebook whistleblower revealed that the company was aware that its platform design was harming users, particularly young people, but refused to make any changes out of fear it would weaken profitability.

Elon Musk speaking in front of a map of the world.

Elon Musk addressing his guests at the opening of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas in April 2022.

Bob Daemmrich/ZUMA

A free speech enthusiast?

In this context, Musk is not simply a modern version of a 19th century oligarch. His power goes beyond shaping public discourse with narrowly framed stories and the removal of select content. Yes, he may be able to do this. But in addition, he will have a vast amount of personal data under his discretion. For example, when using Twitter content or products, including those integrated into other websites, Twitter collects data and stores what web pages the user accessed, as well as their IP address, browser type, operating system and cookie information.

Musk has said his purchase of Twitter is motivated by his support of free speech. But this runs counter to his reputation for actively seeking revenge against those who criticize his businesses. Furthermore, under his leadership Tesla has maintained contracts that prevented former employees from criticizing the company.

The era of surveillance capitalism has created new opportunities for billionaires to influence the electorate.

Moreover, as it has been argued by computer scientist and philosophy writer Jaron Lanier and free-expression activist and author Jillian York, social media platforms such as Twitter are not conducive to “true” free speech, which is loosely defined as the right to express one’s opinions without interference.

Moreover, by making decisions about what content users do and do not see, social media companies, it could be argued, are interfering with speech. Indeed, social media platforms’ algorithms customize news feeds with content that they believe the user will find the most engaging, to the exclusion to other content.

The era of surveillance capitalism has created new opportunities for billionaires to influence the electorate. Like his predecessors in the first Gilded Age, Musk can determine which reporting users see and do not see on his platform. Unlike his predecessors, he can also track and surveil users – collecting lucrative data that can be used to predict or nudge their behavior.

Nolan Higdon, Lecturer of History and Media Studies, California State University, East Bay.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

The Tyrant's Solitude: How Dictators Lose Touch With Reality

The fundamentally irrational decision to invade Ukraine was the final proof that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been living in a world of illusions. He may be best understood by retracing the steps of history's other tyrants, and gauging how their stories ended.

Photo of Vladimir Putin making remarks during a Victory Day military parade marking the 76th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, in Moscow's Red Square

Vladimir Putin in Moscow's Red Square

Sergiy Gromenko*


KYIVFeb. 21, 2022. This wasn't just the day when Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine became inevitable. This was also the day that two critical parts of Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime were made clear: his unconditional dominance even over his closest, highest-ranking associates, and his complete immersion in the world of his illusions, where even his associates are forbidden to enter.

When both of these features lined up, the result was his suicidal decision to attack Ukraine.

Tyrants and despots style themselves as the most knowledgeable among mortals. Supposedly, they have access to detailed reports from the omnipresent, omnipotent special services, who never miss anything. That is why the despot seems to know everything better than the average person. There is no need to ask the people anything: the giraffe is tall — it sees further.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

This could not be further from the truth.

In fact, each person has their own worldview. The more authoritarian a person is, the stronger the conviction that their view is correct; the higher the person, the more they are inclined to believe that they are doing everything right.

Having risen to the heights of power, the dictator falls into a vicious circle.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest