The Growth of Truth Social (2022)

ABSTRACT

    Truth Social is the newest conservative marketed social media

Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes 

platform. Owned by Trump Media & Technology Group. Has had a massive growth since its launch in February of 2022. It had a total number of 1.7 million unique users compared to its competitors only averaging 360,000 unique users. The company had a rocky start with two executives quitting and another executive being fired in October by filing a whistleblower complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Truth’s parent company was relying on fraudulent misrepresentations. The four different ethical belief systems have different beliefs of whether this platform is ethical. Individualism loves this platform, utilitarianism believes this site is good but its user base is unethical, Kanianism believes that the platform is unethical because of an unwillingness to limit what people say, and lastly virtue theory again believes the platform is bad based on understanding basic human actions. This site is seen as ethical, the concept is very ethical because the people are what make this platform unethical, humans by nature are unethical beings and the internet makes people think they can say whatever they wish without consequences so it brings out the worst habits and behaviors of human beings.

ETHICS CASE CONTROVERSY

Truth Social Star and Trump Media & Technology Group
CEO Donald J. Trump

Truth Social joined the already full social platform race on February 21, 2022, created by the Trump Media & Technology Group. It is a right-wing social network which already faces two federal investigations with uncertain financial future. With this they have still managed to outpace rival social media platforms. Though it doesn’t compare with Twitter, and Facebook. Compared to its closest rivals such as Gab, Parler, Gettr, MeWe and Minds who averaged about 360,000 unique visitors in September Truth Social towers over them with a number of 1.7 million unique visitors all from the US. The right-wing social media platform has faced problems after problems since its launch date, one of those being two executives resigning after the app was launched still full of problems. A third executive was fired after filing a whistle-blower complaint which was that Truth’s parent company was relying on fraudulent misrepresentations. The company is currently under two separate federal investigations which is putting a $1.3 billion constraint on the already financially drained company. Much of Truth’s growth is owed to former President Donald J. Trump who is one of Truth’s founders and the star of the app. He is not the only well known right-wing politician or celebrity on this app; he is joined by Dan Bongino, Marjorie Taylor Greene and numerous conspiracy theorists, far-right influencers and many other Republican voters. The platform has had significant growth especially among the right-wing political party. This has made the platform bigger than anticipated. It is growing at a far faster rate than any of the social media platforms currently out there for consumer use. It does have its issues on the financial front which is why the company has its hopes set on a deal made with Digital World Acquisitions. The company successfully raised $300 million with their initial public offering of stock. They later received money from three dozen hedge funds which came to an additional $1 billion in finances upon the completion of the merger between the two companies. Though this deal will most likely fall through which will lead to Truth going from hoping to gain $1.3 billion to nothing. The reason for this is because Digital World is currently under investigations by both federal prosecutors and securities regulators which could lead to them having to liquidate themselves in early December and force them to return to shareholders the money raided in its I.P.O. The fact of the matter is if this deal falls through Trump Media will have to scavenge for financing to be able to keep Truth Social running. 

Unique monthly visits over the past year

William Wilkerson, former executive of Trump Media was fired in October after publicly admitting to have filed a whistle-blower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC. He admitted that the company was using up about $1.7 million in cash each month. Truth has recently started running advertisements. This high amount of cash to keep this app running is probably one of the main reasons they finally started to run advertisements. Mr. Wilkerson said that if the deal with Digital World did end up falling through then “a plausible alternative would be for Trump Media to consider a merger with Rumble, a conservative video-sharing alternative to YouTube, which has emerged as Trump Media’s main business partner”(NYTimes). As shared to us through Mr. Wilkerson and a second person with knowledge of Truth Social’s operations about half the people that work at Trump Media’s office in Sarasota Florida, are Rumble employees. Rumble provides most of the backbone that allows Truth Social to function as well as it does. With Rumble having just completed its own merger with SPAC, giving the company roughly $400 million in cash and now being a publicly traded entity they will likely have a merger with Truth Social. 

With Elon Musk completing his takeover of Twitter he has promised more lenient policies which could lead to some conservatives leaving Truth and heading back to Twitter. With Kanye West who plans to buy Parler there could be two new competitive apps that will be eye catching to conservatives which is the primary target of Truth Social. Though Truth is still on the rise and with the release of Truth Social on Android devices, it has granted access to a bigger population of people. About 40 percent of Americans use an Android operating system. Truth Social is still a very new platform. They are still trying to figure out their financial situation and they have grown at a faster pace than their competitors did at their age. The true test of what will happen to the company will be within the next couple of months. If they can successfully get funding to keep running then they will have a massive impact on what happens with the presidential election. If they flop and end up shutting down then it will go to show that even with a great amount of people and followers without proper financial backing a company is doomed to fail.

Chris Pavlovski CEO Rumble

STAKEHOLDERS 

The primary stakeholders of Truth Social are Chris Pavlovski the founder and CEO of Rumble, who provides technology and services to Trump Media & Technology Group. Another one would be Devin Nunes former congressman and CEO of Truth Social who is the one who has the most to either gain or lose based on how Truth does, another one would be Donald J. Trump former president as the CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group who owns the rights to Truth Social. There are also all the employees that have been hired and all of those who own stock in the company.

