Elon Musk is upset. Or maybe not. It’s hard to say. I doubt much actually upsets him, but he occasionally feigns something like irritable anxiety, and because he’s the richest person in the history of the world, we’re all compelled to listen to him.
As you might’ve heard, Musk did, in fact, buy Twitter following an exhausting, monthslong soap opera. Some commentary penned during the course of Musk’s bid for the company and subsequent attempt to back out of the deal, suggested at least a few observers viewed the drama as a singularly ridiculous charade, even as Musk antics go. It ended with the increasingly mercurial centibillionaire owning a company which controls vast amounts of data on hundreds of millions of people, including some of the most important government officials in the world.
How useful that data is I have no idea, and have never pretended to. But, in my opinion, it’s suboptimal for one person to wield the kind of control I assume Musk now has over Twitter’s data, particularly when the company is privately held. In addition, I think it’s entirely fair to describe Musk’s behavior as erratic, although that’s an admittedly subjective assessment. What isn’t so subjective is the contention that Musk is a born-again, right-leaning libertarian who traffics in populist balderdash.
Maybe he was always a libertarian, but by his own account, the rightward lean is at least a little bit new. “In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party,” he said, on May 18. “But they have become the party of division and hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.” He cited no evidence for the “division and hate” characterization, but predicted that soon enough, he’d be the victim of “their dirty tricks.” The next day, Musk said he’d been subjected to a “relentless hatestream from the far left.”
His rhetoric this year is virtually indistinguishable from that of Donald Trump. If you gathered up a collection of Trump’s old tweets, edited them for grammar and punctuation, then put them side-by-side with Musk’s tweets on similar topics, you probably wouldn’t bet your life on being able to say which were Trump’s and which were Musk’s.
Some of Musk’s words and actions since buying Twitter, which he’s fond of characterizing as a “town square,” might be described as “Trumpian.” In the hours and days after acquiring the company, he tossed out ideas for extracting money from users, many of whom aren’t accustomed to paying for Twitter. One idea entailed increasing the cost of a paid product fourfold. He ultimately landed on an $8 monthly fee for an enhanced “Twitter Blue” service, which includes the platform’s sought-after blue verification checkmark.
Like a lot of populists (including and especially Trump), Musk claimed that by giving him money, you’re not only supporting free speech, but in fact contributing to the construction of a better society. “Twitter’s current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn’t have a blue checkmark is bullsh–t,” he declared this week. “Power to the people! Blue for $8/month.”
Again, the language employed in the service of compelling people to part with their money is very much Trumpian. “Save our great Constitution! Just $8 can stop the steal.”
Some companies have paused ad spending on Twitter in order to “monitor this new direction,” as General Mills spokesperson Kelsey Roemhildt put it. In a letter to Twitter advertisers, Musk claimed he wants to make Twitter “the most respected advertising platform in the world,” and said it “obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape.”
The problem, as The New Yorker‘s Kyle Chayka wrote, is that Twitter is “already a hellscape.” Chayka cited a tweet from VC Jason Calacanis, who this week said he wants to “increase joy” on the platform. “The statement struck many Twitter users as especially oblivious,” Chayka went on to write. “Since when has joy been the primary experience or even the aim of using Twitter? The platform thrives on vendettas and Schadenfreude.”
I’ve spent three years waxing philosophical about Musk and addressing the (often uncomfortable) issues raised by the dawn of the centibillionaire epoch. I’ve also indicted Twitter for being a soul-sucking wasteland that’s immeasurably inimical to public discourse — a digital black hole that tempts otherwise sane people to do silly things, like engage with bots and follow accounts run by outlets and individuals known for the dissemination of misinformation and propaganda.
Musk knows all of that, of course. Indeed, some now argue that Musk is himself responsible for the dissemination of misinformation. He didn’t do himself any favors in that regard when he decided to tweet a conspiracy theory related to the assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband. As The Hill detailed, Trump likewise spread misinformation about the incident.
On Friday, Musk, like Trump, implicitly painted himself as a victim while lamenting a “massive drop in revenue” at Twitter, which he said was the result of “activist groups pressuring advertisers.” “Extremely messed up!” Musk exclaimed. “They’re trying to destroy free speech in America.”
Late Thursday, Susan B. Glasser recounted one of many fundraising e-mails sent out by the Trump campaign this week. “The Witch Hunt continues,” it read. “It wasn’t clear from the e-mail what persecution he was referring to, but that wasn’t really the point,” Glasser wrote. “The point was that they were out to get him, whoever ‘they’ are, and it wasn’t fair.”
Perhaps the government should provide tax breaks, incentives and subsidies to help him build a Public Town square, like it did with Tesla and SpaceX.
If I remember history well enough, the Salem Witch Trials (conspiracy theories) — and subsequent witch (non-libertarian) hunts and trials, were fine until fingers began pointing to the wife of the governor of Massachusetts as a witch. At that point, the witch trials were banned by the governor.
