I have some questions for Elon Musk

If Elon is going to platform Nazis and war criminals, he needs to own those decisions.

After doing an interview with a BBC journalist this week via Twitter Spaces, Elon Musk announced on Friday that he will be doing a series of interviews with journalists “across the political spectrum” in the coming days. Given that Musk apparently thinks BBC is the left-wing equivalent of Tucker Carlson (yes, really), it’s hard to believe that he will actually be engaging with journalists who truly represent the full ideological spectrum. But even more importantly, he almost certainly won’t be engaging with journalists — or others in the public sphere — who not only represent diverse viewpoints, but who have the requisite expertise to challenge him on specific claims he has made and others which he has denied.

We know, for example, that one of the journalists — if we can even call him that — who will be interviewing Elon Musk is Tucker Carlson, a hyperpartisan pundit who produces entertainment content and regularly peddles disinformation and Russian propaganda. The interview will air in two parts, on Monday and Tuesday night, and will reportedly cover topics including artificial intelligence, Musk’s ownership of Twitter, the future of Tesla, and the latest SpaceX launch. You can also likely to expect to hear quite a bit about the “Twitter Files,” which Carlson covered breathlessly and spun into new conspiracy theories on a nightly basis.

What you shouldn’t expect to hear is anything that approaches a hard-hitting interview. Since taking over Twitter, Musk has rarely — if ever — had to explain his management of the platform to a questioner with both the expertise and the opportunity to challenge Musk on his erratic leadership, questionable decision-making, and unfounded claims, nor has he had to acknowledge the increasing national security threat posed by his platform.

During his time as CEO, Musk has re-platformed neo-Nazis, dismantled Twitter’s verification system, algorithmically amplified Russian war propaganda, entered into a secret agreement with the journalist he tapped to write about the “Twitter Files,” and much more. These moves affect every user on the platform, and it’s past time for him to go on the record and own up to his decisions as CEO — or admit he was wrong and denounce them.

So what would a proper interview with Musk look like? Well, a good place to start would be asking questions like these:

1. You frequently make claims about bots and supposed actions that Twitter is taking to mitigate them. For example, in December, you tweeted, “The bots are in for a surprise tomorrow,” and you have repeatedly tweeted claims about bots “swarm[ing] to the top of my replies.” You also claimed that bots make up 90% of replies to your tweets. Given your interest in bots, it seems important to establish how you define and measure bots. What criteria do you use to identify bots? Have these criteria been validated? How are you measuring the prevalence of bots on Twitter, and how did you decide on that methodology? How accurate is it? And what type of interventions is Twitter implementing to reduce bots? How are you measuring the impact of those anti-bot intervention(s)?

2. Last week, you erroneously applied a “state-affiliated media” to NPR’s Twitter account, apparently without understanding what that label meant. As you know, that label has historically been applied to media outlets controlled by autocratic regimes like those in Russia and China, which lack editorial independence and are used as information weapons against democratic societies. Was it your decision to apply that label, or did you act on the suggestion of someone else? Do you really believe NPR is the equivalent of RT or Sputnik? (Follow-up questions and comments: RT is fully funded by the Russian government. In comparison, the government is NPR’s smallest funding source. RT’s editor-in-chief has also proudly compared RT to the ministry of defense and admitted that it is Russia’s “information weapon” against the West. Sputnik was formed by presidential decree under the orders of Vladimir Putin during Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, for the purpose of “report[ing] on the state policy of Russia abroad.” Can you provide any similar examples of NPR’s editor-in-chief describing the outlet as a weapon to be used against other countries, or as a vehicle for spreading U.S. policy abroad? Can you provide any examples of NPR engaging in memetic warfare as RT does?)

3. Your companies have received more than $5 billion from the government. Do you consider your companies government-funded and/or controlled? Shouldn’t Tesla, for example, have a “government-funded” label on its Twitter account, given the significant amount of government subsidies it receives?

4. During your interview with a BBC tech journalist last week, you suggested that there has not been a rise in hate speech on Twitter because the journalist you were speaking to could not provide specific examples of hate speech on the platform. However, multiple independent reports show that hate speech has increased since you took over Twitter. According to one report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, antisemitic tweets more than doubled after your acquisition of Twitter, and the rate of “hateful account creation” tripled. These findings are in line with a December report from the Center for Countering Hate, which found that racist tweets nearly tripled in the two weeks after you acquired the site, while the number of antisemitic tweets increased more than 61 percent. Do you have any evidence to refute this data showing an increase in hate speech since you took over Twitter? Do you really believe that the response of one BBC journalist is representative of the entirety of Twitter?

5. You reinstated the account of Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi who founded Daily Stormer (a website named after a propaganda rag in Nazi Germany). How did that decision get made, who made that decision, did you participate in the decision-making, and why did Twitter think it was a good idea to re-platform a self-identified neo-Nazi who runs a website that celebrated the murder of Heather Heyer?

6. Why did you remove the verification part of the verification process? While it’s true that the previous verification system was flawed, and check marks were often distributed arbitrarily through a process lacking in transparency, you could have fixed those problems while maintaining the primary purpose of account verification, which is the confirmation of the account holder’s identity. Related, you’ve said that requiring users to pay $8/month screens out the vast majority of bots, but what about other problematic and/or harmful accounts? For example, Twitter has verified the accounts of Russian propagandists pushing disinformation and war propaganda, as well as the accounts of white nationalist Richard Spencer and Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler. Are you comfortable with this? If not, how did you not anticipate this happening, and what does that say about your ability to foresee problems on the platform?

   (Related: I designed a verification system for Twitter that I think is superior to any other system in use today, both in terms of being useful and user-friendly, as well as giving users the most choice. It accounts for multiple types of identity verification [e.g., professional vs. personal] and allows users to choose which level[s] of verification they want, depending on how they use the platform and how much anonymity they want to retain. It also includes built-in features designed to reduce misinformation and platform manipulation. Why aren’t you using this system yet?)

7. You tweeted recently that the best way to fight misinformation is by providing more accurate information, rather than censoring information. This is factually inaccurate — more information does not, in fact, solve the problem of misinformation in most cases — and also presents a false dichotomy, offering up an ineffective solution as the only alternative to censorship. If you don’t even fact-check your own tweets, what message is that sending to Twitter users about the value of truth on the platform?

8. You frequently engage with right-wing influencers, including several who are notorious for spreading disinformation, and have repeatedly tweeted far-right dog-whistles about things like red-pilling and QAnon. You have consistently portrayed liberals as pro-censorship while failing to mention that Republicans have actually engaged in more censorship requests. Given your manipulation of information and amplification of partisan disinformation, why should users and investors have any confidence in your ability to lead a global communications platform with fairness and transparency?

9. Who is advising you on how to run Twitter? Who is giving you ideas for new policies and procedures? What are their qualifications and why are you taking their advice? How are you ensuring that you aren’t being used as an unwitting agent of someone else’s agenda? How often do you consult with scholars studying mis/disinformation, influence, propaganda, and other forms of deception? Which scholars have you consulted?

10. Matt Taibbi said he “had to agree to certain conditions” when you tapped him to cover the “Twitter Files.” What were those conditions?

I don’t expect that Elon Musk will be answering my questions anytime soon, but at least it won’t be for lack of trying.