“How do you solve a problem like Elon?”
Like a bunch of desperate Austrian nuns, progressives can’t stop singing this song on talk shows and on Twitter. And for good reason: The richest man in the world has turned a once-indispensable social media platform into a far-right propaganda machine.
Despite his lofty libertarian claims a year ago, Elon Musk, CEO of X (formerly Twitter), has applied pressure in countless ways to boost far-right posts and devalue others – starting with his own posts.
With all the proposed measures, the most obvious one often remains unspoken: we should stop using X.
He has made over 50 false claims about the election so far this year and amplified countless posts filled with disinformation, conspiracy theories, and anti-Semitism. He has done nothing to prevent Russia from using the platform to spread disinformation (and, as we now know, target left-leaning American Jews as well) in support of Trump. He has complied with censorship demands from authoritarian Turkey while defying democratic Brazil and the European Union. He has filed frivolous SLAPP lawsuits against those who have called for a boycott. He has supported nationalists in India, China, and Argentina, and received business favors from all of them. He has helped foment violence in the United Kingdom by spreading disinformation and predicting a “civil war.” And so on.
Yet despite all the proposed measures – asking advertisers to boycott the service, taking action against SpaceX, Tesla or Starlink – the most obvious one often remains unspoken: we should stop using X.
The reason for this silence is obvious: political scientists talk about a “collective action problem.” As the philosopher David Hume first put it, this is when everyone would be better off acting together, but each individual has an incentive to cheat. Environmental degradation is a classic example. Where there is a limited resource (a fishing plot, a common pasture, or even the entire Earth’s atmosphere), everyone would benefit if we all worked together to protect the resource – but each individual would benefit more by cheating. And so there is a built-in incentive not to cooperate.
X is similar. If every moderate to liberal person and organization stopped using the site, it could put pressure on Musk or his board to stop using it as a weapon. But if we all If you quit, it’s quite costly to be among the few virtuous journalists, politicians or celebrities who do. Except in very rare cases, Musk won’t notice you’re gone – but you certainly will, in the form of less influence, visibility and impact.
So we all complain about X, but do nothing about it.
Of course, we all have our reasons. For example, we tell ourselves that this is a way to reach people with whom we may disagree and help them see the truth. But let’s be honest: X has as much in common with civil discourse as Beef bourguignon has to do with a steaming pile of cow dung.
However, as always, the solution to a collective action problem is coordinated, collective action. What would that look like in this case?
In an ideal world, public institutions, sports teams and non-political organizations would also join.
It could start with a kind of reverse pledge: a network of senior figures (far more than me) could create a list of concrete actions that need to be implemented by a certain date, and promise to stop posting on X if they don’t. The list needs to be public, clear, and as impartial as possible. It shouldn’t complain about Musk being a troll or donating money to Trump. It should focus on the abuses that have led to Twitter becoming a “propaganda machine,” like those listed above.
From there, others can sign the pledge. If it is narrowly worded and non-political enough, media organizations and companies could sign as well. The same goes for politicians. In an ideal world, even public bodies, sports teams and non-political organizations would sign on.
And if, as expected, Musk tells everyone to “fuck off” (as he told advertisers who left X in 2023), then we can all leave. At once. Fraudsters could be exposed, and combative journalists like me wouldn’t lose so much by leaving.
To be clear: This is not censorship. On the contrary: It is capitalism.
First, free speech is not the same as amplified speech. The Supreme Court was wrong in Citizens united: Political donations are not speech acts, but acts of megaphone construction. They are non-verbal acts that reinforce speech acts.
Twitter is similar. Spreading stupid conspiracy theories is free speech. Having a giant digital megaphone to amplify them is not.
Second, of course, X is not the government. It is a company that makes a product, a product that is now being manipulated by the owners of X themselves to not only promote a particular political view, but to do so through deception, misinformation, and manipulation of the software’s algorithm. It is hardly censorship to oppose this kind of manipulation. (I hope I would take the same position if the ideological poles were reversed — and no, the actions documented in the “Twitter Files” are nothing like that.)
To be clear: This is not censorship. On the contrary: It is capitalism.
It is not even a boycott. Leaving X is not the same as boycotting Coors because it is too right-wing, or Bud Light because it is too left-wing. These boycotts are fine – that is also part of capitalism – but X is different. Because unlike beer, product X himself is the problem. Every time you post on X, you are using and supporting a tool that its owners use as a political weapon.
It is entirely reasonable to stop doing this. And one could argue that collective action could avoid government action that would be far more problematic from a civil liberties perspective.
So that’s my challenge to the people who have a hundred times more social media platforms than I do: Get together and stop this nonsense. Use other services. Make a promise that’s broad enough to appeal to libertarians, moderates and conservatives as well as liberals and progressives. And if the richest man in the world doesn’t budge, hit him where it hurts – together.
