THE MADNESS OF MUSK
Elon Musk (and his consortium of much smaller investors)
now owns Twitter. We need to take seriously the possibility that this
will end up being one of the funniest things that’s ever happened.
That’s because as of this moment, it looks like Musk dug a big
hole in the forest, carefully filled it with punji sticks and
crocodiles, and then jumped in.
This was made immediately clear by Musk’s “Dear Twitter
Advertisers” tweet as the deal closed:
Dear Twitter Advertisers
pic.twitter.com/GMwHmInPAS
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October
27, 2022
The statement starts off, promisingly, with a blatant lie: “The
reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important for the future
of civilization to have a common digital town square.” Musk
apparently believes that no one will remember that until three weeks
ago, he was desperately trying not to buy Twitter. The only
reason he did is because he was about to lose Twitter’s lawsuit to
force him to buy it. This may be the greatest “you can’t fire me
because I quit” moment in history.
The significance of the rest of his statement is more subtle. To
understand it, you have to start with the basics.
Twitter currently makes 90 percent of its revenue from
advertising. (The rest is largely from data licensing.) This means
that you, the Twitter user, are not Twitter’s customers. You are
its product. Its customers are corporate advertisers and, as every
businessperson knows, the customer is always right. Grocery stores
care about the people shopping for Cheetos, not about the feelings of
the Cheetos themselves.
Twitter’s content moderation has sometimes been heavy-handed —
especially when it froze my account because
David Duke got mad at me. But this is not because Twitter is run
by a woke mob. It’s because Twitter needs to keep advertisers happy
— and their top priority is a certain kind of environment for their
ads.
This can take specific forms. Delta probably has it written into
its contract that its ads won’t run near any tweets about plane
crashes. But more generally, advertisers don’t want anything
controversial that gets people out of the buying mood, or worse, mad
at the brands themselves. Proctor & Gamble can’t allow its
ads for Charmin, targeted at the Upscale Panera Mom
micro-demographic, to appear below frothing diatribes about
annihilating all Muslims.
Twitter is also, speaking just in financial terms, a crummy
business. It’s only been profitable for
two years of its existence, 2018 and 2019. In 2020 it lost
over $1 billion, rebounding to lose a mere $222 million in 2021.
To make matters worse, Musk’s deal to buy Twitter involved
taking out $12.5 billion in loans. This means that Twitter will have
to come up with an
additional $1 billion a year to service this debt.
This is why Musk hit the ground running with a groveling
attempt to propitiate advertisers. He absolutely must keep them
happy.
Thus if Twitter simply continues on its current path, it will
lose huge amounts of money indefinitely. But if advertisers get
nervous about Musk’s management and flee the platform, it could see
losses every year in the multiple billions of dollars.
It’s true that Musk has said, “I don’t care about the
economics at all.” But even as the richest man on earth, he has to
care about them. He has a current estimated net worth of $220
billion, but that’s not $220 billion in cash sitting in a bank
vault — it’s mostly tied up in his stakes in Tesla and SpaceX.
Thus to cover big Twitter losses, he would have to sell off more
of his stock every year. This would be painful in monetary terms but
more so in terms of power: Eventually he would get into a situation
in which he could lose control of the companies, Tesla in particular.
Moreover, Tesla is publicly traded, and while it’s fallen 45
percent since its high a year ago, it remains way
overvalued by normal metrics. Right now its price-earnings ratio is
70. The historical average for the S&P 500 is about 15. The
price-earnings ratio for both Ford and GM right now is 6.
This is why Musk hit the ground running with a groveling attempt
to propitiate advertisers. He absolutely must keep them happy. As he
put it, “Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising
platform in the world that strengthens your brand and grows your
enterprise.”
And that’s where the hilarity begins. Musk has engaged in
endless paeans to the glory of free speech and the need to end
Twitter’s invidious censorship. This clearly isn’t a subject he’s
thought deeply about, since he said
back in May that Twitter should delete “tweets that are wrong
and bad.” Still, his vague pronouncements have given him a legion
of right-wing acolytes who feel they’ve been ill-treated by
Twitter.