INDIVIDUALISM

From an individualist’s perspective, the actions that Truth Social is performing are exactly their ideals. The reason this is, is because truth social is all about protecting freedom of speech and allowing the users to say whatever they wish without reprimand or punishment. Similar to how other platforms react. Individualism has a couple key values that they follow, they believe that all values are human centered and each individual person is of extreme importance, and all individuals are morally equal so no matter who you are your voice matters, your opinions matter. Nobody should be able to tell you what you can and cannot say. The second amendment of the US constitution is a main value of an individualist. Truth Social markets themselves as protecting the First Amendment through an online platform which is rarely seen on most online platforms because of being forced to follow international laws. Most platforms have to create their sites under laws that appease all countries or risk being blocked in that country. Truth Social is primarily focused in America and marketed in America, plus it was created to follow American laws. This site has the highest amount of public freedom with what they can say. The application is also free to use which means they are not limiting who can use the app. Most apps view the needs of the group over the individual. They market themselves towards a target group which is usually a set age group, though they do have to put into consideration that people of other ages will probably access the site so they have to censor certain topics or discussions. These online platforms can have toxic people which cause issues and they have trolls who try to cause issues for the masses. Which sites try to stop by banning them or deleting what they have said so the masses cannot see what they have said. This app does not do this; they have marketed themselves as a platform where people can say whatever they wish whether that information is true or not. It will not be limited. People can view the site and choose to either believe or not to believe what they have read on their own. Which is exactly what an individualist wants from the world.

UTILITARIANISM 

Truth Social Apple download

From a utilitarian perspective this social network platform can go against what they believe and follow their beliefs. The reason for this seemingly contradiction is because of what their moral beliefs are. They believe morality is meant to foster happiness and pleasure, though they oppose actions that lead to unhappiness. They believe an act is good if it truly benefits the majority. The utilitarian belief states there are always two sides of a story like a coin, so if something promotes happiness but also spreads false information by lying they would see nothing wrong with it because it is spreading a positive image. But if something tells the truth but it causes unhappiness then they would see something wrong with it and disagree with it. What this means for this platform is that if what people talk about on the site leads to happiness for others they will see nothing wrong with what is said whether it's the truth or fiction. Though if it is discriminatory, or racist, or meant to antagonize either a group or everybody then they will be displeased and be against it. So their perspective will not see anything wrong with the app itself but how the users of the app use it. They would see true freedom of speech as a good thing upon people using it to create happiness and not anger. Though this will be difficult as there have been numerous accounts of racism, homophobia and antagonism already posted and spread about the application. This application was used to identify an armed assailant in a FBI office in Cincinnati. “Ricky Shiffer, had posted about the Mar-a-Lago search and told followers to “get whatever you need to be ready for combat.” The same account also appeared to confess to an attack on the F.B.I.”(NYTimes). Users like these would go against the utilitarian perspective through research done by Pew Research, which found some statistics on how users are being treated on the platform, 

A large share of those who regularly get news on Truth Social (57%) say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the experience, while 25% are very or somewhat dissatisfied and the rest give a neutral assessment. Additionally, 59% of these news consumers say the discussions they see on the site are mostly friendly, while 16% see mostly unfriendly discussions and 25% say they see about an equal mix of friendly and unfriendly discussions. (PewResearch)

These statistics would help a utilitarian to decide whether they agree with the existence of this social network platform or not. Based on these statistics, 41% of consumers are seeing unfriendly discussions so this would go against a utilitarian belief. If that number was zero or at least a lower percent they would probably find this site to be okay and follow their beliefs. That percentage is too high and they would not agree with this even though a majority of users are seeing positive and friendly results. 

KANTIANISM 

A Kantian thinker would see this site as immoral. The reason for this is because the site does not even try and limit what a person can say or act. People will act in a way that will be immoral to a Kantian thinker. The Kantian Ethics follow very set rules at a moral level to always act rationally. What this means is that they believe all humans have an inherent worth of respect, dignity, and morality. Kantians believe that you should always act in the most rational way and do what is right even if there are negative consequences. But true freedom of speech does not follow this moral because humans by nature are liars. What's worse is that there are people lying and being extremely mean on the internet, the internet brings out the worst in humanity. People are more likely to be rude, mean, and act immoral when they believe that there are no consequences for their actions and that they can do it anonymously. Especially on a social media platform that is all about letting people have free reign and doing and saying as they please. People act in an extremely immoral way when they see no consequences to their actions. The categorical imperative formula of humanity is to “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant429). Most humans do not act in this way though, which is why this site will bring out the worst in people and likely become what Twitter used to be before they started to monitor what can and cannot be said on their site. It will become a mosh pit of the internet's very worst and just spiral into madness. This is exactly what the Kantian perspective wants to avoid and is the reason they will not like this social media platform.

                                                                                    VIRTUE THEORY 

Truth Social User Friendly

A virtue theorist would view Truth Social as bad and against their beliefs because Virtue Theory is an ethical mindset that you shouldn’t focus on the rules of the world but on what kind of people we should be, and what ethical examples we should copy. Someone who follows this ethical view before partaking in a particular activity or behavior would more than likely ask themselves whether someone who's engaging in this activity is manifesting appropriate virtues or character traits, is this something a kind, brave, generous, or compassionate person would do? A virtue theorist would view this platform as wrong because the internet is already filled with liars and bad behaviors and now that the lies won’t be stopped or removed it will be difficult to tell the difference between truth and lies. When we lie we create a behavior of lying and that can turn into a habit. The internet makes it easy to do this and turn good honest people into liars for attention or any number of reasons. The virtue theory is all about repetition, to repeat good activities and avoid bad ones. 

Through repetition, we acquire the habit of truth-telling. This gives special significance to individual actions. The problem with telling a lie is not (as a utilitarian would say) the damage that it does, nor (as a Kantian would say) the fact that lying amounts to disrespecting someone, but rather that in telling a lie we are likely acting in a way that we do not think is worthy of imitation, and we are contributing to the process of building ourselves into liars (concise Encyclopedia). 

