Musk sort of realised that buying Twitter was a
mistake after his initial enthusiasm died down, for a $44 billion punt on an
unprofitable social media platform is a risky move even for the world’s richest
man. But by then he was legally committed, and after thrashing on the hook for
a bit he decided to accept his fate and try to make it work for him.
He now styles himself ‘Chief Twit’, which suggests a certain ruefulness about
the project he has lumbered himself with, but he is pressing on regardless. He
has already fired the three Twitter senior execs, Parag Agrawal, Ned Segal, and
Vijaya Gadde, who were most responsible for suckering him into the deal. (They
walked away with $100 million.)
The next step is presumably laying off somewhere between 25% and 75% of the
workforce (he has mentioned both figures), to create a leaner, ‘freer’ Twitter, not weighed down by legions of ‘moderators’ who try to eliminate the
nastiest posts.
Musk is aware of the risks this involves because 90% of Twitter’s (inadequate)
revenue comes from advertisers who will not want the reputational damage that
using a completely unmonitored site would bring them. That’s why he promised
last Thursday that it will not become “a free-for-all hellscape, where anything
can be said with no consequences!”
However, General Motors (admittedly a rival car maker) has already
‘paused’ it's advertising on Twitter pending evidence that it won’t become a
‘hellscape’. Others may follow, for Musk’s rhetoric about being a “free speech
absolutist” points precisely in that direction.
But why should we care about any of this? ‘Arrogant billionaire bites the dust’
is generally a satisfactory headline, and Musk’s politics are the drearily
predictable sound-bites of the self-justifying ultra-rich. (He says he is
thinking of backing the Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, for
president in 2024.)
We should care because Elon Musk has chosen to use his wealth for the benefit
of mankind. Not for the benefit of individual human beings, of course – the
ultra-rich are almost never interested in that – but of the human race as a
whole. Worse motives are imaginable.
In many ways Musk matches the classic stereotype of the sociopath. He’s male,
very intelligent, and highly manipulative. He has many children by many
partners. He is probably devoid of real empathy (although he has learned to
speak the language). But he really is benign, no more cruel or selfish than the
average human being.
The two technologies he has brought from experimental one-offs to everyday
commercial vehicles – Tesla electric cars and Space-X’s family of workhorse
rockets – were chosen explicitly because they address the two biggest threats
to the human future: the immediate threat of climate change, and the long-term
vulnerability of a one-planet species.
Musk might have wound up rich even without these goals, but that’s what drove
him to amass all that money – and it worked. Tesla is not just the car that
forced other car-makers to bring EVs to the market too. The batteries that Musk
pioneered for cars and then for larger-scale electricity storage underpin the
entire enterprise of wind and solar energy.
He may not live to see the creation of genuinely self-sustaining human colonies
off-Earth – that’s probably at least a century-long project – but if he stays
solvent he will probably live to see the first human beings establish some sort
of foothold on Mars. And it will be because Space-X has cut the cost of
boosting payload into orbit a hundredfold.
Neither of these things was ‘ bound to happen’. They happened because Elon Musk
decided to make them happen. They were ways in which his particular skills
could contribute to the future of the human race, and in both cases they were
right on target.
His work is not finished, and Space-X in particular could still founder without
his leadership and his cash flow. His skill set is not relevant to running a
social media platform, but Twitter will be a mighty distraction for him and all
his other enterprises could end up on the rocks as a result.
Musk’s finances are not exactly transparent, but it is clear that much of the
money to buy Twitter comes out of his own pockets or from bank loans
secured on his properties. The sensible thing would be to get out fast and
absorb his losses, but it is not clear that anybody else would want to buy the
company.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
![](/img/placeholder.png)
I wish Elon well with Twitter and hope he allows all people to speak and not just one side of political support as it had become, after all, free speech should be for everyone, not just those that the previous ‘Twitter’ bosses agreed with.
Good luck to Elon.
By JG from Algarve on 05 Nov 2022, 05:41
I am glad the site posted a disclaimer as to the views expressed here for the opinion is nothing more than a Musk fanpage-quality article. 'Benign sociopath', is there such an animal? I don't think so! Musk is a narsisistic, ego-maniacal mysoginist with possibly other mental-health issues. He probably has autism too - which he cannot help, but could get help for. Not sure about his other traits. The piece gives him credit for driving the e-vehicle industry, but on examination he wasn't the first or most innovative, using instead tried and tested technologies for his early vehicles. The charge that he cares for the future of humanity is unproven too. A desire to colonise another planet rather than helping save the current one isn't exactly either practical or even desirable. His cars aren't that 'green' in any case, with the build impact on the planet actually higher that an ICE vehicle (all the heavy metals in the motors and batteries). So he is not the Messiah, like other billionaires, he is a 'very naughty boy!'. ????
By Russell Taylor from Other on 07 Nov 2022, 17:00