Social change: How will Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover affect publishers?
Elon Musk’s proposed changes to Twitter – from creating ‘blue check havoc’ with his paid verification ideas to claiming he no longer wants to depend on advertising – have caused chaos on the platform and beyond, causing key advertisers to pause spending and creating uproar among users.
Critics are concerned that paying for verification will create a two-tier system, at the same time as the TESLA CEO’s calls for an end to the current “lord and servant” division. By playing host to the minute-by-minute discussions about the platform’s future relevance, Twitter has never been more relevant: this is rolling news in its truest sense.
As the storm continues to rage, let’s explore what Musk’s Twitter might eventually look like and what that means for freedom of speech, public trust in social media and the future of newspapers and magazines.
The ‘democratisation’ of content afforded by platforms like Twitter and Instagram, has already forced publishers to change the way they communicate with their audiences
Free as a bird?
One of Musk’s major claims is that a new Twitter model will facilitate freedom of speech – something that as a self-described “free speech absolutist” he has fiercely defended numerous times. However, many have questioned the impartiality of the model.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy pointed out that Saudi Arabia, now the second-largest owner of Twitter, “has a clear interest in repressing political speech and impacting US politics”. Jeff Bezos speculated as to China’s potential influence over the platform, as its capital is home to one of TESLA’s biggest manufacturing plants. David Frum of The Atlantic, warned everyone to “Get ready for verified fake accounts that insinuate Russian, Chinese, or Saudi propaganda”.
It is worth noting that Musk himself has since urged Americans to vote Republican in the midterms.
Reactions to the proposals have come thick and fast, particularly from key public figures. Acknowledging his role as a provider of content, author Stephen King said: “Twitter should pay me”. Podcaster Kara Swisher described herself as a Twitter “content creator” saying on her Pivot podcast: “I make it a better place. I’m painting their f***ing fence.”
Pink News chief executive Benjamin Cohen told Press Gazette: “Rather than charging these users for the privilege of verifying they are who they say they are, Elon Musk should instead be paying these users for producing content that Twitter ultimately monetises through advertising.”
Power to the people?
Since the start of the pandemic, public trust in social media – and the media in general – has taken a huge hit. A recent Edelman survey found that concerns over fake news are at an all-time high across the world, and a Gallup Survey discovered that confidence in newspapers and TV has plummeted.
One of Musk’s reasons for buying Twitter is, he says, to counteract the “negative bias” in mainstream media, with Business Insider quoting the new owner saying: “I think there’s an important role for the media to play but for anyone who’s read a newspaper, it’s coming through quite a negative lens…[Twitter is] the best forum for communicating with a lot of people simultaneously and getting the message directly to people.”
This idea of cutting out the middleman, and the ‘democratisation’ of content afforded by platforms like Twitter and Instagram, has already forced publishers to change the way they communicate with their audiences – will removing the ‘lens’ break down media/consumer relationships even further?
Maybe, without Twitter, direct traffic will increase as people search directly for properly provenanced content.
Musk claims that an overhaul of Twitter will increase public confidence – something experts have argued was dented by the platform in the first place – and combat misinformation. It is not yet clear how this will happen, however, particularly since Musk has laid off a large chunk of Twitter’s moderation team.
This has led many to speculate that content moderation will not be one of the platform’s priorities, despite Musk’s claims that Twitter will not become a “free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences”.
The blue tick suggestions have only exacerbated the debate. Nu Wexler, former Twitter Head of Global Policy Communications, told the BBC’s Today programme: “If you’re offering up blue checks for rent, it makes it harder to sift through disinformation and find high quality information.”
It goes without saying that this would make it all the more difficult for publishers and individual journalists to be heard through the noise.
Furthermore, some are arguing that with weaker moderation, it will become unsafe for brands generally and for journalists personally. Anthony Bellanger, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, told the Press Gazette: “We are concerned that Elon Musk’s plans for Twitter are going the wrong direction, by exacerbating opportunities to attack journalists and threatening the anonymity of users.”
Silver linings
Are there any silver linings in the storm clouds hanging over Twitter? It’s possible the upheaval may stimulate a heightened focus on quality newspaper and magazine brands, as it did during the pandemic.
It’s possible publishers experience a rush of new traffic, as they did during the 2021 Facebook outage. Maybe, without Twitter, direct traffic will increase as people search directly for properly provenanced content – providing publishers with an opportunity to grow their registered user base and add to their first-party data stores.
Musk has stated he wants to reduce the platform’s reliance on advertising, currently a source of around 90% of total revenue, and big advertisers from car maker Audi to pharmaceutical giant Pfizer have already put their accounts on hold until the dust settles. Can publishers pick up those budgets with the promise of brand safe environments?
Advertiser flight begs the question of how Musk intends to monetise the platform, particularly as some point out that the blue tick model would not be enough to turn around Twitter’s fortune.
Musk suggested that in some cases, the $8 fee could also provide a “paywall bypass” with willing publishers.
Republic World calculated that if all current verified users agreed to the proposed monthly fee, it could generate around $3.4 million per month ($40.8 million per year). James Ball at the New Statesman is more realistic: “If as many as one in five current blue ticks paid $20 a month that would raise just under $15 million a year for Twitter. That might sound like decent money, but Twitter’s current revenues (mostly from advertising) are $5 billion a year.”
Musk suggested that in some cases, the $8 fee could also provide a “paywall bypass” with willing publishers. Although there were positive responses among some users, Texas Tribune Editor-in-Chief Sewell Chan was sceptical, tweeting in response: “I can’t see any world in which NYT, WP, WSJ, etc., agree to let Twitter users paying $8/month ($96/year) to bypass their paywalls.”
Taking business elsewhere?
With regards to the future of Twitter, the only thing for certain at the moment is that absolutely nothing is certain. Musk does not seem to be certain either, suggesting ‘upgrades’ that there has been no demand for and – some say – fundamentally misunderstand how people use Twitter. His promise to remove character limits and the “absurdity of Notepad screenshots” inspired one Twitter user to reply, “Check out Mr Moneybags over here, inventing the blog”.
Everyday Twitter users are questioning whether it is worth spending any more time on the platform. Should they stick it out and hope it gets better or cut and run? The problem is, no one is very sure where to go.
The preferred option, Mastodon, is already creaking at the seams, and as Casey Fiesler explains in the Conversation: “Any migration is likely to face many of the challenges previous platform migrations have faced: content loss, fragmented communities, broken social networks and shifted community norms”.
As Molly Jeong-Fast writes in Vanity Fair, celebrities and journalists have made ‘grand pronouncements’ about leaving the platform. While she respects their reasoning, she says there’s no comparable place to go. “I am not enjoying watching Musk break his new plaything, but I will stay on Twitter until there’s a real alternative.”
Maybe, despite – or perhaps because of – the drama, the best plan is to sit tight for now.
Header image: kovop58 / Shutterstock.com
