Add a Comment   Listen to Podcast   Up to OJB's Blog List

Let Musk Fix It

Entry 2213, on 2022-04-22 at 13:13:49 (Rating 3, News)

I have said in this blog many times in the past that I am not into hero worship. Everyone is a mixture of good and bad, right and wrong, brilliance and stupidity. But at the same time I am not interested in the ridiculous idea that everyone is the same and should expect the same outcomes, either.

So when a person succeeds financially I don't automatically assume that they are greedy, egotistical, or arrogant, just like I don't assume they are generous, altruistic, or humble. I think there are people who are very rich who are completely useless in terms of their greater contribution to society, but there are others who are genuinely brilliant and who have a massive positive involvement.

I saw a defence of big business once which claimed it should be valued because of the employment it provides for so many workers. Sure, some large corporations do provide a lot of employment, but they also destroy a lot of it. For example, Amazon employs over a million people, but how many lost their jobs after Amazon killed off so many smaller competitors? I suspect it could be more than the number they now employ, although I have not been able to find a reliable number for this.

At the same time Amazon is extremely popular, and it must be providing something people want, so it's OK to make a case supporting it from that perspective, at least. And Bezos is using some of his vast wealth for interesting projects, like the aerospace company, Blue Origin.

I find it hard to admire Bezos too much, but I don't indulge in simplistic good guy and bad guy dichotomies so I will just say he is doing some things right, but a lot of things wrong, too.

You might have guessed by now where this is heading: yes, there is a rich entrepreneur who I do admire far more, and that is Elon Musk. Note that I am not saying he is perfect and Bezos is evil. They are both on a scale which goes from total disgust to total admiration. No one is at the extreme, but Musk has a far greater score on this scale (for me) than Bezos.

There is another philosophical point I want to make before I make my main argument here. That is, that while I understand that private companies are not technically constrained by many of the same rules as government - especially in relation to free speech - there is a point where a company becomes so dominant that I think it has influence almost as much as a government, so that some of those controls should apply.

Of course, I am talking about Twitter here, and Musk's attempted takeover of that company, which has been met with great enthusiasm in some sections of society, and total horror in others!

So first, does it matter. Is Twitter actually important? Well yes, it is. I think a major problem with its credibility is the name. Here's the definition that many people think of: 1 talk in a light, high-pitched voice: old ladies in the congregation twittered; 2 talk rapidly and at length in a trivial way: he twittered on about buying a new workshop. That doesn't exactly invoke an image of serious and rational discussion or debate, does it?

The second issue is that Twitter is a place where genuinely "robust" discussions tend to take place. I debate people in multiple places (mainly Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter) and the most vicious responses to some of my posts tend to come from Twitter. I often post something mildly controversial and just wait for the "feeding frenzy" or rabid social justice warriors to attack!

Of course, I wrote the comment knowing it might cause trouble, so I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that is the type of environment it is.

The final issue with Twitter is its bias. While they deny it, I think there is a very clear left-wing bias there. There have been numerous examples of controversial left oriented tweets being allowed while apparently less harmful tweets from the right get their writers banned.

So it looks like Twitter is a mess. Why do I bother? Why not just abandon it and source my information from elsewhere? Well, despite the problems I mentioned above, Twitter has become the place for serious announcements, commentary, news, and opinions to be expressed. It is important as well as being problematic.

At this point I have established (at least to a standard I accept) that Twitter is important, that it has some moral (if not legal) obligation to be fair and balanced, and that Elon Musk is a brilliant person who might be able to make it better.

Of course, many people on the left are losing their minds over this, for two main reasons: first, they don't want to lose the massive pro-left bias they currently enjoy at Twitter; and second, many people just intrinsically dislike Musk, because he is a rich and successful business person (just like they tend to dislike other successful people). And need I even mention the fact that he belongs to that most denigrated group "old white guys"?

Here is a tweet showing this general theme: "I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."

I don't think this is technically true, because Musk has already talked about how there must be some limitations, but I think we need less limitations, and most importantly, we need the limitations that do exist to be applied fairly. And whether more control over free speech is better for democracy is highly debatable.

Here's another rather hysterical and poorly informed tweet on the subject: "Elon Musk wants free speech for everyone. Translation: Musk wants hate speech with no consequences." And a response to this: "Since 'hate' is just something you broadly apply to anyone who doesn't comply with your progressive ideals... yes, that is exactly what he wants, and why."

These arguments concerning "hate speech" and "consequences" are becoming rather tiresome. It seems that people with no real argument just like to drop in the words "hate speech" and they think their job is done. No, it isn't. All they have succeeded in doing is using a meaningless catch-phrase which shows how lacking in original thought they really are.

And this argument about consequences is also devoid of any real understanding. Sure, there are consequences for free speech, but are they fair? If I make a factual, relevant statement on Twitter and get my account cancelled because it disagrees with Twitter's preferred political perspective, is that a fair consequence? It's the fairness and appropriateness of consequences that we should be concerned with.

Another argument made by many journalists is that having a rich individual with control over an important information source is a bad idea. But yet again they shoot themselves in the foot, because this point was made by a reporter at the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos. Honestly, these people are so stupid, you couldn't make this stuff up!

But it gets worse from there, because (so-called) reporters from other companies have made various claims against Musk, such as: he is pro-fascist, the company Tesla is racist, he wants to "spew bile" in the name of free speech, and he is acting based on his memories of apartheid from South Africa (his country of birth). Needless to say, I have never seen a single fact supporting any of these opinions.

When Tesla was going through a difficult phase about 5 years back, Musk turned up at the factory every day so that the workers knew he was enduring the pain with them. He slept on the floor of the production line. He doesn't own a house, or a yacht, or many of the other trappings of extreme wealth. He provided connectivity for Ukraine using his StarLink system to help them with communications for the war against Russia.

He seems like a genuinely thoughtful, caring person, who just happens to be the richest person in the world. Being rich doesn't make you a great person, but it doesn't make you an evil person either. We should evaluate people based on what they do rather than who they are or what they say. Based on this idea, I think Elon Musk is the most important person in the world right now.

He's doing amazing work in so many areas already, but I would like to see that extend to Twitter as well. Fixing free speech isn't easy, but it has to be done.

Comment 1 (7144) by Anonymous on 2022-05-02 at 11:46:25:

I think you are a bit infatuated. Better to think that people are complex and multi-dimensional - Musk included. While he may be brilliant in some ways, he is also deeply flawed in others (see the May 1 Q&A interview with substack founder and Musk colleague).

Comment 2 (7146) by OJB on 2022-05-02 at 14:14:05:

I am a bit infatuated, but with good reason. While everyone is a mixture of good and bad characteristics, I think it is undeniable that Musk has achieved a lot; I would say more than anyone else on the planet. Surely that's worth a certain amount of admiration?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.