But they are not Musk’s constituency now. Advertisers are. Even
if Musk had some genuine commitment to free speech (which he
absolutely
does not), it would be essentially impossible for him not to
continue significant content moderation.
That’s why, after a brief nod to his wish for Twitter to be a
place “where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy
manner,” he quickly pivoted to telling advertisers that “Twitter
obviously cannot be a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be
said with no consequences! In addition to adhering to the laws of the
land, our platform must be warm and welcoming to all.”
This could have been the mission statement of pre-Musk Twitter.
But now there’s one big difference: When the content moderation of
Twitter remains largely the same, the sense of betrayal among Musk’s
super-fans will explode with the force of a supernova. And they will
scream at Musk about it nonstop — on Twitter.
Another mogul might have the fortitude to ignore this. But Musk
does not, judging by past
performance. You can also judge this by current performance: On
his first full day on the job, Musk is personally “digging in” to
the complaints of Catturd ™.
I will be digging in more today
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October
28, 2022
And while Musk has announced a
new “content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints,”
he will feel constantly compelled to either explain why he’s
standing by his underlings’ moderation decisions, or reverse them.
Then he will inevitably be drawn into personally making more and more
content calls, perhaps giving the thumbs up or thumbs down to
individual tweets.
It will be hell on earth for him. No matter what decisions he
makes, he will infuriate large swaths of Twitter. The left will see
its suspicions about him confirmed. The right will see him as a
horrendous sellout, just another lying Big Tech swine. Joe Rogan will
shake his head sadly about what happened to Elon. Eventually what
used to give Musk the greatest pleasure, opening up Twitter on his
phone, will be a source of excruciating pain.
And that’s just the beginning. Musk has important business
interests around the world, and the potential riptides are endless.
What happens when Kim Kardashian starts tweeting about how Taiwan is
an independent country? Will the government of China quietly suggest
to Musk that he do something about this, or will they make
things hard for Tesla’s Shanghai plant and block the import of
Teslas? What do other Tesla shareholders do if he defies China, and
they find out his little bird app adventure is losing them money?
What happens when a SpaceX rocket explodes, but Musk has been too
busy adjudicating which Nazi furries are going to be suspended for a
month?
This future is obviously not foreordained. Possibly Musk will do
what no human has ever been able to do before and invent 1)
content moderation that everyone likes at an enormous scale, and 2) a
way to make huge amounts of money off Twitter. Maybe Tesla will
become so profitable that he can use it to subsidize Twitter until
2090. But the most likely outcome is that he’s just asked the
monkey’s paw to grant him his greatest wish. Now look as the paw
crooks its gnarled finger, and Musk’s love for Twitter ends up
obliterating the Twitter experience for one specific user: Elon Musk.
Welcome to hell, Elon
You break it, you buy it.
By Nilay
Patel / @reckless
You fucked
up real good, kiddo.
Twitter is a disaster clown car
company that is successful despite itself, and there is no possible
way to grow users and revenue without making a series of enormous
compromises that will ultimately destroy your reputation and
possibly cause grievous damage to your other companies.
I say this with utter confidence because the problems with
Twitter are not engineering problems. They are political
problems. Twitter, the company, makes very little interesting
technology; the tech stack is not the valuable asset. The asset is
the user base: hopelessly addicted politicians, reporters,
celebrities, and other people who should know better but keep
posting anyway. You! You, Elon Musk, are addicted
to Twitter. You’re the asset. You just bought yourself for $44
billion dollars.
The problem when the asset is people is that people are intensely
complicated, and trying to regulate how people behave is
historically a miserable experience, especially when that
authority is vested in a single powerful individual.
What I mean is that you are now the King of Twitter, and people
think that you, personally, are responsible for everything that
happens on Twitter now. It also turns out that absolute monarchs
usually get murdered when shit goes sideways.