So when somebody repeatedly tells lies they are more likely to lie and to think it is acceptable. So when there are 1.7 million users on a site that has said that they will not limit speech and stop lies and false information than a virtue theorist will see it as an evil construction and not use it.

JUSTIFICATIED ETHICS EVALUATION 

In my opinion the actions and decisions made by this company to make the site completely under the rules of free speech is completely ethical. The site itself and the ideology of it do go against some of the ethical beliefs but to be able to completely follow all four ethical beliefs is very difficult. I do believe that most of the reason why the social media platform fails to be ethical is not the site itself but the people who use the platform. They fail to follow ethical beliefs. The right to free speech is ethical because people should not be limited by their personal beliefs and political views. Everyone should be allowed to say what they believe under the presumption that it is the truth. The fault of this platform is that it incites liars and misinformation like the onion. This site is just 4chan but for politicians and marketed towards conservatives. People may think that they are unethical because of what is said on the sites by the users but the platform in what it is going for is ethical. 

This site would be considered ethical by all four ethics beliefs if humans were not liars and said harmful things and if people could think in a way that would be kind and nice to everybody. It is not the site that is unethical, it is the user base. To quote Robert Wright, "We are far from the only dishonest species, but we are surely the most dishonest, if only because we do the most talking." (ABC.Net) We as humans like to lie and hurt others. This is why I view the people of this site as unethical and not the concept or the site as unethical.

Truth Social now on Android

CONCLUSION

Truth Social, is a platform that was created by Donald J. Trump and it is being used primarily by conservatives, a majority of the users have a positive experience with the platform. The platform is marketed toward conservatives because they are the ones who are affected the most by how other social media platforms censor what is said and how these platforms delete messages or ban members for saying racist, homophobic, transphobic or spreading misinformation. This platform has marketed that they will do none of these things and that you as an individual can say whatever your heart desires. If you wish to lie and spread misinformation, you can. If you wish to be racist, you can, the site will not stop you. The flaw of this site is that they are having financial issues and by most ethical beliefs the users themselves are unethical. This site and its beliefs are not viewed as being unethical. This platform has had one of the fastest growths among social media platforms in recent years and it had a total of 1.7 million unique users access the site in September. This was before Android users had access to the social media platform who make up 40% of US residences. With a greater number of possible users now the site is likely to continue growing and will likely be a platform of free speech with no limitation as long as they can figure out how to gain financial stability.

REFERENCES

DesJardins, Joseph R. An Introduction to Business Ethics. McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.

“Ethical Theory: Virtue Theory.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Business Ethics, 8 Aug. 2022, conciseencyclopedia.org/entries/ethical-theory-virtue-theory/#:~:text=Virtue%20Theory%20is%20an%20ethical,exemplars%20we%20ought%20to%20imitate.

Forman-Katz, Naomi, and Galen Stocking. “Key Facts about Truth Social.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 2 Dec. 2022, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/18/key-facts-about-truth-social-as-donald-trump-runs-for-u-s-president-again/.

Moynihan, Lydia, and Josh Kosman. “CEO behind Trump's Truth Social IPO Begs Small Investors for Support: Source.” New York Post, New York Post, 17 Nov. 2022, nypost.com/2022/11/17/ceo-behind-trumps-truth-social-ipo-begs-small-investors-for-support-source/.

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. N.d.

Steffens, Maryke. “Natural Born Liars.” ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 30 July 2003, www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/07/31/2857387.htm. 

Thompson, Stuart A., and Matthew Goldstein. “Truth Social's Influence Grows despite Its Business Problems.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/technology/truth-social-conservative-social-app.html.

Trump Media & Technology Group. “Trump Media & Technology Group Announces Partnership With Rumble Inc..” GlobeNewswire News Room, Trump Media & Technology Group, 14 Dec. 2021, www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/12/14/2352123/0/en/Trump-Media-Technology-Group-Announces-Partnership-with-Rumble-Inc.html.

Trump’s Truth Social Has Suddenly Shot to the Top of the App Store Rankings. www.fastcompany.com/90746113/trumps-truth-social-has-suddenly-shot-to-the-top-of-the-app-store-rankings.

Elon Musk and the Twitter Midterm Elections (November 8, 2022)

Abstract

    The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, bought Twitter and immediately started to change it drastically right around election time without taking into consideration the ethical views with his decisions. It became hard for Twitter to be able to handle any information being posted about the election since so many employees had to leave in such a short span of time with no one able to fill their shoes right away. Some people have gone as far as changing their profile to look like Elon Musk’s to voice their opinions about the election. Which has caused some issues with Twitter wanting to change some of their rules to counteract impersonators. With there have been many complaints about what Musk is trying to do so far with changing the free social media app into a subscription service. Having the new verification process being added to Twitter seems like it’s more of a way for Musk to get his money back while using the idea of preventing impersonators as a cover up. With the ideas of Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory we can see what type of platform Musk is trying to turn Twitter into. Even if he was unaware of the ethical issues, he had to deal with to get what he wanted down with Twitter and its employees.

