[Ricardo Mendes]

Ricardo argues that Twitter's sale to Elon Musk was one major factor that led to the rise of extremism worldwide, and that it should never have been allowed:

The sale of Twitter to Musk should never have been allowed to proceed without serious scrutiny, oversight, or regulation. It handed control of a vital part of the global information ecosystem to a tech mogul whose priorities are clearly out of step with the principles of democracy. The risks were evident from the outset: toxicity, polarization, disinformation, and the undermining of democratic institutions. This is yet another example of how democracies are left vulnerable to the whims of billionaires whose agendas often run counter to the public good."

I have questions about how media ownership rules (for broadcast, newspapers, etc) could be adapted for our monopoly-first internet world. Musk didn't own any other media properties, so he couldn't have been restricted on those grounds, but there's something about the way he intentionally turned the dial to favor conservative speech that feels like it should have been illegal on a platform over a certain size.

Probably, as Ricardo notes, this comes down to anti-trust: no platform with a single owner should be allowed to be this big and this influential to begin with. I'd love to see a world where we keep networks (and services) small and manageable in order to dilute the influence any one person can have over our discourse and our elections. This seems to be a lesson we need to learn again and again - and, of course, there are plenty of forces that are against exactly this from happening, because they're trying to achieve exactly this level of power, influence, and financial value.

I don't know what the solution is, but I'm excited about the growth of Mastodon and Bluesky for this reason. Enough is enough, please.

#Democracy

[Link]