EWondering what the richest man in the world buys? Elon Muskranked #1 by Forbes on its 2022 billionaires list, he could soon have a social media network steeped in so much political capital that it could fracture nations.
It’s the latest expression of an uncomfortable truth: tech CEOs have become the most crucial political gatekeepers in modern media history. Not running for office, a cliché for today’s moneyed elite, but using social media ownership as a proxy for political influence.
It’s been a trend for years. From the political generosity of former Facebook executives like Sheryl Sandberg and Joel Kaplan to the metapolitics by Peter Thieltech titans have long adopted an inside/outside playbook for making politics by other means.
But recent events, including Donald Trump’s investment in Twitter clone Truth Social and Kanye West’s alleged agreement buy Parler, a struggling social network, illustrates how crucial these new technologies have become in politics. More than communication tools, the platforms have become the stage where politics is played.
Trump, for one, seems to have picked up on the trend. For all his hustle and bustle, the former president never cracked the top 1,000 on Forbes’ richest list, but he and Musk seem to have one thing in common: They’re both investing in social media companies that aim to use to transform politics. and society.
The vision of social media owners like Musk and Trump for the future of the Internet could profoundly affect the political landscape.
In our new book, Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America, my co-authors and I trace the rise of global communications companies through the eyes of the bad actors who have used these technologies to gain recognition . As researchers, we were alarmed by the power of social media companies to influence politics from Occupy to the January 6 uprising. We charted the rise of tech companies over the past decade and their changing content moderation policies to show how the design of social media platforms offers strategic advantages to those willing to use dirty digital tricks to incite audiences. . The way Trump was able to mobilize a large group of rioters to disrupt the election process showed that It can’t happen here it had been happening for years.
As technologies such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook they have become increasingly relevant to the way the public gathers information about politicians and elections, as well as the power of those who control them. In our digital age, the information superhighway is littered with tolls, from the buying of legitimate routes through digital advertising to the preferential fast passes of tech CEOs and the dark money used for algorithmic game recommendations and search engine optimization. And because there are no regulations for the integrity of civic information online, the public is beholden to the whims of CEOs’ personal moral codes.
These pundits have used social media to spread conspiracy theories, violence and hate.
That means Musk’s vision for Twitter is important. Musk has stated that he plans to take Twitter private and perhaps incorporate it into a new app. In May, he said would reverse the platform’s ban on Trump, potentially paving the way for the return of others in the former president’s digital army, such as US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos , Baked Alaska (former Buzzfeed reporter turned white nationalist). livestreamer who was arrested after the January 6 uprising) and far-right nationalist Nick Fuentes. All of these pundits have achieved political superstardom by riding a wave of support for Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, while also using social media, and particularly live streaming, to spread conspiracy theories, violence and hate.
Musk and other new platform owners don’t just influence what information is shared. They could also remove the barriers to the ways in which platforms are used to move money. Without any doubt Twitter transforms, it will include some form of digital cash exchange as another way to undermine the power of governments. If you don’t believe me, remember that Wells Fargo carried packages before it became a bank.
Moreover, politicians who turn to tech companies for support start with political messages and could easily morph into political donations of another kind: from silencing opponents and amplifying favored candidates to sowing confusion at times of crisis
Trump’s return to Twitter could signal a whiplash in the White House, or it could mean nothing, just as Ye’s anti-Semitic tweets won’t mean much until they’re cited in the manifesto of the next mass murder (similar to how “subscribe to PewDiePie” only became a household phrase after the influencer was cited for a mass shooter who killed more than 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand).
The success of figures like Musk and Trump in using social media platforms also depends on the acceptance of the general public. If journalists left Twitter, it would no longer have the social and political influence it has now.
In many ways, the famously provocative journalist Andrew Breitbart was right: politics is downstream of culture. To this I would add that culture is downstream of the infrastructure. The politics we get is what springs from our technology, so we should cultivate a digital public infrastructure that doesn’t depend on the whims of billionaires. If we don’t invest in building public commons online, our speech will only be as free as our benevolent dictators say.
[ad_2]
Source link