Ethics Case Controversy

    On October 28, 2022, Elon Musk officially had ownership of Twitter after putting an offer up back in April. He originally wanted to fire roughly half his staff before the bonuses that would come out on November 1st, but after talking with HR he changed it to November 3rd. Part of the reason why HR recommended that he do that was so that the people who would be fired couldn’t sue or anything due to not being able to receive their bonus that was promised to them. And since Musk had been dealing with the lawsuit that Twitter had against him for trying to back out of the original agreement, he probably wouldn’t want to deal with any more lawsuits that are back-to-back. This was only the start to what he was about to do with changing how Twitter is being operated. Not everyone realizes that sometimes what gets posted can have consequences that the social media employees must deal with. On November 7th it was reported that Elon Musk posted a very controversial photo of a Nazi soldier and commented it with how the “homing pigeons the soldier carried, comparing them to the ‘bird’ that is Twitter” (Chabria). Even though the comment that he made was not directly related to the solider in the picture it still causes issues due to the hate that is still in the image because of the presence of the Nazi soldier. There were so many other options for pictures that Musk could have just as easily posted but he chose that one for a reason even if he won’t come out and say it directly. It was around this time too that many advertisement companies have stopped posting ads on Twitter due to the amount of hateful speech that is being said and how some of it is being directed towards these companies such as, General Motors, Volkswagen Group and General Mills. There is a civil rights group calling for advertisers to boycott Twitter because “’it is immoral, dangerous, and highly destructive to our democracy for any advertiser to fund a platform that fuels hate speech, election denialism, and conspiracy theories’” (Oremus). No advertising company wants to back up another company that is not following the same idea of respect or morals because it can also make them look bad. That’s part of the reason why so many influential people try to refrain from saying their opinions on topics unless they felt it was absolutely important to. Musk believes that Twitter “should adhere to principles of free speech, doing little beyond what the law explicitly requires to police itself” (Oremus). It sounds almost like Musk will allow people to say whatever they want until they either trying to impersonate him or go against what he believes to be right opinion. Elon Musk even went as far as banning accounts that were impersonating him even though he is a big activist for freedom of speech. The people who impersonated him had the opposite political view that he had for this midterm election and that caused there to be tension between Musk and anyone who had impersonated him. In the Twitter rules one can “impersonate” another individual as long as they “distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio” (Kolodny). It’s a way to make sure the actual account holder is reliable for what they say rather than get the person or group that they are trying to impersonate in trouble.

    On the same day that Elon Musk posted the controversial image he also tweeted to his 115 million followers to vote Republican. This happened after Musk was tweeting about staying politically neutral. There has been more and more misinformation about the elections as time goes by but since Twitter lost 7,500 employees, there isn’t enough people working to be able to keep up with the amount of misinformation that is being posted. Some people noticed a big slowdown in how quick and efficient Twitter used to be when needing to take fake news and other misinformation down. There are a lot of people trying to claim that the WI-FI networks at any location that polling is happening can cause the voting machines to be hacked. There have also been problems surrounding absentee ballots since so many people are starting to believe that mail in ballots is leading there to be a lot more voting fraud since there isn’t anyone making sure each person only drops off one ballot. When there are so many people on a social media platform as big as Twitter it can cause any information whether it is true or not to spread like wildfire. To help counteract some of the misinformation around election time, Elon Musk decided to launch a new Twitter verification process. It was originally supposed to launch before the election but due to the amount of people who got fired it made it hard for it to be launched on time. So, on November 9th the new verification process was launched which now requires people to pay an $8 a month subscription to have that blue check mark next to their name so that the chance of getting impersonated goes down. Some have speculated that the new verification process is a way to help Elon Musk make back the $44 billion that he spent on buying Twitter. Others think it was a way to stop so many comedies from trying to impersonate him and tell people to “vote Democrat” when he is trying to tell people to vote the opposite. (Conger).

    Once Elon musk had complete control over Twitter there was a huge increase in hateful speech that was happening. Most of it happening by accounts that are inauthentic. These trolling accounts are causing a lot of problems for the people and employees of Twitter. Since the hateful information isn’t being taken done fast enough it is leading more and more people to repost and add to the other hateful speech. In just a 12 hour window there was a over a 500% increase in the N word, Jew increased fivefold, and misogynistic and transphobic speech increased. It is believed that since “Musk is now the primary owner of the platform, he may follow through with loosening standards of harmful content and dissolving the so-called censorship he has criticized in the past” (Ray). It just goes to show how Elon Musk is trying to change Twitter and how fast it is changing under his ownership. Although some people believe that censoring content doesn’t do anything, statically speaking it has definitely made an impact when Trump got banned because the idea of election misinformation dropped by roughly 73% once he was removed. The type of people on social media really does have a huge impact in what gets posted and how big of an effect it has on the platform. (Ray).

Stakeholders

    All the people who have and use Twitter have been affected drastically since Elon Musk became the owner. He’s made it hard for people to know if the information they have been reading about the election is true or false. With roughly 7,500 of the staff gone from various positions such chief executive, policy executive, and many more that were completely fired. Some of executives that were fired are, Parag Agrawal, Ned Segal, and Vijaya Gadde. While also cutting “half of its public policy team: and “more than one team that touched election integrity” (Hatmaker). After Kathy Griffin and Rich Sommer were banned on Twitter there were several people who had complained and tried to get them unbanned. Elon Musk Said he would unban them if they chose to go through with the new verification process. It seems like Twitter is going to become like a streaming service and a way for Elon Musk to make back the money he lost buying Twitter.

Individualism

    Companies want employees that will help them achieve their goal in the long term, which means having to get rid of the ones that are holding back the company. With Elon Musk trying to make Twitter better, he needs to have employees that are going to help him achieve his goal. Since Musk wants to make Twitter a better social media platform so that more people would want to use it. Even though Musk is a big advocate for free speech, which means Musk is going to push the boundaries that have been set by society. With the smaller staff size at Twitter anything that isn’t morally allowed to be posted is taking longer to get down, which ends up helping Musk with the idea of free speech. Another one of Musk’s goals would be to maximize profit since that is what businesses would do so that they remain in business. With less employees and the subscription service to verify accounts, it will help increase the over all profit of Twitter.

