Is Elon Musk Misappropriating Twitter?

Does Musk’s “Love-In” With Trump Bring the Acquisition of Twitter into New Light?

Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022 marked a significant shift in the platform’s trajectory. Initially celebrated for his innovative ventures with Tesla and SpaceX, Musk’s foray into social media ownership has been fraught with controversy. His subsequent association with former President Donald Trump has further complicated public perception. This article delves into Musk’s actions post-acquisition and examines the implications of his relationship with Trump.

The Marketing Made Clear Podcast

This article features content from the Marketing Made Clear Podcast – check it out on all good platforms.

Musk’s Vision for Twitter

Upon acquiring Twitter for $44 billion, Musk articulated his vision of transforming the platform into an “everything app” akin to China’s WeChat. He rebranded Twitter as “X” and introduced features such as long-form texts, account monetisation options, audio-video calls, and integration with xAI’s Grok chatbot. However, these changes were accompanied by the removal of several legacy features, including Circles and NFT profile pictures. Musk’s overarching goal was to promote free speech on the platform. Critics, however, argue that these moves have led to an increase in misinformation and hate speech.

Content Moderation and Free Speech

Musk’s commitment to free speech led to significant changes in content moderation policies. He reinstated previously banned accounts, including those of controversial figures, and reduced the platform’s moderation efforts. This approach was intended to foster open dialogue but resulted in a surge of hate speech and misinformation. A report by Brookings Institution noted that Musk’s potential plans to loosen moderation guidelines could further exacerbate these issues.

The real question at this point in this article (for me) is intention.

Freedom of speech is important – and I’m not an advocate for systemic censorship, but I feel that there should be accountability for what people say. The fact that anyone can create anonymous Twitter/X accounts and spread offensive and hateful content with no repercussions is a manipulation of free speech.

Using freedom of speech as a justification for being offensive has lead to real-world consequences, such as damaged relationships, job loss, and diminished respect from others and society. While the right to express oneself is fundamental, thriving in a community requires adhering to a basic social contract—one that may not be legally enforced but is essential for mutual respect and coexistence.

But again, if your Twitter account is anonymous, there is no accountability to real-world consequences.

Financial and Operational Challenges

Musk’s management style, characterised by mass layoffs and demanding performance expectations, mirrored his approach at other ventures. He reduced Twitter’s workforce by approximately 80%, aiming to streamline operations. However, these cuts raised concerns about the platform’s ability to manage content effectively and maintain technical stability.

An easy solution is to just not bother with that though… right?

Additionally, Musk’s decision to implement a subscription-based verification system faced criticism for potentially enabling the spread of misinformation by allowing anyone to purchase verification status. I think we are seeing a trend develop now?

Association with Donald Trump

Now is where I think this discussion gets interesting…

It’s widely reported that Musk’s relationship with Donald Trump has evolved from initial skepticism to active support. In the 2024 presidential election, Musk emerged as Trump’s largest individual donor, contributing nearly $277 million to pro-Trump groups. He also founded the America PAC, a super PAC supporting Trump’s campaign (an ironic side-note is that all web traffic outside the USA is blocked from the website), and appointed himself as the head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency in Trump’s administration.

This alliance has drawn criticism from those who view it as a convergence of corporate power and political influence.

In walks Joe Rogan…

Musk has appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast five times (to date), with his first appearance dating back to 2018. Donald Trump appeared on the podcast in 2024, amassing 27 million views on YouTube alone, undoubtably influencing the US election.

I, along with many others were fascinated with Elon Musk’s first appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. He came across well; intelligent, considered… futuristic!? (it seemed it at the time). There didn’t seem to be any agenda at that point, and maybe there wasn’t, but knowing what we know now – It’s not clear.

At this point I have to say that this is just my opinion – a personal opinion, informed by experience in PR and marketing, but here we go…

In retrospect, Elon Musk’s appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience now seem more like carefully orchestrated PR moves rather than the candid, unfiltered conversations they were initially perceived to be. When Musk first sat down with Rogan in 2018, famously smoking marijuana on air, it painted him as an eccentric genius, unafraid to challenge convention. At the time, this bolstered his image as a maverick entrepreneur, but with the benefit of hindsight, these appearances feel increasingly performative.

As both Musk and Rogan have since aligned themselves more openly with right-wing figures, including Donald Trump, their conversations now appear less like spontaneous deep dives into technology and philosophy and more like calculated steps in a broader ideological shift. What once seemed like organic musings now feel like a strategic play to cultivate a certain audience, further blurring the lines between entertainment, influence, and political positioning.

Although the focus of this article is Elon Musk and Twitter, the same questions go for Joe Rogan; have they used their respective platforms inappropriately to further Trump’s agenda?

