African Musk: Not a Fragrance

[Fitzcarraldo]

Mr. Free Speech is at it again:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/tech/...uit/index.html

[filghy2]

It's usually revealing when someone blames bigotry on the people being targeted by the bigots.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...witter/675235/

[broncofan]

I liked most of that article by Yair Rosenberg in the Atlantic and think it sums up the situation pretty well.

Ironically, I don't think Musk has really strong opinions about Jews, which is surprising given his actions in boosting accounts that violently threaten and dehumanize Jews. The people he civilly discusses ADL overreach with, by coincidence, also happen to call Jews rats, think the Holocaust was a hoax, and make veiled references about harming us, but in exactly the same way they claim we weren't harmed. He simply does not care that they believe these things as they are not minor insults to him, but potential major threats to people who are not him.

I think this guy is pathologically self-centered, unable to be thoughtful about any really complex subject, and vindictive towards anyone he thinks has interfered with his interests or wounded his ego. He developed this "absolute free speech" idea out of convenience because it meant he could selectively boost people who, like himself, have been dismissed by experts and not recognized sufficiently for their genius. That would be anti-vaxxers, antisemites, homophobes, racists and other conspiracy theorists. That would also be election deniers, who, while their claims were being carefully refuted, and dismissed in court, were still drumming up support by the millions in terms of belief.

He says he's going to sue the ADL for 20 billion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of people think that he can not only succeed by showing that their claims are not true when they patently are, but that they also made such false statements with the knowledge they were false. It is delusional. He has people whose entire accounts are dedicated to curating pictures of Jewish noses talking about how he's going to sue a Jewish Civil Rights organization for lying about their antisemitism. Have they forgotten what he has to prove?

I think the amount of damage he can do on antisemitism is going to be self-limiting (wishful thinking but I also think so). The amount of damage he can do to the discourse has not and may not reach Fox News level proportions, but it's pretty clear he's a dangerous guy in the long run.

[broncofan]

Anyhow, it's worth pointing out that absolute free speech would include disagreeing with bigots and advocating that brands should not want to associate themselves with them. Unless the idea is to support unrestrained speech for people preaching hatred and careful moderation for the responses.

[Fitzcarraldo]

He sabotaged a Ukrainian attack on Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/polit...ink/index.html

[filghy2]

He sabotaged a Ukrainian attack on Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/polit...ink/index.html

If the claim in the article is correct it implies that Starlink is eavesdropping on communications over its network. Wouldn't that be illegal in most countries?

It seems contradictory for Musk to complain about being dragged into the war and then take upon himself to second-guess Ukraine's decisions.

I'm surprised their isn't some defence power the US military could use to order Starlink to maintain these communications. That would solve the perception issue for Musk because the matter would be out of his hands.

[Fitzcarraldo]

It seems contradictory for Musk to complain about being dragged into the war and then take upon himself to second-guess Ukraine's decisions.

He does what he wants. He contradicts himself often. But he has ties to both Putin and China.

[filghy2]

I think this guy is pathologically self-centered, unable to be thoughtful about any really complex subject, and vindictive towards anyone he thinks has interfered with his interests or wounded his ego.

Sounds exactly like another guy we've discussed a lot here. I think it's a moot point whether such people are really bigots or they just cosy up to bigots because they have a pathological need to get uncritical praise from somewhere and spite those on the other side who've criticised them. Morally, there is no difference if the effect is the same.

[broncofan]

Sounds exactly like another guy we've discussed a lot here. I think it's a moot point whether such people are really bigots or they just cosy up to bigots because they have a pathological need to get uncritical praise from somewhere and spite those on the other side who've criticised them. Morally, there is no difference if the effect is the same.

I think that's probably right. If you look at his account and who he is cosying up to, I think it explains a lot about his decisions with respect to Ukraine as well. But he has at times parroted views we hear from the far-right, which is that we should let Putin do what he wants. He is pretty close to an antivaxxer as well. Wanted Dr. Peter Hotez to debate RFK Jr. on the issue of vaccines on Joe Rogan show. Thought covid would disappear in less than a month in mid march 2020 (like another person weve discussed).

The one silver lining of his threat to sue the ADL is that it implies twitter is struggling financially. If he thinks adl hit him for 20 billion dollars....then the dumbass has disappeared at least 20 billion dollars into twitter to improve his online relationship with kimdotcom, catturd, ummm Chaya Raichik of Libs of Tik Tok (a pathological hater of lgbt), and a diverse cast of toxic, hateful people.

[Stavros]

He sabotaged a Ukrainian attack on Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/polit...ink/index.html

This was discussed on last night's BBC-2 Newsnight programme, where David Frum argued that in effect, a US citizen was making decisions that would normally be made by the US Govt and it it might make more sense to nationalize Starlink. A defence expert pointed out the US military does not have the capacity to launch the hundreds of small satellites that are used for the global internet; another that the US military was well aware of the contracts that Musk/Starlink had signed.

If there are military and technological complications -should any company owned by an individual have so much power -but what if only such a person can do it?- the political and moral questions cast doubt on the statements Musk has made to justify his decisions. After all, if a Chinese tech billionaire had similar power, the US and quite other countries would be 'concerned' or 'terrified' depending on the rhetoric.

The moral problem is that by not doing something, in this case enabling the Ukraine military to destroy a substantial part of the Russian fleet, Musk enabled them to maintain their campaign in the Ukraine which kills men, women and children; destroys their homes, their schools, their hospitals, their businesses -all of which are violations of International Law. This might not make Musk a war criminal, but he appears to be an accessory to Mass Murder.

The political problem is that I don't think the US Govt knows what to do. It has become dependent on private individuals for defence procurement, and one must accept that it is quite jejune for Musk to claim, as quoted in Martina Hyde's article
"that Starlink was “so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes”"
because, as she carries on
"You’re in this war because you’re literally a defence contractor".
And then Elon Musk said there’ll be no more war – not via his satellite. Aren’t we lucky to have the world in his hands? | Marina Hyde | The Guardian

Musk is not just the 'Edgelord', but here I think on the edge, but I don't know what of. The US Govt in theory ought to be able to hold an American citizen to account for a military incident that involved one of the USA's allies, but risks getting involved in an argument about the State and the Free Economy, about the rights of individual entrepreneurs to do what they do, but also surely, an argument or a debate about the extent to which any private individual shouold be able to go when it comes to military affairs.

Would Musk prevent Starlink from helping the US military if it was involved in Mexico? At what point does Musk's involvement in military affairs, put him on the same level as those other private armies, be it Wagner in Russia, the Cheetahs of the Revolution in Iran, or the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, the Oathkeepers and the III Percenters (currently embedded in US Law Enforcement) in the USA?

Something it appears must be done. But other than Frum's argument to take Starlink into State ownership -and that creates another agenda, as in, should the Federal Govt have ownership of the technology that you use to browse the internet and post on Hungangels?- what is the argument? After all, the same technology used to generate nuclear power can be used as nuclear weapons; the Internet can expand freedom, or be used to limit it.

I don't think we can expect much coherence from 'Phoney Stark', as Hyde observes

"It’s not that Musk doesn’t have a consistent worldview so much as he doesn’t even have consistency" --and that is a whole other problem in itself.

Shareholder revolt?