                                                   Utilitarianism

   When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he bought it with the intention of making it better. By doing that he intends on finding ways to make more people on the platform happy. Even though Musk is trying to maximize his own happiness he also must consider the happiness of the users so that he can keep them on Twitter. By trying to get ads to be removed and banning people for impersonating other users it can make the platform more enjoyable for everyone. However, with how long it is taking Twitter to take down certain posts that are problematic, it is not helping with the user’s happiness of the platform. It’s the posts that are targeting specific people that are the more problematic ones and posts that have been made by impersonators.

Kantianism

    The users of Twitter should be treated with respect because they are the ones that are going to make it profitable for Elon Musk in the long run. They can’t be treated as just a way to get profit because it goes against the idea of having a good will. Musk would need to be able to find ways to make Twitter better that would benefit the users so that in return they would be able to give him what he wants. Since it is the motivation behind the action that matters more than the outcome itself. Even when Musk tried pulling out of the deal to get Twitter it made it a little clear that he was using Twitter to benefit himself more than making the platform better for everyone who uses it.

Virtue Theory

    It takes courage to be able to own a social media platform because not only does one have to worry about making it interesting enough for people to stay on it but also having to deal with what others are posting. On top of that but also having the self-control to handle any situation without overreacting or causing more problems that might end up causing people to leave the platform. Elon Musk would have needed to be taught how to deal with situations so that it appears like he has control over Twitter. He also would need to be fair with how he treats the people who are impersonating someone or posting things that are against the rules that Twitter has. Since if he treats people differently for doing the same thing then it is going to cause more problems for him down the line because no one would want to be treated differently. Without having the knowledge from either past experiences or from coworkers on how to run a platform like Twitter, it would not have been good for Musk since he would have lacked the wisdom and judgement that would be needed for Twitter. It requires a lot of experience and patience to learn from others on how things should be dealt with in a social media platform compared to other companies since there aren’t as many people watching and seeing what others are saying about it.

Justification Ethics Evaluation

    The way Musk is trying to handle everything that is going on with Twitter is not being handled well. It has been causing more problems when it comes to election information because there aren’t enough people to be able to keep up with everything everyone is posting. With the slowdown in the control of misinformation it has caused several tweets to get reposted thousands of times before anything has been done about it. The whole idea of Twitter becoming a paid verification social media app is just a way for Musk to be able to pay off the loans he had to pull out to buy Twitter because Twitter wouldn’t lower the cost after the original agreement. It feels wrong having someone run a social media app that’s as big as Twitter when there have been several times when Musk himself had to remove something he posted. By being the owner, it doesn’t give Musk the right to say and post whatever he wants and the amount of time it is taking for someone in his company to tell him to take down inappropriate posts is a problem. Musk doesn’t have the morals to be able to handle owning the app especially around the times that elections are held because so many people try to impersonate him. It just creates a lot of controversy about what the owner of any platform can and can’t be able to do and Musk seems like he wants to keep trying to push the envelope since he is so into freedom of speech.

                                                    Conclusion

    Even though Elon Musk has shown that he knows how to run a company and try to make it better he himself doesn’t know how to act on such a platform. By examining what he has done with the platform so far it shows how he hasn’t investigated the ethical views of his ideas. He seems to be very focused on making sure he can say what he wants and to try and find a way to make back the money he lost when he originally bought Twitter. Musk is all for freedom of speech but at the same time it seems almost as if he doesn’t like other people having a different opinion then him or even trying to be a comedian. He did at some point after getting Twitter say that comedy is now legal on Twitter but when some comedians tried to have fun with him it ended with their accounts getting banned or locked. Part of the issue seems to be that Elon is having a harder time trying to run a social media platform since it is drastically different from his other company Tesla and so many people on Twitter will voice their opinions on things that he says.

References

Chabria, Anita. “Column: Elon Musk is Breaking His New Toy. Will it Cost us Our Democracy?” Los Angeles Times. Nov. 8, 2022. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11- 08/column-icarus-has-crashed-the-weekend-we-all-expected-from-twitter
Conger, Kate. Hirsch, Lauren. “Elon Musk Twitter Take Over”. New York Times. October 27, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/technology/elon-musk-twitter-deal-complete.html
Dang, Sheila. Roumeliotis, Greg. “Musk Begins His Twitter Ownership With Firings, Declares the ‘Bird is Freed’”. Reuters. October 28, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/elon-musk-completes-44-bln-acquisition-twitter- 2022-10-28/
Hatmaker, Taylor. “Elon Musk’s Twitter Faces US Midterm Elections, His First High-Stakes Test”. TechCrunch. November 7, 2022. https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/07/elon-musk-twitter-us-midterm-elections/?guccounter=1
Kolodny, Lora. “Elon Musk Bans Impersonation Without Parody Label on Twitter Raising Questions  About Free Speech Commitment”. CNBC. November 7, 2022. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/07/elon-musk-unlabeled-twitter-parody-accounts-risk- permanent-suspension.html
Oremus, Will. Hassan, Jennifer. Siddiqui, Faiz. “Musk Recommends Voting GOP, Bans Twitter Accounts for ‘impersonation’”. The Washington Post. November 7, 2022.       https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/07/elon-musk-twitter/
Ray, Rashawn. Anyanwu, Joy. “Why is Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Increasing Hate Speech”. Brookings. November 23, 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we- rise/2022/11/23/why-is-elon-musks-twitter-takeover-increasing-hate-speech/

Twitter: Elon Musk Clashes with Advertisers (2022)

ABSTRACT

Twitter Application
 Logo

    Twitter is a phenomenally successful social media platform, but new leadership may just be driving it into the ground. Elon Musk, a familiar name to most, just recently bought and become the new owner of Twitter. Elon Musk has shown extreme behaviors, did not hesitate to change guidelines, and granted Twitter account access back to previously banned controversial users. Behind closed doors, Musk is demanding employees commit to intense hours of work and threatened consequences if employees do not conform. Advertisers quickly became wary of his strategy and unsure of his leadership. Musk is now trying to convince advertisers to stay at the company and continue working for him. His actions are not only affecting himself, but the employees, advertisers, and the community of Twitter users as well.

