Paying for Free Speech
Twitter's servers do not run on manna from heaven.
Yesterday, The Hill’s Briahna Joy Gray and Batya Ungar-Sargon discussed Elon Musk’s move to permit political ads on Twitter. Batya thinks “Elon Musk is choosing profitability over free speech”, as she sees the ability to pay for political ads as “anti-free-speech, if not in the letter of the law, at least in the spirit of the law.” I appreciate The Hill sharing with its viewers a wide array of perspectives on hot-button issues. That said, I absolutely disagree with Batya on this point.
Earlier in the segment, Batya acknowledges “the exodus of major advertisers in October” (italics my own) from Twitter and “half of [Elon Musk’s] fortune [having] been wiped” out in December. By Batya’s own account, Twitter is unprofitable, and its owner’s personal fortune—which could theoretically be used to keep Twitter afloat—is also plummeting. What is the ultimate outcome of this situation? I think it’s pretty obvious: the end of Twitter. The only cost that users experience on Twitter is the loss of time that probably would have been better spent elsewhere. However, as magical and immaterial as Twitter may seem, the company has to pay for physical servers that are powered by electricity and serviced by internet service providers, all of which cost money. Twitter must make money to pay for its expenses and, if it fails to do so, its servers shut down and users entirely lose the platform on which they speak freely.
What’s worse: Twitter refusing to generate revenue from hosting political ads and shutting down or Twitter continuing to operate while hosting such ads? If one values the open marketplace of ideas, the former seems clearly worse than the latter. Moreover, I don’t find Batya’s argument that paying for political ads is anti-free-speech to be compelling whatsoever. The political ads do not prevent others from expressing their opinion and are, in and of themselves, an expression of speech. Moreover, the political ads do not magically make people believe the views they express. For example, a paid ad with incredible production value could be presented to me a thousand times endorsing the administrative state, regulations, and transfer payments and I’m still going to roll my eyes at it!
TL;DR: Elon Musk isn’t choosing profitability over free speech, he’s choosing profitability to subsidize our ability to speak freely on his expensive platform. Instead of berating him for doing so, active Twitter users should thank Elon Musk for keeping the platform afloat. This way, they’ll still be able to use the platform, reach their audience, and express their views. If Twitter users fail to be more persuasive than rival political ads, they should strive to make their arguments sounder and their rhetoric more persuasive.