In the end, people have to speak for themselves. So anything any of us say is at best secondhand knowledge and more likely (as in my own case) conjecture.
I don't like the visible surface of Musk's engagement in the wider public conversation. Either as an enabler of the tech (he has made choices which have massive impact in the wide) or as a user (he makes choices to like and comment on content which I regard as divisive and a-social)
But, there is a view that people need to be seen as distinct qualities, and his ability to monetize technology investment and attract smart people into enterprises which make amazing things is visibly there. I think defenses of Musk tend to emphasise this, as if it somehow outweighs the other problems (such as they are)
The other thing is that people are complex. Sometimes, people actually approve of what Musk is doing in public. It brings out a side of the super-rich and smart which I find very unfortunate. I think the diversity of views here (amongst the VC class) interesting: Obviously they value money highly. Obviously, in this niche they value the money-tech nexus highly. But, when it comes to tax, or unions, or social policy, or the astronomical divide between super rich and normal people let alone normal people and poor people, there is a divide: Very few people chose to voice things the way Mark Cuban or Warren Buffet do.
I have never knowingly met PG or Musk. I can only comment on their public persona. I am saddened that PG seems to foster mutuality here, but then backs or excuses behaviours from Musk which are not mutual, are extreme, are destructive to human capital.
X is not "the commons" in any legalistic sense. It has T&C and is backed by diverse investors lending money to Musk as well as his own money. It's not a free speech space. It has historically had editorial policy which was complex but at least visible, pushing back on some extreme right wing voices. Musk made a choice to publicly repudiate that, and then launched his own voice in this space, tending to favour extreme right wing views. That speaks for itself.
I left Twitter half a decade ago. I don't think it's good for my mental health, and I judge from how it's reported on, its not good for Kanye, or Musk, or very probably anyone's mental health, and I also believe (without strong evidence, based solely on reporting in establishment news) that it is being gamed by cyber activists in support of extremist, antisocial political goals. It's probably part and parcel of the destruction of goodwill and mutuality in much of the west.
Thats truly worrysome. Thats why I say being told PG is visibly supportive, or excusing of Musk so concerning. PG has money, and "power" in the wider sense money brings. Using it to validate what Musk does, thats (in my view) bad.
3 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] threadI don't like the visible surface of Musk's engagement in the wider public conversation. Either as an enabler of the tech (he has made choices which have massive impact in the wide) or as a user (he makes choices to like and comment on content which I regard as divisive and a-social)
But, there is a view that people need to be seen as distinct qualities, and his ability to monetize technology investment and attract smart people into enterprises which make amazing things is visibly there. I think defenses of Musk tend to emphasise this, as if it somehow outweighs the other problems (such as they are)
The other thing is that people are complex. Sometimes, people actually approve of what Musk is doing in public. It brings out a side of the super-rich and smart which I find very unfortunate. I think the diversity of views here (amongst the VC class) interesting: Obviously they value money highly. Obviously, in this niche they value the money-tech nexus highly. But, when it comes to tax, or unions, or social policy, or the astronomical divide between super rich and normal people let alone normal people and poor people, there is a divide: Very few people chose to voice things the way Mark Cuban or Warren Buffet do.
I have never knowingly met PG or Musk. I can only comment on their public persona. I am saddened that PG seems to foster mutuality here, but then backs or excuses behaviours from Musk which are not mutual, are extreme, are destructive to human capital.
X is not "the commons" in any legalistic sense. It has T&C and is backed by diverse investors lending money to Musk as well as his own money. It's not a free speech space. It has historically had editorial policy which was complex but at least visible, pushing back on some extreme right wing voices. Musk made a choice to publicly repudiate that, and then launched his own voice in this space, tending to favour extreme right wing views. That speaks for itself.
I left Twitter half a decade ago. I don't think it's good for my mental health, and I judge from how it's reported on, its not good for Kanye, or Musk, or very probably anyone's mental health, and I also believe (without strong evidence, based solely on reporting in establishment news) that it is being gamed by cyber activists in support of extremist, antisocial political goals. It's probably part and parcel of the destruction of goodwill and mutuality in much of the west.
Thats truly worrysome. Thats why I say being told PG is visibly supportive, or excusing of Musk so concerning. PG has money, and "power" in the wider sense money brings. Using it to validate what Musk does, thats (in my view) bad.