This case will be reviewed under various ethical theories including Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory. Individualists would argue that Elon Musk is unethical because he is willing to express behaviors, even at the risk of profit. Utilitarianists would claim that Elon Musk is unethical because he is not prioritizing the happiness of employees or other Twitter users. Kantians would argue that Elon Musk is unethical because he has the wrong motivations and a lack of rationality. Virtue Theory would claim that Elon Musk is ethical because he is looking to use Twitter to its full potential. Personally, I say Elon Musk in relation to Twitter is unethical because of his extreme behavior and treatment of others.

ETHICS CASE CONTROVERSY

Twitter has been one of the most popular social media platforms for the better part of the last fifteen years. Twitter is a platform in which users can “tweet” their thoughts, share posts with friends, and see the news. Of course, like any other social media website, Twitter has set regulations and guidelines for limiting the content to keep it appropriate for all users. Twitter, in the past, banned users and controversial figures that failed to follow guidelines and was distributing posts that may not be appropriate for many. Musk has taken over Twitter and made changes regarding those banned accounts. Twitter advertisers think that the new leadership may be causing Twitter to take a turn for the worst.

Timeline of Elon Musk's
Twitter Takeover

    In January 2022, Elon Musk began buying shares of Twitter. On April 4, 2022, Musk became Twitter’s biggest shareholder, owning just over 9% of the company in shares. On October 27, 2022, Elon Musk officially bought Twitter and fully owned it through a $44 billion deal. Within 48 hours after his takeover, Musk posted, then quickly deleted, a tweet with anti-LGBTQ content. Since then, guidelines have been edited and “far-right figures [began] to test Twitter’s boundaries for anti-LGBTQ speech” (Wile). Musk denied making the changes and because of this, advertisers have claimed they will back away from the company due to being unsure about Musk’s strategy. These actions are ethically controversial because Musk is allowing for more freedom of speech and expression, but this can be hurtful or inappropriate to other users that may be sensitive to such subjects, or just not mature enough yet.

Musk has also shown close to no remorse for the employees at the company. On November 16^th, Musk sent out an email to the entire company that demands the employees to commit to longer hours of higher intensity work. He stated those that do not conform to the new expectations, or support his ideas, will receive three months of severance. Elon Musk did not hesitate to make alterations in the company’s staff, as he fired an engineer, top executives, and up to twenty others. Those he fired included ones that criticized him and his tactics for what he is calling “Twitter 2.0”, the new and updated version of Twitter. The treatment of employees is alarming and does not follow the ethical lines of certain theories. Not only is this treatment intimidating to advertisers, but it is also unfair and can cause them to walk away. Watching a business lose bunches of employees at a time is not something a partnering company wants to experience. They want to be able to trust their partner company, but Elon Musk is making it extremely difficult for advertisers to do so.

In political fairness views, Elon Musk has been exposed to fact checking democratic party members and even posted content speaking against the democratic party. Though there may not being anything wrong with expressing one’s political favors, Elon Musk’s speech was strong and aggressive. Being such a big figure that collects a lot of attention, speaking out with political opinions can be controversial. One must be careful when going about this because the wrong words can offend someone viewing it and may even be taken the wrong way. Musk is trying to create a platform that respects all free speech, but a certain algorithm to his madness has been detected. Before his takeover, Twitter was mainly only fact checking republicans. Now that Musk has control, he wants all political parties to get fact checked and seems to be targeting the democrats. This includes fact checking United States President, Joe Biden, about tax claims. Recently, the White House “was forced to delete a tweet that credited [Biden] for an increase in Social Security payments after being flagged by Twitter as being inaccurate” (Tillison). These political interactive behaviors of fact-checking democrats, tweeting against the democratic party, and changing Twitter’s boundaries in favor of republicans is a controversial approach. People feel passionately about their political views, and with Twitter clawing at only one party, people quickly become unhappy, and advertisers do not want unhappy people.

Twitter’s advertisers quickly noticed Musk’s approach strategy and became wary. The top twenty advertisers of Twitter are even “urging their leaders to pull ads unless Musk agrees to crack down on hate speech” (Barrabi). The new behaviors of Twitter are unpleasing to advertisers and are causing them to pull away from associating with the platform. Advertisers are not sitting comfortably with the political and social tactics of the new guidelines. All kinds of attention are being drawn towards the clash between Elon Musk and advertisers, but the ethical aspects of it are also playing a significant role in the dynamics.

STAKEHOLDERS

    This case intertwines several groups of people in diverse ways. First, there is Elon Musk. He is the owner of Twitter, makes all the decisions, has people working for him, and is catching all the blame. Next, there are Twitter users, who are being affected by the change in guidelines. Then, there are Twitter employees, who are being overworked, ordered to commit to intense hours of work, and are threatened with being fired. Lastly, there are the advertisers, who are highly affected by Twitter activity and business decisions. As a result of Musk’s tactics, advertisers are pleading that their leaders opt out of working with Twitter any longer. Some advertisers, like Coca-Cola and Kellog’s, have already stopped working with Twitter. Each of these groups and individuals play a part in this case and can make a difference in the result. Musk can make better decisions, users of Twitter can remain respectful on the app, employees can do their best to work with one another to keep Twitter under control, and the advertisers can decide whether Twitter is the best business partner for them. Each of these people are involved and affected by whatever types of changes are being made through Twitter. But Elon Musk is the single defendant.

