The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
6 — Wednesday, June 8, 2022
BRANDON COWIT
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
VANESSA KIEFER
Editor in Chief
W
e seem to be living in an
era where “memes” are
becoming reality. When
Kanye West announced in 2015 his
plan to run for the presidency in 2020,
nobody believed him until he actually
did it. Thankfully, that event turned
out to be largely inconsequential. A
current meme becoming reality is Elon
Musk’s recent decision to purchase
Twitter — one of the most popular
social media apps and a source of news
information for many — which has
the potential to alter the shape of our
public discourse dramatically and give
a private individual societal influence
on par with our most powerful elected
officials.
Billionaires like Elon Musk having
as much — if not more — power than
some well-known elected government
officials is a huge issue in a modern,
technologically
advanced
society.
These
wealthy
individuals
can
already alter markets with a single
post, but with complete control of
media institutions, they remove what
little content filtering does exist and
risk allowing other users to spread
dangerous misinformation.
Musk
wouldn’t
be
the
only
billionaire with sizable media power,
either. Jeff Bezos, the founder of
Amazon and the world’s third richest
man, bought The Washington Post in
2013. In the past 10 years, numerous
other trusted media institutions have
come to be owned by the mega-rich.
And, of course, Facebook — a constant
source of social media scandal — is
run by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg,
who is so often at the center of the
platform’s controversies. In short,
Musk’s purchase would continue the
consolidation of media power in the
hands of the incredibly wealthy.
What
makes
Musk’s
Twitter
purchase unique, though, is the effect
Twitter’s policies have on public
discourse — especially its use to spread
dangerous misinformation — as well
as the fact that Musk plans to take
Twitter private, removing him from
having to be accountable to public
shareholders. By taking such actions,
Musk has more ability to resist the will
of regulators and investors.
On top of the broader issue of
a
billionaire
having
significant
media power, Musk himself brings
a long list of problems — sometimes
with the law — making his Twitter
takeover even more alarming. For
instance, in February of 2022, Musk
and his brother were placed under
investigation by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for potential
insider trading.
Another issue is Musk’s stance
on content moderation. He is a big
fan of increasing “free speech” on
Twitter and, as a result, may allow
Donald Trump back on the platform
after he was banned. This decision
is not surprising, as Musk has made
his desire to embolden public figures
that spread misinformation clear.
Additionally, Musk recently revealed
— through a Tweet — that he will
be voting Republican from now on,
stating that “The reality is that Twitter
at this point, you know, has a very
far left bias.” With extensive control
of Twitter, some worry that Musk’s
political leanings would cause him to
limit the speech of liberals or amplify
speech that is disparaging towards
minority groups.
While one man owning a company
that is the outlet for such high levels of
public discourse is worrisome — and
Musk being that one person is even
more worrisome — Musk’s purchase
has drawn attention to serious issues
throughout social media. Even more,
Musk has spoken about surprisingly
reasonable — if underdeveloped —
solutions.
For starters, it genuinely appears
that Musk wants to strengthen trust
between Twitter and the American
public. Opening up the source code
of aspects of Twitter such as the
algorithm, something whose opacity
many Twitter users are wary of and
complain about, can only be a positive.
His discussions of user authentication
have been relatively broad, but
depending on scope, it could produce
tangible benefits. If by authentication
and limiting spam, Musk means
users must use their real name,
photo, etc., the risk of disinformation
along with violent rhetoric would
likely shrink dramatically. People are
much more likely to express poorly-
thought out opinions when they can
do so with anonymity, and attaching
one’s true identity to their comments
would serve well to hold individuals
accountable. This, however, seems
unlikely. Musk probably means a more
targeted approach, where bot accounts
are more stringently monitored and
taken down. Even this narrower
scope has real benefits. Bots are not
only annoying (they fog up true public
discourse and opinion), but they often
work
to
amplify
disinformation,
division and violent rhetoric.
Concern about what Musk will
be able to do with Twitter points to
another important issue — regulation
of social media companies. If the
American government were more
willing to strictly regulate social
media, the damage Musk could do
would be much more limited. A
majority of U.S. adults believe that
the
government
should
increase
regulation of technology and social
media companies, though some worry
that the First Amendment might
complicate things. At this point, it’s
tough to know whether the Twitter
deal will close. If anything, it seems
Musk will back out of the deal, not
Twitter. This outcome still seems
unlikely, though, since — on top of
the damage to his reputation — Musk
could lose billions. If the deal does go
through, Musk will currently have
only everyday Twitter users to try to
push him in the right direction. We can
only hope they will succeed.
QUIN ZAPOLI
Editorial Page Editor
End Title 42: Michigan is ready to
welcome asylum seekers
From The Daily: Elon Musk is buying
Twitter, now what?
M
ichigan is no stranger to
welcoming people who
have had to flee their home
countries. As the fourth-ranked state
in the nation for receiving refugees in
the last decade, Michigan has admitted
30,467 refugees from 52 countries since
2010, according to the U.S. Department
of State. Asylees and asylum seekers
are also an integral part of our state:
Between 2019 and 2022, nearly 8,000
asylum cases were being processed
in Michigan’s immigration court in
Detroit.
Our state has welcomed people
fleeing
persecution
from
Iraq,
Burma, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Syria, Afghanistan,
Albania,
Guatemala,
China
and
many other nations across the globe.
These individuals have enriched our
communities and helped strengthen
our economy, especially as Michigan
faces a labor shortage and a rapidly
aging population.
If we are to continue to be a state
and a nation of welcome for those
fleeing violence and persecution, we
need Sens. Gary Peters and Debbie
Stabenow, who are both Democrats, to
take a stand for asylum now.
In April, the Biden administration
announced its plans to put an end to the
recent invocation of the controversial
Title 42 policy, which has been used
under the guise of public health
during the COVID-19 pandemic to
block migrants at the U.S. southern
border from seeking asylum. Since it
was first invoked under the Trump
administration in March of 2020,
there have been more than 1.7 million
expulsions of migrants. These policies
incite fear in a population that has
suffered endlessly. It sends the message
that they are not welcome here when
they need our support the most.
Echoing the wisdom of public health
experts, researchers, advocates and
Democratic leaders, we know that
Title 42 has had no impact on limiting
the spread of COVID-19. It has instead
been used to harm and discriminate
against Black and Latinx migrants
seeking refuge, and it is justified
with anti-immigrant and xenophobic
rhetoric. Using the false pretense of
public health to vilify, reject and expel
asylum seekers at their most vulnerable
is an insult to our state’s and our
nation’s values.
Read more at michigandaily.com
W
hen Justice Samuel
Alito’s draft opinion
— which, if finalized,
would end Roe v. Wade’s 49-year-
long precedent of guaranteeing
the legal right to an abortion
under federal law — was leaked,
the left directed much of its ire
at
the
Republican-appointed
justices on the Supreme Court.
Indeed, it is these conservative
justices,
nominated
by
a
Republican
president
and
confirmed
by
a
Republican-
led Senate, that, ultimately, are
likely to end Roe. The decision
would overturn what has been
described as a super precedent
is a grave violation of the
constitutional
protection
to
privacy and is purely done for
political purposes.
While it is true that it’s
Republicans and conservatives
who have, since Roe’s inception,
worked tirelessly to achieve its
reversal, Democrats and liberals
should understand how they too
helped make it possible.
To do so, one could first look
to the Obama era, when an aging
Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused
to retire, preventing President
Obama
from
nominating
a
younger liberal judge to the
court. Many on the left defended
Ginsburg’s
choice,
arguing
that she shouldn’t be forced
into
retirement.
Tragically,
her decision proved costly, as
Ginsburg died just before the
election
of
President
Biden
and was replaced by a very
conservative judge, Amy Coney
Barrett, who drastically changed
the makeup of the Court.
Read more at michigandaily.com
For some on the left, their despair
over the peril of Roe v. Wade should
start with a look in the mirror
THE MICHIGAN DAILY SUM-
MER EDITORIAL BOARD
DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist
FERNANDA
LIMA
CROSS,
ASHLEY E. CURETON, JOEL
LUCIO & MELISSA STEK