Last Thursday, after months of query, Elon Musk closed his$ 44- billion deal to buy social media platform Twitter. Musk wasted no time getting down to business, removing four top directors of the company including principal administrative officer, Parag Agrawal and principal fiscal officer, Ned Segal.

But the capstone of the deal has put Twitter in an unknown space — as a intimately possessed, global public platform. In an decreasingly polarised world, where platforms, including Twitter, frequently come under review for the opinions they take and, at times, they do n’t, and when there’s a growing drive back by governments against Big Tech over the governance of global public platforms, the new proprietor has his task cut out.

Both Tesla and SpaceX, companies that have propelled Musk to the top of the global rich lists, have been introducing enterprise. Both have been assiduity leaders, revolutionising the electric vehicles member and the aerospace assiduity. They’ve advantaged consumers by bringing down costs, and lowering entry walls. In both these areas, Musk has displayed an uncanny capability to not only articulate a bracing vision, but to insure its fructification.

But Twitter is another beast. As one of the most extensively used social media platforms in the world, it lies at the crossroad of society, politics and government. And considering the critical part it plays in the dispersion of news and the shaping of global public opinion, it wields immense power. still, its opinions in the history, including the manner in which it effectively blocked former US President Donald Trump, have been considered to be shrouded in nebulosity, with numerous criminating the platform of not being either responsible or transparent in its decision- making process.

While it’s too early to gasp judgement, turning Twitter private may maybe reduce the translucency and scrutiny that comes naturally from being a intimately listed company. The robe of secretiveness that comes with being a intimately possessed company as well the sheer indispensability of social media platforms in itself warrant a more robust and elaborate system of checks and balances and far lesser translucency and responsibility.

More so when there’s the possibility of conflict of interest. After all, the new proprietor has business dealings with governments across the world, indeed those who aren’t open to his views on free speech — Musk has described himself as a free speech absolutist.

This has touched off both enthusiasm and alarm. How he addresses the contentious issues of hate speech and intimation will be keenly watched. The preemption, which comes at a tumultuous moment with the West facing acute profitable fermentation while a war enthusiasms on in Europe and an ambitious China aggressively maps its own line is, incontrovertibly, a moment of dislocation. The stakes could n’t be advanced.