I do not actually know if Elon Musk was initially serious about asking whether the public wants him to step down as head of Twitter or not. And whether he expected the result he is getting is another topic of discussion all together. But then, 2 days into this poll, already 57% of respondents are not happy with his "one man" Twitter business. This gives us a little insight into who people want the decision makers to be - at least not one person.
The developments over the few months that Musk took over Twitter has provided solid argument for web3 - with decentralization at the core. In this article, I will use Twitter as an example of what happens in a system where one person has all the power.
The challenges of centralized social governance - Twitter
We are still with Twitter in this discussion. Musk shows in its entirety all the failings that manifest in a system where there is a singular central authority. The first weakness can be seen in Musk's erratic decision-making. We have seen him fire and hire at will in the weeks past. He talks about freedom of thought and decision making, but I seriously doubt if he believes that. But then, as a Twitter staff, your view of the next Twitter operation can make you loose your job. In fact Musk has shown that he can fire over little things like - if he does not like your face. Is that how freedom should be defined?
A decentralized system can only make decisions and take actions based on consensus. The wisdom of a crowd of participants in the system is trusted over the feelings of one person. In a web3 decentralized project, everyone must agree before the decision is taken. If there is no consensus, nothing happens. The most interesting part is that the decision makers are usually those that have stakes in the system. In the Twitter case, it should be the hordes of investors that provided the financial backing to keep Twitter alive. No that these investors are neither considered or consulted while taking decisions, they have no other power than to pull off their investment - as we are seeing many big businesses leave Twitter.
Another big weakness of a one man show as we have seen in with Musk's business empire is censorship. Right now Twitter is looking for a 'suitable' candidate to head the organization if one is found and Musk is willing to step down. But then, why does Musk want to step down. Probably to allow another person to take the vital decisions. If a new person is appointed, will Musk allow them to run Twitter the way it should be run? Will he allow the new leader to take decisions that without Musk's approval? As long as Musk is still the overall Boss, he is still completely in charge - whether he steps down and appoints a new person or not.
The point here is that web3 is built to be censorship resistant. Participants in a web3 project are free to think, feel and act the way they want. When reaching for a consensus for example, each participant is free to express their view or cast their vote without external interference - and that is the type of social governance the world is longing to see. Musk must have been surprised that many respondents wanted him to step down. The truth is that if such poll was conducted before Musk did most of the things he has done, the result would have been a lot different. So the future of social governance is the web3 model - where decentralization is key and participants want to be the decision-makers.
Finally, Twitter and all web 2 projects have shown that investors could be at risk of loosing their investment. You can see that in the way Twitter was quickly sold because of financial reasons. Again, you can see too, that each decision Musk took, continues to bring down Twitter stock in the market. Maybe that necessitated the Twitter pool. Investors watch in horror as Musk makes blunders of his decisions without acknowledging that these have effect on investments. Basically, money can be lost because one man can wake up tomorrow and and no longer likes the sound of your breadth.
Web3 projects give power to those that should have the power - participants in the system (investors and users alike). They make the decisions because it can mean profit or loss to their stakes. They are conscious and critical when taking any steps or actions in the system. And they are responsible for whatever comes from their vote. It creates that feeling of satisfaction when you loose value or assets based on your decisions, and not that you loose by helplessly watching someone ruin your investments with their lifestyle.
Basically, I can say that web3 projects put the driver in the driving seat, letting then have full control or participation in every decision-making in the system.
Web3 is now and the future - the Twitter drama continues..
Decentralization is the core component of web3 projects. Unfortunately for Twitter investors and users, Musk is still the boss. Whether he will find his curated replacement and if he will be willing to step down remains to be seen. The crowd has spoken their mind. They are already tired of his drama. It seems to have no end. Twitter is just a case study, but this is what is obtainable in all projects that are not web3.
Personally, I am excited to belong to the web3 blockchain and a member or Leo Finance, a community that has all the web3 principles at the core. Web3 is the most preferred and profitable social governance model. The earlier you embrace and adopt it, the better for you and your assets.