INDIVIDUALISM

Individualists would consider Elon Musk to be unethical because he is not prioritizing Twitter’s profit. He is making choices that are dragging the profit down. In early November, “Musk admitted that Twitter has seen a ‘massive drop in revenue’ since he took over the company” (Barrabi). In an individualist’s perspective, this is unacceptable because being ethical is about prioritizing profit for one’s business. Elon Musk is not doing that. He makes whichever choices he wants, even if they are being disagreed with and looked down upon. The profit for the platform boldly reflects it, but Musk is not making many alterations to fix this. Musk opened and took a poll on whether the previous United States President, Donald Trump, should be invited back to Twitter. This poll collected over fifteen million responses and close to fifty-two percent of them voted “Yes” to allowing Trump back onto the site (MSN). Aside from this poll, there is not much Elon Musk has done to consider the thoughts of users. Musk is thinking of himself first, and this is losing Twitter loads of profit.

Elon Musk (left), newest owner of Twitter, 
and Tim Cook (right), CEO of Apple.

    One of the largest companies on Twitter, Apple, recently stopped advertising on the site. On November 28, 2022, Musk stated that Apple has threatened to take Twitter off the app store. This would tear down the platform. In response, Musk publicly tweeted about the incident, saying that Apple has threatened the removal but without giving a reason. He then posted a following tweet “insinuating the company may hate free speech in the US” (Oparada). Rather than managing an issue and finding a solution, Musk brings it to the public light, knowing the risks. It has become clear that Elon Musk is more concerned with transforming the app how he wants to, rather than focusing much attention on the platform’s profit. Musk is knowingly losing money but carrying on with statements instead of solutions. An individualist would claim it is unethical because it is not what is best for the company.

UTILITARIANISM

Because the recent Twitter activity has been bothersome to many, a utilitarian would claim that Elon Musk is extremely unethical. A behavioral tactic that is uncomforting to many people is the alteration of language that is allowed and the fact checking of certain parties. When Musk posted the anti-LGBTQ content, and far-right figures began doing the same, many were bothered by this and the lenience. Those in the LGBTQ community, or those with sensitive feelings towards it, find this disrespectful. The so-called “hate speech” is very upsetting to many people and the utilitarian perspective would observe this overall lack of happiness as unethical, thus concluding the ethical deficiency lies in the fault of Elon Musk.

The strategy of heavily fact checking liberal posts is pleasing and rejuvenating for the republican party but is discomforting for democrats. When Musk’s new algorithm fact checked the White House account, found their content inaccurate, and made them delete the Tweet, “the administration was humiliated” (Tillison). This can be shaky since politicians are expected to give true information, so the tactic can be justified. Republicans will find joy in this correction made by Twitter. But not everyone is happy and that is what a utilitarian would focus on. If not every specimen capable of feeling happiness is happy, then a utilitarian is not pleased.

The main group in this case, the advertisers, are not happy at all. They are watching Twitter spiral downward and have “increasingly balked at the billionaire’s handling of the social media site and raised concerns about whether it will remain ‘brand safe’ for companies” (Barrabi). Elon Musk is making it difficult for advertisers to feel safe with using Twitter as a source and this can become stressful. Advertisers are unhappy with the recent developments, so much so that they are pulling away from the app and deciding to find other ways of advertising. Utilitarians notice the general unhappiness and conclude Elon Musk as unethical.

KANTIANISM

Due to his motives not coming from goodwill and treating others simply as a means, the Kantianism perspective concludes Elon Musk is unethical. The business decisions made by Musk are shaky and questionable, but his reasons behind these choices are not much better. Targeting the democratic party and plainly favoring the republican side is not the result of wanting to make things “fair”, but it is simply the reflection of Musk’s own political opinions. Continuously making minor decisions that turn a cold shoulder to just liberals is selfish and controversial. For the republicans, it is “a glorious sight to behold” (Tillison) and they can find satisfaction in this, but anyone with different opinions or thoughts than Musk can be irritated. Musk is selfishly making these political actions, not necessarily for the best sake of the site.

Elon Musk has not shown any compassion towards the staff, advertisers, or humanity of the workforce. Firing many employees was not only triggered by a selfish motive but was also a step he took to turn the Twitter staff into his own personal supporters. Elon Musk is firing the employees that disagree with him and by doing such, he is using people and affecting their lives to get what he wants: his own Twitter army. Musk does not care for the employees and lacks compassion for their well-being. His manner of handling the employees is not to directly manage who is working and the quality of work; it is a part of his process in benefitting himself and getting what he wants. He does not consider the impacts this has on advertisers and is still pleading them to stay at Twitter. This contradicts the formula of humanity in Kantianism, which preaches treating humanity as an end and not as a means. Musk is treating the employees, users, and advertisers as a means, not an end. Because Musk’s skills in management contradict the formula of humanity and show poor motives, Kantians would declare he is unethical.

VIRTUE THEORY

Elon Musk is handling Twitter very unethically by the four business virtues. First, Elon Musk lacks courage. He is not willing to support what’s right. Instead of making the political approach fair or allowing employees to be entitled to their own opinions, Musk is doing what he wants to do with his own interest in mind. People can have their own ideas and thoughts, and just because an employee’s ideas might disagree with Musk’s, they get fired. He does not stand for the ethically right ideas and actions. He does what he thinks is best for himself.

