In an era of tech plutocrats and disillusioned social media, billions of people are affected because the epitome of innovation in the 21st century is controlled by a few slothy, sleezy, snobbish characters. What if our leaders didn’t hide behind their formalities? Could Threads vs Twitter start a wave of competitive leaders?

On July 5th, 2023, social media giants Meta released a mini-text blogging app called Threads. The app offers users the ability to post texts, images, and videos as well as react to other users’ posts, notably called ‘threads’. The release of this app is mainly due to the consecutive failures from the top mini-text blogging app, Twitter, because of Elon Musk’s views on content moderation and company management. Basically, Meta is capitalizing on the demise of Twitter as a way for them to obtain dominance over another part of the social media sphere.

And this move from Meta, lead by tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, has brought a whole plethora of narratives, problems, questions, and conflicts in a variety of fields. From Meta’s increasing monopoly on social media, the future of Twitter, the notorious reaction from Twitter owner, Elon Musk, and a potential UFC bout between Musk and Zuckerberg that has the world in disbelief; this event will be one for the ages. 

Firstly, in regards to Meta’s presence over social media, it’s important to know that Meta already owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. With the potential dominance of Threads, it results in the question of whether Meta could be encroaching on societies freedom of speech online. One of the big things about social media is that social media apps are used by all types of people for all types of reasons. However, social media apps are privately held corporations, therefore they can legally censor whatever they want. This poses a big problem for regulators in enforcing society’s freedom of speech and ensuring no corruption takes place. Especially in Meta’s case, with the controversies of the 2016 American election haunting their past, giving them more influence on social media doesn’t seem to be the smartest solution. 

With Twitter being notorious for its lack of censorship, and Meta being on the other side of the spectrum with tougher censorship, will taking away Twitter’s dominance leave people with less of an ability to speak their mind?

Despite this, Twitter’s lack of censorship has resulted in it being a highly toxic community with a poor management team.  So, is it a good thing that Twitter is failing, or a bad thing?

Personally, I’m leaning towards Meta in this situation. Afterall, if they can do a better job than somebody else, as long as we as a people keep them in check, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be responsible for keeping that job. 

With such a fork in the future of social media at stake, it shows as to why Musk and Zuckerberg take it as seriously as they do. 

Regardless of whether Twitter or Threads should remain supremacy, the one thing I revere from Elon Musk in this case is how he reacted to the rivalry, with the proposal of an MMA fight between himself and Mark Zuckerberg. While I don’t condone violence, I’ve gotten sick and tired of people, especially billionaires, hiding behind phone screens and saying whatever they want. In the case of billionaires, the pettiness with which they deal with their problems is beyond childish. 

So, seeing two billionaires who’ve already had their fair share of pointless bickering actually agree to fight it out publicly, and probably earn a little respect for each other is great in more ways than I can imagine. 

For the majority of human society, when two leaders were to wage war, their leaders would be the first ones to charge headfirst into battle. This is to show that they aren’t above the soldiers they command and helps establish loyalty. 

However, in recent times, while the wars have switched from physical to societal, seldom do our leaders charge headfirst into battle. In fact, the last time this happened was in WW1, with the King of Belgium, Albert the First. 

Regardless of whether Musk or Zuckerberg win, they’ll still own billions. In contrast, their employees and users of their applications will suffer. For too long have billionaires been hiding in ivory towers while the majority of people suffer. So, seeing the two of them do something people can relate to with a potentially life-threatening UFC fight, it brings back the etiquette that leaders have long forgotten.  

Furthermore, whoever wins the fight gains an advantage in the business war. History shows that the winner of duels such as these usually end up winning over people’s hearts. This is because it shows that they’re either more physically capable or more skilled to complete the job. As such, the winner of said fight might actually end up winning the whole contextual war. 

Lastly, it might start a trend for people to stop saying nonsense from a place they can’t be touched. Like, imagine Trump and Biden facing off against each other in something bigger than words, it might make that person’s promises seem more legitimate! This could lead to stronger world leaders, stronger business leaders, and a stronger society in general. 

While the sad truth behind most of such things is that it’s just publicity and will never happen, in the small case scenario that we see Musk and Zuckerberg fight in an octagon, I think it’ll be a plus for our society in general. Hopefully, our clownish billionaires will soon take off their caps.