World Peace

How dangerous are Elon Musk & Saudi Arabia to world peace as owners of X?

GoogleAI Mode: “As owners of X (formerly Twitter), Elon Musk and Saudi Arabia’s significant investment pose potential dangers to world peace through issues including the spread of disinformation, weakened content moderation, political influence, and threats to free expression. Critiques center on Musk’s erratic approach to content policies and Saudi Arabia’s history of using social media to suppress dissidents. 

Concerns regarding Elon Musk

Volatile management and policy changes: Musk’s approach to content moderation is described as unpredictable and prone to sudden shifts. Critics argue that his actions and erratic behavior have destabilized the platform and enabled the proliferation of harmful content.

Erosion of content moderation: Under Musk, the content moderation team was significantly reduced, leading to a reported increase in hate speech, misinformation, and other harmful content. Staff were also reportedly instructed not to suspend users for explicitly racist, sexist, and homophobic content.

Political influence: Musk has been accused of using the platform to advance his political agenda, amplify right-wing views, and interfere in the affairs of other countries, including the UK and Brazil. For instance, he initially defied a Brazilian court order to block accounts spreading misinformation and threats to democracy.

Disinformation and propaganda: The reduction in content moderation has made X more susceptible to manipulation by state actors and others seeking to spread disinformation and propaganda, potentially exacerbating international conflicts.

Political influence: Musk has been accused of using the platform to advance his political agenda, amplify right-wing views, and interfere in the affairs of other countries, including the UK and Brazil. For instance, he initially defied a Brazilian court order to block accounts spreading misinformation and threats to democracy.

Disinformation and propaganda: The reduction in content moderation has made X more susceptible to manipulation by state actors and others seeking to spread disinformation and propaganda, potentially exacerbating international conflicts.

Silencing critics: Despite presenting himself as a “free speech absolutist,” Musk has been accused of silencing journalists and critics who report on him or his companies. He has also used lawsuits to intimidate and silence his critics. 

Concerns regarding Saudi Arabia

Investor influence: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and the Kingdom Holding Company are significant investors in X, which raises concerns about a foreign government’s influence over the platform.

History of surveillance and suppression: Long before Musk’s ownership, Saudi Arabia used X (then Twitter) to surveil and suppress dissidents. A federal indictment revealed that Saudi agents, including two former Twitter employees, spied on users and accessed private data to target critics.

Continued targeting of dissidents: Under Musk’s ownership, reports suggest that X has continued to be used to suppress critics of the Saudi regime. There are documented cases of individuals receiving lengthy prison sentences and even a death sentence for social media posts.

Privacy and safety risks: Critics warn that Musk’s stance against anonymity could put dissidents at greater risk from repressive states, including Saudi Arabia. 

Potential impact on global peace

Weakening democratic processes: The use of X to spread disinformation and influence elections could undermine democratic processes and political stability in various countries.

Escalating conflict: The platform’s amplification of polarizing and hateful content could escalate tensions and conflicts, both domestically and internationally.

Compromising national security: The financial links to foreign governments, combined with a history of espionage, could pose national security risks by allowing foreign powers to influence the platform and access user data.

Threat to human rights: The platform’s alleged compliance with censorship requests from authoritarian regimes and its weakening of privacy protections jeopardize the safety and freedom of expression for users, particularly dissidents and activists in repressive countries.”

What would X, social media platform, be like without the influence of Elon Musk and Saudi Arabia?

GoogleAI Mode: “Without the influence of Elon Musk and the significant investment from Saudi Arabia, the social media platform (which would still be called Twitter and retain its iconic bird logo) would likely be a more traditional, publicly-traded social media company, focused primarily on advertising revenue and maintaining its role as a real-time public square, but continuing to face challenges around profitability and content moderation.

Here is a breakdown of what a hypothetical, Musk/Saudi-free Twitter might be like:

Content Moderation: Twitter would likely maintain its previous, more structured content moderation policies and a larger content moderation team, rather than the “free-for-all” approach and “community fact-checking” model seen under Musk. It would likely still have specific policies against hate speech, including protections for transgender people, that were removed or made vaguer under X.

Business Model: The platform would still rely heavily on an advertising-based revenue model, which previously accounted for about 90% of its revenue, rather than pivoting to an “everything app” with subscriptions and financial services. It would not have the current X Premium subscription model as its primary monetization strategy.

Branding and Identity: The company would still be named Twitter and use its familiar branding. The name change to “X” and the removal of the bird logo would not have occurred.

Workforce: The workforce would not have experienced the dramatic 75% reduction in employees that occurred after Musk’s takeover. Product decisions would likely be made through a more traditional, bottom-up process rather than by a single “product person”.

User Experience and Community: The platform would still lean into fostering specific communities (like K-pop or news junkies) and the user experience would likely feel more familiar to its pre-Musk user base. The user base would not have fragmented as significantly across alternative platforms like Threads and Bluesky.

Ownership Structure: The platform would have remained a public company or been acquired by different entities. The Saudi stake (held by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Company) was an investment made as early as 2011, but their continued substantial role as the second-largest investor after Musk was a direct result of the 2022 deal. Without Musk’s acquisition, their stake would have remained smaller (around 5% pre-Musk) and subject to the dynamics of a publicly traded company.

In essence, Twitter would have likely continued its incremental evolution as a key platform for real-time news and public discourse, but without the radical, often controversial, changes in policy, branding, and business strategy implemented by Elon Musk.”