Public Perception and Cultural Impact

Elon Musk’s actions have sparked sharply divided opinions, reflecting the broader political and cultural polarisation in society. A poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Americans have similar views on Musk and Trump, with around 40% viewing each favourably and about half viewing each unfavourably. This alignment in public perception underscores how Musk, once predominantly seen as a visionary entrepreneur, has increasingly become a political and ideological figure.

This precarious positioning raises an important question about media influence: could figures like Musk and Rogan actually tip elections?

While it’s impossible to quantify the precise impact their platforms have on political outcomes, the reality is that social media and podcasting wield significant influence over public discourse. Joe Rogan, for instance, has built a reputation on The Joe Rogan Experience as an independent thinker, yet his increasing platforming of right-wing figures – such as Trump and controversial political commentators – raises questions about his impact on audience sentiment.

Unlike Musk, however, Rogan owns his own podcast, meaning he has the autonomy to shape its direction without fundamentally altering an existing platform. And an important distinction is that Rogan publishes his content on platforms like YouTube and Spotify, and is subject to the moderation of those platforms.

Musk’s stewardship of Twitter/X, on the other hand, represents a deliberate manipulation of an established platform, with significant consequences for political discourse. One of the most contentious criticisms is that Musk has altered Twitter’s algorithm in ways that favour right-wing content. Many users have noticed that Trump-related posts – often from pro-Trump accounts – are seemingly prioritised, while opposition voices have either left the platform or found themselves drowned out.

Reports from The Guardian and The Washington Post suggest that Musk’s changes have disproportionately amplified conservative voices, leading critics to label X a right-wing echo chamber.

The introduction of the “For You” timeline – which promotes algorithmically recommended content – has exacerbated these concerns. Unlike the traditional “Following” timeline (which exclusively shows posts from accounts a user follows), the “For You” feed displays content from accounts users don’t follow. There is growing evidence that this system inherently promotes right-wing accounts, whether due to deliberate weighting or because engagement metrics favour polarising content. Various studies, including that of Oxford Academic and Arxiv found that right-leaning accounts were disproportionately amplified, leading to increased visibility for conservative talking points and misinformation.

If the claims of in-built political bias are correct, then Musk’s position of free speech is hypocritical.

However, Musk has denied claims of political bias, insisting that X is merely a space for free speech. However, as covered, his frequent interactions with right-wing influencers, his reinstatement of previously banned accounts (including Trump’s), and his own increasingly controversial political takes suggest otherwise. Whether intentional or not, the net result is that X has become less of a public square and more of a curated environment that aligns with Musk’s personal ideology.

Ultimately, Musk’s influence on political discourse extends beyond X itself.

By positioning himself alongside figures like Trump and Rogan, he has moved from being a tech entrepreneur to an active political player. The long-term consequences of this shift – both for Musk and for the broader media landscape – remain to be seen, but one thing is clear: his ownership of X has changed the nature of political conversation on social media, possibly for good.

Some Kind of Conclusion

Let’s get back to that original question – “Is Elon Musk Misappropriating Twitter?”

In my opinion the answer is Yes. But the answer is really more complex – and this plays to Musk’s advantage. But if we define misappropriation as using a platform in a way that distorts its original purpose for personal, ideological, or political gain. His changes to Twitter’s algorithm have disproportionately amplified right-wing content, turning X into what many see as an ideological echo chamber rather than a true public square.

Musk’s growing political entanglement, particularly his role as the largest individual donor to Trump’s 2024 campaign, has further eroded trust in his claims of neutrality. Financially, his drastic restructuring – including mass layoffs, paid verification, and a declining ad market – suggests that X is being moulded to fit Musk’s personal vision rather than its users’ needs.

Musk argues that he is saving Twitter from financial collapse, restoring free speech, and evolving it into an “everything app” like WeChat. However, if this transformation results in ideological bias, the suppression of dissenting voices )by being drowned out), and a platform that alienates significant user demographics, then it can be seen as misappropriation rather than genuine innovation. While private ownership gives him the legal right to shape X as he pleases, his stewardship has not upheld the platform’s original role as a neutral digital town square. Instead, it has become a space increasingly aligned with his personal ideology, which critics argue makes it less democratic, more chaotic, and ultimately self-serving.

Elon Musk’s “stewardship” of Twitter represents a complex interplay between technological innovation, free speech advocacy, and political engagement. While his vision has introduced notable changes to the platform, it has also sparked debates about the responsibilities of social media ownership and the potential consequences of intertwining corporate and political interests. As Musk continues to shape the landscape of digital communication, the long-term repercussions of his actions remain a subject of close scrutiny.