Here are some examples: you can write as many polite
letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably
expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not
promise those advertisers “brand safety.” That means you have to
ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that
is totally legal in the United States but reveals people to be total
assholes. So you can make all the promises about “free speech”
you want, but the dull reality is that you still have to ban a bunch
of legal speech if you want to make money. And when you start doing
that, your creepy new right-wing fanboys are going to viciously turn
on you, just like they turn on every other social network that
realizes
the same essential truth.
Actually, there’s a step before trying to get the ad money: it
turns out that most people do not want to participate in
horrible unmoderated internet spaces full of shitty racists and
not-all-men fedora bullies. (This is why Twitter is so small
compared to its peers!) What most people want from social media
is to have nice experiences and to feel validated all the time. They
want to live at Disney World. So if you want more people to join
Twitter and actually post tweets, you have to make the experience
much, much more pleasant. Which means: moderating more aggressively!
Again, every “alternative” social network has
learned this lesson the hard way. Like, over
and over
and over
again.
Also, everyone crying about “free speech” conveniently
ignores that the biggest threat to free speech in America is the
fucking government, which seems completely bored of the
First Amendment. They’re out here banning
books, Elon! President Joe Biden and former President Donald
Trump have identical
policy positions on Section 230: they both want to repeal
it. Do you know why? Because the First Amendment prohibits them
from making explicit speech regulations, so they keep threatening to
repeal the law that allows social networks to even exist in order to
exert indirect pressure on content policy. It’s not subtle!
State governments are even less subtle: both Texas
and Florida
have passed speech regulations that overtly tell social media
companies how
to moderate, in open hostility to the First Amendment. Figuring
out how to comply with these laws is not an engineering problem (not
least because compliance
might be impossible). It is a legal problem because these laws
are blatantly unconstitutional, and the only appropriate response to
them is to tell the government to shut
up and go away. (A big problem here is that the courts
are pretty stupid about the internet!) A challenge to these
laws, partially funded
by Twitter, is headed
to the Supreme Court, which is the polar opposite of a
predictable system: it is a group of uncool weirdos with lifetime
appointments that can radically
reshape American life however it wants.
You can’t deploy AI at this problem: you have to go out and
defend the actual First Amendment against the bad laws in Texas and
Florida, whose taxes
you like and whose governors you seem
pretty fond of. Are you ready for what that looks like? Are you
ready to sit
before Congress and politely
decline to engage in their content
capture sessions for hours on end? Are you ready to do any of
this without the incredibly
respected policy experts whose leader you first
harassed and then
fired? This is what you signed up for. It’s way more boring
than rockets, cars, and rockets with cars on them.
Related
And it gets worse the second you leave the United States! Germany
is a huge market for Tesla. Are you going to flout Germany’s
speech laws? I would bet not. The Indian government basically
demands social media companies provide
potential hostages in order
to operate in that country; you can’t engineer your way out of
that shit. Are you ready to experience the pressure Twitter faces in
the Middle East to block and restrict accounts? Are you ready for
the fact that the Iranian government will fucking
murder people over their social media posts? (Are you ready for
how Twitter
is being used by Iranians protesting that government right
now?) Are you excited for the Chinese government to find ways
to threaten Tesla’s huge business in that country over content
that appears on Twitter? Because it’s going to happen.
The essential truth of every social network is that the product
is content moderation, and everyone hates the people who decide how
content moderation works. Content moderation is what Twitter makes
— it is the thing that defines the user experience. It’s what
YouTube makes, it’s what Instagram makes, it’s what TikTok
makes. They all try to incentivize good stuff, disincentivize bad
stuff, and delete the really bad stuff. Do you know why YouTube
videos are all
eight to 10 minutes long? Because that’s how long a video has
to be to qualify
for a second ad slot in the middle. That’s content moderation,
baby — YouTube wants a certain kind of video, and it created
incentives to get it. That’s the business you’re in now. The
longer you fight it or pretend that you can sell something else, the
more Twitter will drag you into the deepest possible muck of
defending indefensible
speech. And if you turn on a dime and accept that growth
requires aggressive content moderation and pushing back against
government speech regulations around the country and world, well,
we’ll see how your fans react to that.
Anyhow, welcome to hell. This was your idea.