Joshua Taggart is a public affairs consultant and policy analyst at Atticus Partners. All opinions expressed within are those of the author alone.
Twitter’s shareholders may be breathing a sigh of relief after Elon Musk announced that he would step down and appoint a new successor.
The Tesla and SpaceX founder’s rule at the tech giant was heavily criticised – from the disastrous blue tick rework, which saw major companies impersonated and stock prices shaken, to his controversial take on free speech, a core issue for what has now become the public square.
Shareholders may not want to pop open the champagne just yet, though. While Linda Yaccarino, executive of NBC Universal, will be starting at Twitter in less than six weeks, Musk will still be pulling the strings from behind the scenes; he will remain, executive , chair, chief technology officer, and the largest shareholder.
While it will be good to have a moderating voice as CEO to temper Musk’s impulsive and sporadic behaviour, Yaccarino will have larger concerns: the overarching threat of international regulation which is explicitly targeted at the biggest tech giants and social media platforms.
Firstly, in the EU, there is both the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, which seek to ensure that the largest digital platforms promote effective digital competition and look out for their users.
In practice, this means that it will not only be more difficult for Twitter to buy out smaller businesses in strategic acquisitions, but the company will be scrutinised in the same breath as Meta, Amazon, and other giants who are perceived as having grown too big.
Twitter is a key target for those who believe too much power is concentrated in too few companies because it now personifies the public square, where discourse is only possible if your Twitter account isn’t shadow-banned.
The Digital Services Act, meanwhile, has already caused tensions between Musk and Thierry Bréton, the EU Commissioner, with the former’s strong line on anti-censorship which conflicted with the latter’s calls for Twitter to play by Brussels’ rulebook.
In the UK, the Online Safety Bill is likely to identify Twitter as a ‘Category 1 platform’ due to its size and scope (and therefore potential for online harm), meaning that it will be subject to the most burdensome duties under the new regulatory regime.
While the Bill has not yet passed, the strong support for greater measures to protect children online in both the Commons and the House of Lords means that however long it takes, Twitter will be concerned about one of its most vital markets cracking down on Big Tech.
The USA, meanwhile, is passing online regulation left, right, and centre (both metaphorically and literally).
On the West Coast, the Californian government passed the Age-Appropriate Design Code to ensure that tech platforms were doing more to protect non-adult users if they were deemed “likely to be accessed by children”. While it will not come into force until July 2024, the code will affect Twitter, which is marketed to those over 13 (subject to parental controls).
Utah, Texas and other states are already examining the role of big tech companies in their economies and cracking down on pornography, TikTok, and other aspects of the online world, painting a concerning picture for companies like Twitter.
The pressure is even coming from foreign governments to censor political content: Musk was criticised by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, for treating freedom of speech “as a slogan rather than a principle” after Twitter caved to demands from the Turkish government to censor content; other companies, such as Apple, have already fallen foul to the political demands of states such as China.
Twitter must withstand the pressure to both conform to Western governments’ safety demands and the less savoury requirements of authoritarian regimes, somehow establishing a principled balance which allows it to operate in major markets while retaining its identity.
Ultimately, Twitter is subject to greater forces in culture and society, which have examined the self-regulation era of big tech and deemed its results inadequate.
It is just one example of a company with an inordinate effect on public speech and interaction, and governments will always have concern with the private sector having such powerful market effects on what are commonly considered as fundamental rights: the right to interact with others, to express political opinions, and so on.
Thus more regulation is inevitable. Private companies such as Twitter have become so large that they have irreversibly affected how we use fundamental rights such as speech and association, and governments have already crossed the Rubicon in dictating what both private companies and citizens are able to do on digital platforms.
For some aspects of online life, such as grooming and child sexual exploitation, this makes complete sense, and we should all be able to agree upon the intent.
But finer issues – such as the scanning of end-to-end encrypted messages, or the particulars of age verification methods – have become intractable problems for Conservatives, who both want to protect children from legitimate harms and preserve the right to privacy. As perfect freedom and perfect security are incompatible, online regulation presents a fraught question of priorities.
For both Twitter and international legislators, there is no turning back. The immovable object of big tech is colliding with the unstoppable force of government intervention. We will soon witness the results.