If Musk’s pocketbook (as large as it is) is hit due to companies deciding they don’t want to be associated with today’s witch hunts, then is that not an example of free speech? And more importantly, if Musk is encouraging modern-day witch hunts via his Pelosi tweet, then what is a responsible company to do?
Joe McCarthy may be sitting up in his grave and frowning. He may no longer hold the second place position — and might be moved to fourth place behind Salem, Trump and Musk — as one of the best in the business in whipping up hysteria.
I might be wrong, but over the coming weeks I suspect millions of people are going to learn how to pronounce schadenfreude.
Said Elon, “In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party,” he said, on May 18. “But they have become the party of division and hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.”
Of course, Elon. democrats hate everyone and just want to start fights everywhere they go.
Elon is not going down a useful path. In certain realms, he is awkward at best.
When Elon first made the move to buy Twitter, I said it would bite him in the butt. I truly believed he made a mistake and bit off more than he can chew (so to speak). He’s an engineer. He’s not a twittee-type of guy.
Elon has Asperger’s disease. He likes to stay up all night programming computers. He’s “obsessed” with physics and engineering. In a way, with his deep engagement to build electric cars and a vehicle for interplanetary space travel, his obsessions and accomplishments pique our curiosity and inspire our admiration.
But the realm of twittering activity is alien to a guy like him. He will do himself a big favor if he cleans up and puts some form of sheen on Twitter, then sells it at a loss.
I had to look and see what Asperger‘s might imply. I wish the best.
Whether Asperger is a “disease” is debatable, but I get the point of your comment.
Look ahead to when SpaceX is the United States’ only means to get payloads and people to orbit (and bring people back), and Musk decides to be erratic with that.
Yes, this (among other things) is one of my larger concerns about Musk at this point. I trust Zuckerberg more than Musk. I really do. There are things about Mark that feel genuinely “off” (for lack of a better word), and notwithstanding his recent Ukraine tweets, I don’t think Elon would knowingly countenance the kinds of things Facebook did vis-a-vis some of their biggest controversies. At the same time, though, I don’t think Zuckerberg poses the same sort of risks that Musk now does going forward.
There’s a risk, I think, that Elon becomes totally unaccountable and only an outright autocrat in the White House will be capable of reining him in. Mark, on the other hand, will remain nominally accountable and at least pretend to respect government, even if his AI doesn’t. Plus, there’s something innocently silly about the metaverse thing. For what it’s worth, I did buy some Meta on a whim this week. My view now is that either he’s right, and he eventually dominates the augmented reality market, or Reality Labs keeps dragging on the bottom line until finally he’s forced to pivot away from it. If it’s the former, I could absolutely see a dystopian future where “Meta” is everything and everywhere (that could’ve walked right out of a Hollywood screenplay). If it’s the latter, and the pivot doesn’t come too late, the shares could double pretty much immediately. The only question is “Double from where? $95 or $9.50?” Ha.
“Extremely messed up!” Musk exclaimed. “They’re trying to destroy free speech in America.”
I would think if you’re charging 8 bucks to use twitter, maybe he’s the one destroying “free” speech.
I don’t know how Musk can so badly misconstrue what the free speech is. If anything, this is a perfect example of people voting with their dollars. Last I checked, that’s a basic tenet of capitalism and libertarianism.
The comparison to Trump is becoming more apt every day.
Prior to social media, internet, etc. there was a “natural barrier” to having a large audience.
Free speech was available prior to the advent of social media, however, someone who went out on a street corner and started saying stuff might have an audience of 25 people on their best day. Writing a letter to an editor of a national newspaper took time and effort, as well. Unless someone said something that was meaningful and true (as in the message resonated)- their audience became uninterested and moved on. It was only with the passage of time that certain people could prove themselves with more and bigger audiences. (Lincoln).
This took not only time, but effort! One had to not only shower, dress, schedule speaking engagements and physically move around to communicate their message, they did not have access to unlimited speaking opportunities and so they “prepared”- as in written in advance, edited, researched, contemplated and fact checked.(MLK)
Now, from sweats on the couch, people can post anything, on a whim, at 2am (rarely does anything “good” happen at 2am) and that message can then boomerang around.(Trump, Musk)
Maybe Twitter will disintegrate (wishful thinking).
I feel like we’ve entered into the era of the adult participation trophy. If you deservedly get criticized, you can claim you are being unfairly canceled and suppressed by unseen dark forces. And now anyone can run for office and win, merely by announcing their candidacy, then renouncing the election they lost. The markets merely reflect our dystopia — good is bad and bad is good. Which will prevail? The bull steepener (no one loses and everyone wins) or the bear flattener (everyone loses and no one wins)?
I just hope all these star link satellites he is sending up are for communications and not some “Dr. evil”plot to take over the world, lol
Have you guys seen any of those at night? First time I saw them it freaked the shit out of me, never seen nothing like that before!
We’ve seen Musk’s act before. You’re an engineering genius, build groundbreaking companies and become the richest person in the world. Then it makes perfect sense that you are the smartest person who ever lived and, therefore, should be running the show. And, it never turns out well.