Secondly, he has no honesty regarding employee treatment, Twitter users, and advertisers. Musk ensured he would develop Twitter for the better, but he is terminating employees and advertisers are detecting the danger in pairing with the site. He is dishonest with the employment status, as he fires staff for invalid reasons. Musk has also publicly reported false information, then fired an employee for exposing him. Musk is not upholding the honesty virtue.

The third virtue Musk fails to display is temperance, the virtue of reasonable expectations and desires. Elon Musk wants Twitter to be run in ways that only agree with his personal views and thoughts, including politically and socially. That is not reasonable because the social media platform was made for all people with all sorts of different ideas. Furthermore, he is expecting employees to commit to extreme, long, hard hours of work and has threatened consequences, if not. His expectations for staff and desires for the site do not follow the temperance virtue.

Lastly, Musk lacks the justice virtue. He is reducing the quality of Twitter, his newly owned product, and is not using good ideas or fair practices. His ideas are irrational, and his practices are not fair for all, let alone most. His algorithms are unfair, his ideas are too controversial, the quality of Twitter is decreasing, and he is ultimately having people work harder so he does not have to. Thus, he does not follow the justice virtue. Because Elon Musk fails to cooperate with every single one of the virtues, the virtue theory claims he is unethical

Elon Musk is promoting more free 
speech on Twitter for all users

JUSTIFIED ETHICS EVALUATION

The ethics being displayed by Elon Musk are poor. When managing a business, and being in full control, there is more to ethics than one may think. Business morals and ethics are not just about benefitting oneself or one’s own business, but also doing what benefits others, including employees and, in this case, Twitter users. Elon Musk has not done a whole lot to benefit anyone than himself.

The well-being and sake of others are not a priority of Musk’s. He has fired people that need their job to make a living, allowed language that is offensive to many people, and targets certain groups of people. In the political aspects, no matter any personal political stance, the heavy fact checking of only one party is not fair. All politicians tend to post and distribute content that they want people to see, rather than the full truth. Targeting one party upsets people, can heavily impact elections, and makes things more difficult. Politics is one of the messiest subjects to be involved in. Elon Musk is stirring the political pot and advertisers are not pleased.

People need to work to make a living and afford a comfortable life. For Elon Musk to come in and fire top executives and engineers, only because they disagreed with him, is selfish and incredibly unethical. A valid reason for termination of an employee is not because they disagree with ideas. Elon Musk fires employees because they do not agree, and he also fact checks democrats because they do not agree. He is selfish in those ways. Disrespecting the simple opinions of others is unethical and an unacceptable approach for business.

The advertisers of Twitter will not be kept happy, for the few and far that are even still happy. Advertisers and companies that have already detached from Twitter are ahead of the game. Advertising and promoting on an app where people are rowdy, unhappy, and aggravated is not good for any company. As a business owner, it is important to remember the audience and keep in mind all the collaborations that are involved. Companies using Twitter to advertise is a type of collaboration. By not doing what is best for Twitter’s partners, Musk is forcing advertisers out the door without even knowing it. He makes decisions selfishly and shows no charisma for others involved. Elon Musk is unethical and is inconsiderate of the advertisers.

CONCLUSION

Through the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, there have been significant shifts in the social media site. Users are unhappy with many of the alterations, politicians are being targeted unfairly, employees are being terminated and threatened, and Elon Musk’s leadership is heavily being questioned. For all these events to be occurring, advertisers are uncertain of Musk’s management skills and are pulling away from the app. Not only is it a business issue, but it is an ethical issue as well. Advertisers are urging their bosses and executives to detach themselves from Twitter because it is no longer a good advertising resource for their companies. Now, seeing a brand team up with Twitter is not the best image for any company. There is still a lot that can happen and change the game for Twitter at any moment, but the pleasure of advertisers is always subjective to change.

REFERENCES

Barrabi, Thomas. “Elon Musk to Meet with Twitter Advertisers as Tensions Rise: Report.” New York Post, New York Post, 9 Nov. 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/11/09/elon-musk-to-meet-with-twitter-advertisers-as-tensions-rise-report/.

Hsu, Tiffany. “Will Elon Musk Be Able to Keep Twitter’s Advertisers Happy?” NY Times, 28 Oct. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/technology/musk-twitter-advertisers-general-motors.html.

“Jack White Deletes Twitter Account after Elon Musk Invites Donald Trump Back to Platform.” MSN, 22 Nov. 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/other/jack-white-deletes-twitter-account-after-elon-musk-invites-donald-trump-back-to-platform/ar-AA14oxNL.

Oparada, Pascal. “Apple May Remove Twitter From App Store, Elon Musk Kicks.” Legit.ng - Nigeria News., 30 Nov. 2022, https://www.legit.ng/business-economy/technology/1506807-apple-remove-twitter-app-store-elon-musk-kicks/#:~:text=Apple%20May%20Remove%20Twitter%20From%20App%20Store%2C%20Elon,cent%20before%20they%20get%20listed%20on%20the%20store.

Tillison, Tom. “Biden White House Hit with Yet Another Glorious Twitter Fact Check.” BizPac Review, 25 Nov. 2022, https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/11/23/biden-white-house-hit-with-yet-another-glorious-twitter-fact-check-1311795/.

Wile, Rob. “A Timeline of Elon Musk's Takeover of Twitter.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 17 Nov. 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/twitter-elon-musk-timeline-what-happened-so-far-rcna57532.