Free Bird or Albatross
Elon Musk, the wealthiest human on the planet, decided to spend $44 billion on Twitter, declaring that “the bird is freed.” However, it’s more likely that he now has an albatross hanging around his neck.
In public, Musk has said that he bought Twitter “to help humanity, whom I love,” and to provide a global digital “town square” where everyone can have nice, friendly conversations, get along, solve the world’s problems, etc.—presumably while spending billions on Twitter advertising. (Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/beware-elon-musks-takeover-of-twitter.)
But Musk, no doubt in response to widespread concerns about the “cesspit” nature of social media, has indicated that Twitter might not be so “free” after all. Upon assuming the wheel at Twitter, he said that the social media platform would not become a “hellscape” and that “bad actors” would face consequences. (Some argue that Twitter, and all the other social media firms, already is chockful of bad actors and hellish content.)
These two ambitions—to “free the bird” while preventing a “hellscape”—are apparently at odds. Some, including many politicians, assume that freedom means “the liberty to say whatever I want.” However, the only way to prevent the toxic flow of conspiracy theories, trolls, organized insurrections, racism, violence, and other cesspit activities that plague all social media companies is to regulate them—to not let people say whatever they want.
Without content moderation, which some call “censorship,” and without enforceable rules against abusive practices, which some call “cancel culture,” the social media company will be what Hannah Murphy at the Financial Times called “a hotbed of toxicity” (https://www.ft.com/content/8ccae1fb-2727-4c60-be28-91a5bad05a33). To prevent that outcome, Twitter will have to enforce content moderation, undermining “freedom.”
Currently, Twitter has very strict rules and a staff of 7500 people, among which hordes serve as content moderators. These people, with the help of artificial intelligence, seek to enforce Twitter’s rules. If, for example, people promote conspiracy theories related to violent activities, Twitter will expel them from the platform. If content is overtly racist, Twitter will block the posts. You get the idea.
Musk has declared himself to be a “free speech absolutist,” but he also says that his new social media company will maintain its current regulations and limitations on speech. As reported in the Financial Times article (see link above), he said: “To be super clear, we have not made any changes to Twitter’s content moderation policies.” So, is the “bird” going to be free or not?
Here is an accurate description of what Musk just bought for $44 billion:
“Twitter is a global communications platform on which celebrities . . . can reach tens of millions of people; where online mobs (some of them carefully orchestrated) can target individuals relentlessly; and where bad actors, such as political extremists, terrorists, and rogue intelligence agencies, can plant misinformation to sow hatred and violence,” writes John Cassidy in The New Yorker. He adds that these outcomes are “destructive of truth, democracy, and the very humanity that Musk claims to hold dear” (see link above).
When Musk bought Twitter, he assumed these tensions—and they are moral tensions. If he truly “sets the bird free” and sets no limits on what people can say on his platform, he will be morally responsible for the outcomes. Yet if he sets out to responsibly regulate speech on the platform, he will be burdened with the enormous cost of doing so: massive content moderation staffing, technology investments, lawsuits and lawyers, and public relations battles with those who believe they are being censored. In summary, he will have to oversee what two hundred million people are spewing forth every day.
Musk’s Theological Dilemma
As far as we know, Musk has never thought about the theological implications of buying a $44 billion albatross. As far as we know, no journalist or economist or any politician has indicated that theology might be involved in this massive business deal. So, to conclude this article, let us point out a few spiritual dilemmas that underlie Musk’s decision to buy and now manage “the bird.”
First, those who argue for “free speech absolutism”—that anyone should be able to say whatever they want—rarely talk about the other side of the freedom coin: responsibility. Scripturally, freedom is always coupled with moral responsibility. God gave humans free will, but he also holds them accountable for how they use that freedom. Paul summed it up well when he said, “Do not use your freedom to indulge in self-interest, but rather to serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13). Individual rights, when decoupled from accountability to God and others (“love your neighbor”) is nothing more than selfishness, which is the antithesis of scriptural faith.
Second, free-speech absolutists who believe they have the right to proffer conspiracy theories and lies would do well to remember that God will hold them responsible for every word they say. There is that stone tablets commandment, “Thou shall not lie.” And how many times in the Old Testament did God oppose false prophets? James, in his letter, stated that a single lie was like a spark that could destroy a whole forest. (Think about the size of a social media forest!). So, if people think they can use “individual rights” to justify saying whatever they want, they might find their falsehoods being canceled by God himself.
Third, Musk has waded into a centuries-old theological debate about human nature: Are humans essentially good or bad (or a little of both)? This tension appears unwittingly in his recent statements. On the one hand, he believes that Twitter can be a “global town square” where people get along and solve the world’s problems (utopia?). But he also recognizes that by giving people complete freedom on Twitter he could further turn the platform into a cesspit. This tension is addressed extensively in the Old and New Testaments. On the one hand, we are made in the image of God, but on the other hand, we are “fallen beings” prone to selfishness, arrogance, greed . . . Does Musk recognize the gravity of his responsibility?
This is the albatross hanging around Musk’s neck. And because so much money is at stake for Musk, the way he manages the albatross will put him in a tension between personal profit and doing the right thing. We’ll see what he chooses to do with “the bird” in the weeks and months to come.
For more on the topic of social media and theology, you can read the Work Matters article titled “Truth Is Not Social” at this link:
