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