How Elon Should Moderate Twitter

With his purchase of Twitter, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has found himself at the centre of a raging storm of opinion. On one side is the centre-right, which Elon seems to be courting as a reasonable balance to the heavily-weighted left. The extreme partisanship of the left has put it in a position where any amount of compromise with the right is unacceptable, because they have been demonised so thoroughly. One MSNBC guest recently said that Republicans are so evil that, should they win the Midterm elections, they are going to kill your kids. 

You will notice now that even considering a vote for the opposition has been called “the end of democracy” by Democrat president Joe Biden, and his entire party, and the media apparatus. “democracy” has been made synonymous with “Democrats winning elections.” This insane fever dream extends to all avenues of political life. When anything that could be viewed as partisan occurs to the Democrats and their supporters, then it must be partisan and there must be a political motive behind it. 

This is the lens through which the left has interpreted Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. They knew that Twitter was previously run as a partisan-left platform; and that Musk, not being a left-wing partisan, was going to change that. Indeed, his first week in control of the platform showed that he wasn’t going to rely on donations from Democrat-supporting international financiers, but instead was going to go full capitalist and make Twitter—shock horror—a profitable endeavour. 

Who is this good for? Well, primarily the user base, who don’t need to be propagandised night and day with left-wing messaging. Previously, Twitter (like all other Silicon Valley social media platforms) had a slew of editorial policies concerning what kind of political content was prohibited on the platform . This was clearly done to ensure that the narratives sustaining left-wing political positions could be preserved without serious challenge. That Twitter saw fit to not only ban the sitting President, a growing number of right-wing commentators, and actively intervene to suppress stories unfavourable for the current president give us ample evidence that, when the left is in control of an institution, they have no fear of using their executive power for their own benefit. They have no fear of a lack of even-handedness because the scales are weighted in their favour.

Despite endorsing Republicans in the Midterm elections, I don’t believe that Elon Musk is a partisan rightist. This fits a long-running pattern of Musk appealing for balance and moderation in politics; some of the left, and some of the right. Musk is merely able to perceive and judge the phenomenal left-wing weighting of the public space at this time, and is recommending sensible advice to attempt to right the ship before it capsizes. 

However, the partisan left cannot accept that Musk is simply attempting to change the course of sail; ironic, as they regularly say that the loss of privilege feels like oppression. For too long they have held the whip hand of social media regulation, and now that it is conducted by someone who does not share their partisan biases, they believe they are being persecuted and oppressed. 

Take the example of the banning of partisan-left comedians Kathy Griffin and Ethan Klein. In response to Musk’s democratisation of Twitter, many partisan-left commentators claimed that anyone could impersonate anyone because verification could be available to anyone who could afford it, instead of being an aristocratic title bestowed by the lords of Twitter. Griffin and Klein (and others) mimicked Musk’s own Twitter profile. They put “parody” in their bios, as existing Twitter rules prescribe for parody accounts, but failed to include it in their display names, which is also required. Instead of being given the usual warning which Twitter gives when a verified account impersonates someone else, they were given a permanent ban. 

Naturally, this was viewed as extreme partisanship on Musk’s part. However, Musk had changed the rules regarding the consequences of performing an unacceptable parody on Twitter. However, Musk did not actually change the rules that governed parody on Twitter: they preceded Musk’s acquisition of the platform. The problem now, of course, is that they are being applied evenly to both left and right. 

The drawback to Musk’s style of governance at Twitter is that it borders on appearing arbitrary. Making flat proclamations of the new rules going forward during a controversy has the appearance of a leader who does not command events. The partisan-left wolves nipping at his heels will leverage any hint of contradiction in order to attempt to render Musk unstable and topple his reign. 

To prevent this, I believe that Musk needs a clear and fair moderation strategy for his new platform. My career in social media is nearly a decade long, and because I am not a partisan leftist, I have had many run-ins with the sharp edge of social media censorship. Ex-Twitter censor Vijaya Gadde suspended my account for being impolite towards Nazis in an inappropriate way in 2017. So, these are my thoughts on what would make Twitter a full and fair platform which could actually act like the public square it de facto appears to be.

Parody Accounts

To resolve the question of parody accounts, I think the easiest and most prudent method is simply to rule that verified accounts cannot be parody accounts. After all, the ostensible purpose of verification is to prove that the person operating this account is who they claim to be: that is, that they are a named individual, brand, or official representative of an organisation. As such, this should rule out the possibility of acting as a parody of someone else. If you pretend to be someone you aren’t, you are violating the rules which govern the concept of verification. 

Given how his new format for verification is opt-in—and not a privilege bestowed by Twitter itself— Musk does not need to have blanket rules for all accounts. He can rule for verified accounts differently to non-verified accounts. In fact, from a business point of view, it will be desirable to do so: providing an incentive for people to pay for a Twitter subscription.

For example, the broadness of his 6th November statement about parody has landed him in a bit of a bind:

“Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended”

If verification is open to all, this becomes a redundant and overreaching rule. Who cares if a non-verified account pretends to be someone they aren’t? By opening up verification, non-verified accounts will be relegated to the realm of a virtual peanut gallery; they will be able to spectate and shout from the sidelines, but have voices relegated to inferiority relative to those who have ponied up the $8 for verification to prove they have skin in the game. Anyone who wants to be known to be who they are will already have access to the verified-only notification tab, and those that don’t will be incentivised to sign up. 

