Is Twitter worth saving as our agora?
There is a lot to say and guess when it comes to Elon Musk’s Twitter. However, the most transcendental point for me is this alleged need for the platform as a ‘town square’ that is based on an idealisation of the democratisation of the media.
In countries with some level of freedom of speech, digital media provide a space to previously unheard voices that would not have passed through the traditional media gatekeepers, which reinforce ever tighter oligarchies and deepen existing inequalities with somewhat deaf, homogenous discourses.
Diversity of narratives and perspectives is extremely valuable for the betterment of society as a whole. But is Twitter the equivalent of the ancient Greek agora that mythically sparked so many of the philosophical cornerstones our civilisation is built on to this day, or is it a black void where people shout into and feeds into absurd arguments, the most far-fetched conspiracy theories and senseless trolling?
The media democratisation, like everything, has positive and negative consequences. On Twitter, you can find everything from the latest about your weirdest favourite topic interests, complex subjects like AI and deep learning in healthcare or the newest species discovered in the world of entomology, to the latest gossip on Love is blind, Cristiano Ronaldo’s unsportsmanlike behaviour and new sets in the Fortnite shop.
It’s fair to say that the media democratisation isn’t as neat and purposeful as we had initially thought. More than the diversity emanating from freedom of speech and echo chambers, a major consequence since Twitter was founded in 2006 (not to say Twitter was the first player or the only one) is the deepest polarisation of modern societies, misinformation at global scales, borderless conspiracy theories with millions of followers, and the previously unthinkable rise of the far right in the West, among others.
People from all corners, with different perspectives and values, demand digital platforms to manage the information we all share. Intrinsic to the diversity of people and backgrounds asking for this, their own opinions and responses don’t coincide. Do we actually expect platforms to provide a magical solution we all somehow agree on?
Let’s be clear: we’re asking platforms to define the limits of freedom of speech; we’re asking them to define what truth is; we’re asking them to define the rules of a game they profit from (enormously); we’re asking them to do global policing. All in a timely manner – as it happens live, that is. We’re asking them to do what the whole of humanity has failed to do: bring us all together to mingle and live in peace.
It sounds fairer to ask this of governments that don’t have a stake in profiting from it, but I’m not sure the issues are too dissimilar, with the added complexity that they fundamentally don’t understand how the platforms they want to regulate work.
Boringly and unhelpfully, my conclusion is that, while we do need regulations that help us categorise and manage online interactions, the sheer complexity of reality means that we need to equip ourselves and future generations with education – I know, an even more complex topic.
Will a billionaire fare better?
For what it’s worth, there is an idealistic part of me who will always have a special place for Twitter, freedom of speech and the ‘town square’ it stands for. Here’s to Twitter!