Elon Musk’s recent acquisition of the social media platform Twitter on April 25 has reignited conversations about the limits of free speech and the role of such platforms in public life, not least spurred by Musk’s own consideration of social media as a public utility – “a de facto public town square”.

Yet, seemingly antithetical to this proposition, although not inconsistent given the nature of social media, Musk has taken the platform private.

It is as yet undetermined whether taking the platform private will address any of the free speech questions that have issued in response to its (sometimes heavy-handed) manoeuvres in recent years, including most notably the banning of former US president Donald Trump following the Capitol riots of January 2021. 

At first blush, one might suspect the acquisition to be the result of billionaire boredom, and that Twitter is the mogul’s new plaything (he impishly offered to buy Twitter’s shares for $54.20 each – 420 being a marijuana reference). We can only hope, as with all media barons – the handful of people at the helm of vast information empires – that Musk’s values are sound and his intentions benevolent. It is fortunate, therefore, that his ideas for the platform appear rather sensible.

Musk has proposed that users will need to be verified to prove they are not bots and that content moderation on the site will be less draconian, opting to remove fewer abrasive tweets and choosing to suspend troublesome users rather than ban them.

However, the prospect of relaxing moderation on the platform has caused some to fear it may become a haven for racists and bullies using the veil of freedom of expression as a guise. Among those raising their eyebrows is Maltese MEP Alex Agius Saliba, who expressed his concern with a tweet on April 26 warning against Musk turning the platform into “a hotspot for misinformation and hate speech”.

The EU has just passed timely legislation to require Big Tech to remove harmful content, so that “what is illegal offline will effectively be illegal online”. 

It is important to note, however, that Musk is not proposing to do away with content moderation – a necessity on any such platform lest it becomes a cesspit of depravity.

Despite its broad-ranging implications, the issue of freedom of speech is only a peripheral concern with respect to social media. Twitter and its ilk operate by controlling influence and directing information at scale, recommending so-called engaging content to appease advertisers and generate clicks.

What contributes to much of the suspicion and distrust of social media platforms is the opaque manner by which they syphon information to their users – the infamous algorithm exerting palpable influence not only on peoples’ frames of reference but also on real-word outcomes in civic and political arenas.

Musk’s most promising proposal is his intention to increase transparency on Twitter by making the code public. This would not only quash many of the conspiracy theories arising from the algorithm’s opacity but also arms users with the capacity to make contributions and receive information entirely aware of the trajectories these will take and have taken.

Social media reside on a fairly novel terrain as yet poorly trodden and improperly maintained, whether by legislative bodies or individual users alike. If Musk’s vision will be able to make Twitter less hostile and volatile, then this can only benefit digital environments and discourse.

We must keep in mind, however, that social media are not to be conflated with traditional media, which operate under the tenets of journalistic ethics, editorial discretion and the search for objectivity, albeit guided by clear principles and biases.

Traditional media have not yet placed themselves adequately within the digital landscape and are far from being as strong a player as they used to be. The reinstatement of traditional media would take greater strides to dispel the rise of misinformation than any social media reform ever could.