Tesla CEO Elon Musk has bought social media company Twitter at a value of US$44b ($66.4b). Photo / AP
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has bought social media company Twitter at a value of US$44b ($66.4b). Photo / AP
Opinion by Liam Dann
Liam Dann, Business Editor at Large for New Zealand’s Herald, works as a writer, columnist, radio commentator and as a presenter and producer of videos and podcasts.
Last week I wrote that I hoped Elon Musk didn't get control of Twitter.
But he's got it.
Musk, who's worth about NZ$400 billion, appears to have done a deal which gives him total control over the social media company at a value of US$44b ($66.4b).
It's hard to argue with his efforts on green technology. He's revolutionised the electric car industry and has ambitions to do the same with solar power.
But his high-powered visions for cryptocurrencies, artificial intelligence, space travel and (now) social media seem more indulgent.
I don't think the pace of these things needs accelerating.
Musk is starting to exert a worrying amount of power in all these areas.
History suggests it's seldom a good idea to let one man control everything, even if they are good.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Or, as Jim Morrison once sang: people are strange.
Musk is stranger than most and the prospect of this unusual character shaping my future and my children's future doesn't fill with joy.
We try to avoid the undue influence individuals personality quirks in a democracy. We have checks and balances on power.
It's also why most companies have a board of directors, a broad shareholder base and a democratic process with regard to making big changes to corporate direction.
Sometimes companies are started by an entrepreneur with a singular vision - but mostly they evolve away from a concentration of individual power.
Musk has reversed this flow with Tesla and now Twitter.
Twitter's influence in the world is hard to quantify.
In pure financial terms it's nowhere near the scale of Mark Zuckerberg's Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram).
Even after its big crash early this year Meta has a market capitalisation in excess of US$500b.
In terms of direct editorial influence, Twitter can't rival Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, with control of Fox News and hundreds of popular newspapers and websites.
But News Corp has a trifling market cap of just US$13b - a stark reminder of where investors see the world's media profits heading.
The potential to use Twitter for political purposes is huge even if Musk's intentions around free-speech and open discourse are good.
At face value I really quite like Musk.
The potential to use Twitter for political purposes is huge even if Musk's intentions around free-speech and open discourse are good. Photo / AP
He looks like he'd be fun to hang out with and talk to in a way Rupert Murdoch never has.
He seems cool and it's good fun to hang out with the cool kids at a party.
But the cool kids are also the ones who decide it's fun to throw the furniture in the pool, or car surf to the beach.
I don't necessarily want them in charge of the major institutions which shape my world.
So now what?
My first thought is that he has a lot of work to do. Changing a large organisation is not easy.
Radically changing it very quickly risks ruining it.
There is a risk that Twitter under Musk moves too fast and alienates its hardcore user base.
His passion for unfettered freedom of expression risks turning it into a nasty rabbit hole of angrier and more abusive discourse.
If he's smarter, moves in an incremental fashion and listens to his audience, then he may yet provide the injection energy the 15-year old platform needs to reinvent itself, grow and stay relevant.
I'm reserving judgement for now.
I don't think even Musk knows quite what he's thinking from one day to the next.
His vision for Twitter is just one part of a much bigger vision we all seem destined to have to deal with in the next decade or so.