Joshua Taggart is a public affairs consultant and policy analyst at Atticus Partners. All opinions expressed within are those of the author alone.
Twitter’s shareholders may be breathing a sigh of relief after Elon Musk announced that he would step down and appoint a new successor.
The Tesla and SpaceX founder’s rule at the tech giant was heavily criticised – from the disastrous blue tick rework, which saw major companies impersonated and stock prices shaken, to his controversial take on free speech, a core issue for what has now become the public square.
Shareholders may not want to pop open the champagne just yet, though. While Linda Yaccarino, executive of NBC Universal, will be starting at Twitter in less than six weeks, Musk will still be pulling the strings from behind the scenes; he will remain, executive , chair, chief technology officer, and the largest shareholder.
While it will be good to have a moderating voice as CEO to temper Musk’s impulsive and sporadic behaviour, Yaccarino will have larger concerns: the overarching threat of international regulation which is explicitly targeted at the biggest tech giants and social media platforms.
Firstly, in the EU, there is both the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, which seek to ensure that the largest digital platforms promote effective digital competition and look out for their users.
In practice, this means that it will not only be more difficult for Twitter to buy out smaller businesses in strategic acquisitions, but the company will be scrutinised in the same breath as Meta, Amazon, and other giants who are perceived as having grown too big.
Twitter is a key target for those who believe too much power is concentrated in too few companies because it now personifies the public square, where discourse is only possible if your Twitter account isn’t shadow-banned.
The Digital Services Act, meanwhile, has already caused tensions between Musk and Thierry Bréton, the EU Commissioner, with the former’s strong line on anti-censorship which conflicted with the latter’s calls for Twitter to play by Brussels’ rulebook.
In the UK, the Online Safety Bill is likely to identify Twitter as a ‘Category 1 platform’ due to its size and scope (and therefore potential for online harm), meaning that it will be subject to the most burdensome duties under the new regulatory regime.
While the Bill has not yet passed, the strong support for greater measures to protect children online in both the Commons and the House of Lords means that however long it takes, Twitter will be concerned about one of its most vital markets cracking down on Big Tech.
The USA, meanwhile, is passing online regulation left, right, and centre (both metaphorically and literally).
On the West Coast, the Californian government passed the Age-Appropriate Design Code to ensure that tech platforms were doing more to protect non-adult users if they were deemed “likely to be accessed by children”. While it will not come into force until July 2024, the code will affect Twitter, which is marketed to those over 13 (subject to parental controls).
Utah, Texas and other states are already examining the role of big tech companies in their economies and cracking down on pornography, TikTok, and other aspects of the online world, painting a concerning picture for companies like Twitter.
The pressure is even coming from foreign governments to censor political content: Musk was criticised by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, for treating freedom of speech “as a slogan rather than a principle” after Twitter caved to demands from the Turkish government to censor content; other companies, such as Apple, have already fallen foul to the political demands of states such as China.
Twitter must withstand the pressure to both conform to Western governments’ safety demands and the less savoury requirements of authoritarian regimes, somehow establishing a principled balance which allows it to operate in major markets while retaining its identity.
Ultimately, Twitter is subject to greater forces in culture and society, which have examined the self-regulation era of big tech and deemed its results inadequate.
It is just one example of a company with an inordinate effect on public speech and interaction, and governments will always have concern with the private sector having such powerful market effects on what are commonly considered as fundamental rights: the right to interact with others, to express political opinions, and so on.
Thus more regulation is inevitable. Private companies such as Twitter have become so large that they have irreversibly affected how we use fundamental rights such as speech and association, and governments have already crossed the Rubicon in dictating what both private companies and citizens are able to do on digital platforms.
For some aspects of online life, such as grooming and child sexual exploitation, this makes complete sense, and we should all be able to agree upon the intent.
But finer issues – such as the scanning of end-to-end encrypted messages, or the particulars of age verification methods – have become intractable problems for Conservatives, who both want to protect children from legitimate harms and preserve the right to privacy. As perfect freedom and perfect security are incompatible, online regulation presents a fraught question of priorities.
For both Twitter and international legislators, there is no turning back. The immovable object of big tech is colliding with the unstoppable force of government intervention. We will soon witness the results.