After months of procrastination and legal disputes – I buy, I buy more, I finally buy – Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, got his hands on the social network Twitter against a bet of US$44 billion, which represents one-fifth of his fortune.
Listed on the stock exchange, the loss-making company, which has 240 million user accounts, will become a privately held company. Elon Musk pulled in $24 billion from his own wallet to fund the deal, $7 billion came from venture capital investors, and $13 billion in debt is adding to Twitter’s balance sheet. This debt represents an additional charge of 1 billion in interest per year compared to annual income of 5 billion. It’s clear that Twitter’s business plan, on the face of it, is set to change.
Digital billionaire deals are no exception. But what is special this time is that it is an individual, and not a company, who is the instigator. Microsoft recently bought the video game designer Activision Blizzard for 68.7 billion, and Facebook acquired the messaging service WhatsApp for 22 billion. These giants are both publicly traded companies that are accountable to their shareholders. Within Twitter, Elon Musk is the only master on board. It’s his thing, it’s his toy.
The societal importance of a network like Twitter is undeniable. The platform can contribute to enriching the social dialogue on which our democracy is based. It can also undermine this dialogue by instilling treacherous misinformation. Already that it is up to its leaders alone to regulate this network is an incongruity imposed on the whole world by digital capitalism. This self-regulation, which has had its day, comes with enormous responsibilities which the company’s management was discharging not without difficulty. Twitter has trouble with fake accounts that wisely spread their share of lies and falsehoods, often in an automated way, but also with real accounts that must be “moderated” and sometimes closed. By force of circumstance, Twitter had to adopt rules of ethics and a moderation policy for its content.
This responsibility is now up to one man to assume. These rules of ethics, it is up to Elon Musk to formulate them. In this regard, skepticism is in order. When he launched his hostile takeover bid in April, the libertarian multi-millionaire said he wanted to make Twitter a “haven” for “undiluted” unconstrained comments, critical of Twitter’s moderation policies. the platform.
The Republican right has welcomed the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Similarly, Donald Trump, banned from the network two days after the invasion of the Capitol for remarks challenging the validity of Joe Biden’s election, said he was happy that the network is now in “reasonable hands”. » (healthy hands). This is nothing to reassure users, especially journalists, who attach importance to facts and truth.
In a letter to advertisers on Thursday, Elon Musk said he bought Twitter “because it’s important for the future of civilization to have a digital commonplace. [a common digital town square] where a wide range of beliefs can be debated”. The choice of words is important: can we seriously debate “beliefs”? Shouldn’t we talk about ideas and opinions that are based on facts?
Elon Musk writes a lot of things and their opposite. Even if he has already said on his thread that he hates advertisers, he is courting them today, assuring that the platform will not turn into a “hell landscape” where any talk would be allowed. For now, we do not know in which direction the billionaire will push Twitter.
In concluding the transaction, Elon Musk said: “ The bird is free. He was told in his own language by Thierry Breton, of the European Commission, that “in Europe, the bird will fly according to our rules”. Indeed, Europe has just adopted the Digital Services Act. The latter provides for fines for large platforms that disseminate illegal content and that do not concretely seek to limit as much as possible misinformation, manipulation of elections and cyberviolence against women. In Canada, the federal government, with the advice of experts, has begun work to develop a similar bill. Because we cannot let Elon Musk decide what will be done with what he pompously designates as the future of civilization, nor allow omnipotent companies to define the rules on which our democratic life depends.