This method would ensure that Musk doesn't find himself in a contradiction between being for free speech and banning them for impersonation. It otherwise seems arbitrary and tyrannical for the statement to be written so broad as to include anonymous shitposter accounts. Instead, if he said, "All verified accounts must present as the person for whom they were verified," then all of this goes away—and he still gets to ban Kathy Griffin and Ethan Klein.

Bans and Strikes

Musk might also want to rethink his policy of abandoning strikes as a form of corrective on his platform. The newspeak term “permanent suspension” (suspension being definitionally temporary, hence the modifier “permanent”) should be abandoned, and replaced with the honest term “terminated” or “banned”. If Twitter is turning the corner away from leftist manipulation of language, it could do well to start there. 

However, it’s worth thinking about what a permanent ban from a major social media platform means in the modern era. It seems to be something akin to a permanent ostracisation from a city; or, when a mass-deplatforming occurs—as in the case of President Trump and Alex Jones—it has the aspect of a digital death sentence.

Ostracism was famously used as a populist punishment in ancient Athens. Any public figure who became too prominent in democratic politics could be subject to a popular referendum, resulting in their exile from the city and being forbidden to return for a period of ten years. At least any ostracised Athenian had the option of travelling to one of Athens’ rivals and receiving succour there. I am not aware of it ever happening, but to be ostracised from every city would have made life very difficult—akin to being condemned to death. 

The permanent termination of a person’s Twitter account as the first punishment for violating the rules comes across as excessively aggressive and punitive. It feels unjust to have someone banned for life for making a mistake. It is also uncharacteristic of California’s progressive views on crime and punishment: as there appears to be no avenue towards personal reform offered. How can people improve if they are exiled or executed? It’s hard to believe that a person could see fit to improve when ostracised from the moral community they inhabited. 

YouTube's strike system is, conceptually, a much better way of ensuring people stay within the desired boundaries without feeling excessively penalised, and gives flexibility in punishing terms of service violators without utterly destroying them. It, of course, has its problems–primarily that much of it is algorithm-driven and double-checked by Californians–but it is still more fair than Twitter’s current system. 

If Musk wishes Twitter to be a functional town square, then I would recommend implementing a system similar to YouTube’s three-strike policy. On the first violation, your account is given a strike and you are unable to post for seven days. On the second violation, your account is given a second strike, and you are unable to post for fourteen days. On the third violation, your account is terminated. These strikes should be lifted after a given period (on YouTube it is after three months), so they do not permanently accrue over time. This gives the user agency and the ability to moderate themselves in line with the conduct desired by the owners of the platform. In line with Musk’s democratisation of verification, this is much more fair and provides access to a wider range of people. 

There is also the option of emulating Gab’s approach to account moderation. As Gab CEO Andrew Torba said during an episode of the Timcast IRL podcast, “We ban accounts, not people.” This could mean that the account itself is considered to have violated the rules, and so a person would need to sign up with a new account. Given the time and effort it takes to build up a significant following on any platform, it might act as a powerful disincentive against repeated strikes as well. At present, Twitter spends time and energy policing accounts to check for “ban evasion.” With this policy, it would no longer need to. 

Fact-Checks

The community fact-checking feature is a good idea and should remain. Allowing the user base to add fact-checks to verified accounts is another mark of fairness and democratisation, and prevents those in power from projecting a hegemonic narrative that runs contrary to the truth. 

A recent example of this was when the Biden White House was fact-checked using the “Birdwatch” organisation (and not Twitter itself), when posting false information about inflation. Though not the first time this has actually happened, the feature (which Musk appears to be renaming to Community Notes), will allow a broad range of voices to ensure that public statements are indeed more accurate and informative, which are noble goals to strive towards. 

This is good not only for the general health of the public dialogue, but also for users themselves. Those who are not posting information for selfish or hubristic reasons can challenge or correct themselves upon receipt of new information—which will doubtless help them grow and mature. It will also ensure that any interested viewers will have the full context of the available information, which is particularly useful. This kind of crowd-sourced information gathering could become key to information distribution in the future. 

Minds has something comparable with its “jury system”, in which they crowdsource a range of user-opinions as to whether someone has indeed broken the Terms of Service. While this may not be perfect, it does present the opportunity for more fair-minded decisions to be made, rather than leaving this power in the hands of a select group of Californians.

Restoring Banned Accounts

I believe it would be extremely beneficial to Twitter, both as a platform which represents the public square and for its commercial success, to restore previously-banned people to the platform–even Kathy Griffin and Ethan Klein. It would seem that Twitter had lost many users to various competitor platforms with the banning of high-profile right-wing figures. It would likely win the majority of them back were these people to be restored. 

It would also be an act of charity and good faith. It would show that, in fact, Twitter is being run sensibly by people who have an interest in maintaining a positive space for all to interact within, rather than those interested in penalising one side over another. It would demonstrate that, in fact, Twitter is not merely the partisan organ of one side. This, I think, might help lower political tensions within the West, which is something we desperately need. 

Predictably, the Democrat-supporting industry of activist boycotts will stridently object and take their business elsewhere. However, if the democratisation of Twitter is the financial success it looks like it will be, this may not be a problem. In addition, a return to balance on the platform may encourage disaffected right-wing companies to begin advertising in place of those who had withdrawn—especially if there is a marked increase in usership due to the return of various exiled figures. Many of us have spent a lot of time in the wilderness due to Twitter’s punitive and political termination policies. It would be an act of kindness to allow us to return.