522
Musk Admits He Doesn't Fact-Check Himself and Has Two Burner Accounts on Twitter
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
522 points (95.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
3786 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An entertaining read that further cements Musk as an honest-to-god unhinged idiot. I've seen a lot of people speculate that him buying Twitter and tanking its value was some kind of genius plot, but the simpler explanation is that he's just unironically stupid and a bad businessman.
The fact that he has another burner account which he uses to get around blocks and hurl insults at others is both really funny and completely expected. I'm willing to bet a signed dollar that he has yet another alt that he uses to lean even further right and say the N-word on a regular basis.
I guarantee you that at least one of those burners has at least once instance of the N-word on it.
Guarentee you he calls himself African American on that hidden burner.
Another old rich white guy identifying as a gay black man online?.... curious...🤣💯... interesting....true.... concerning...WE MUST RECLAIM RHODESIA'S INDEPENDENCE....uhh sorry that was the AI making a post on my account, now as I was saying about population collapse....
There's a third explanation: He's a fairly bad businessman but Twitter was always expected to lose money, and the purpose of owning it is to use it as a cost center for massive political influence.
I'm not necessarily espousing this theory, I have no real evidence either way, but lots of billionaires buy media outlets so they can direct public sentiment. Twitter, managed correctly, could have been a pretty good way to do that, but even within that lens it has been managed very badly, so IDK
He is an actual idiot.
When his name first became popular, I was like others thinking, hey, this guy sounds like a genius, maybe I should pay attention. Then I did pay attention and he ventured into my industry: comp sci and user experience. That’s when I realised he was an utter moron. When you know more about what he’s talking about than he does, it becomes obvious.
The fact that people think that he didn't buy twitter because he thought he could print more money is frightening
Umm, some things are more important than money, namely, power. He bought twitter because it allows him to silence critics and break up a social media platform that was allowing citizens globally to communicate and take stands against governments.
His incompetence as a business runner should have been blatantly clear when the SEC had to step into Tesla due to his comments and have him removed from all financial decision making for the company.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
He straight up has no idea how to run a business itself and always acts like he's the full blown god of the companies he claims to run.
Fun story: He didn't found Tesla as he claimed. He bought in and part of the deal was he could claim as a founder. (founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning)
Also fun Fact: He only started Space X because he was ousted from PayPal for being a shitty CEO by the board.
Occam’s Razor.
It does seem like he's ignorant on many subjects, but if he is a complete idiot, how did he manage to make the right investments to become among the richest of the world?
Because of dad's money (it seems there's no clear information about the money from the mine https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/11/17/elon-musk-emerald-mine/)? That's a good start, sure, but many smart people, with a similar good start or more, try to become richer and don't reach this level. So what's the additional element?
Is it really not an acceptable explanation that he had good guts at detecting the bubbles and did multiple smart investments at the right times (early internet website, internet payment, electric cars, low cost space)?
Let's try to have an opinion of a higher quality than what Musk usually writes on his media, that is to say, not solely based on some strong feelings.
I believe a combination of inertia and "throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks" may be applicable here.
If his recent ventures are anything to go by, he's an "idea guy" that makes a convincing case of sounding smart enough to succeed. He makes big promises about revolutionizing something, and because of his persona as a successful inventor, investors and fans buy into those ideas.
With support behind him, he's free to burn other people's money in the hopes that one of his fantastical projects actually succeeds. And if it doesn't, just sweep it under the rug like the Hyperloop.
Or, you know, he could always use his capital to fund others' ideas and then take credit as though they were his original idea, like with Tesla.
Seems like a good explanation, can a complete idiot do that?
Yes. Cunning =/= intelligence. A rat can reach the center of the maze off the smell of the cheese, not an understanding of geometry or topography.
Aren't there thousands of rich born cunning "rats" that didn't make as much?
Did I fucking stutter? It's a function of mass of capital + opportunity (Peter Thiel wants your booty hole) = Inertia which breeds either people like you spending time on the defense of the morally reprehensible. Assuming you're not the man himself, fucker has the right amount of time.
One again, mass of capital + opportunity (luck) = Inertia persistent enough for fucks like you to eat off perpetuity in the hope of scraps.
Please refrain from personal attacks. I understand your point otherwise.
I'm not defending him, I even negatively criticized him two times in my initial comment. I'm defending having a rational opinion about him, but it's very hard, as you can observe by your own reaction to my questioning.
The fact that not all rats are given a maze with cheese in the middle to run to, should not require explanation to any moderately affected by the human condition person. You are owed basic respect in the form of your thoughts being listened to and your place as a person respected.
You are however, owed nothing, when it comes to civility.
That is a social contract.
One which you strain by repeatedly being contrarian to the point it's either a sign of extreme neurodivergence (fine, my attitude isn't normal either), or just disingenuous.
In the case of the later, pound sand. If the former, do you have any actual doubts left as to why people feel this way? Or can I ask you to get the fuck off my sunlight yet, Elon?
Read the first rule of this community.
Although I don't think I am owed it, I think it's a pretty common minimal rule for discussion. So, if it's not respected, I will just consider we cannot discuss and ignore you in the future.
I either agree with you or I am neurodivergent/disingenuous/Musk? What kind of thoughts dictatorship is that?
I think I understand why they feel this way: it's psychological more tolerable to demonize (or call a complete idiot in this case) someone you hate, especially when you are powerless against his misconducts such as destroying a valuable communication platform.
But I still think demonizing him now is as stupid as idolizing him a couple of years ago, which many people here did.
I prefer to fight the hate he uses for his personal marketing with rationality rather than more hate, I think this kind of person just feeds on your hate, even if it's against him.
Listen Plato. You're not in the same universe as my point, yet you illustrate yours greatly. I'm the neurodivergent and you're just being a pedant was the other option in my message.
Ignore me, I have no desire to keep putting plucked chickens before you in the hopes you stop repeating the incompleteness that makes a man.
I don't mind learning to go around whatever condition you may have, just let me know, so I can try to include it in my understanding of what you are saying.
My goal is not to be pedant, my goal is to trigger discussion where I feel there's some room for progress, either mine or others', and see if it happens.
Failing upward is a thing.
that feels like my entire career
Obviously
Clearly!
He frequently picked markets where he was bought out for hefty sums and the rest is government contracts. Tesla was the first thing bought that shipped a somewhat usable product and you can see what he's done to it.
He could have ruled the EV market but he had to ship inferior products, waste money crushing unions, overstate its capabilities, and now Tesla has a bunch of cars they can't sell.
What right investments? He was born into money and failed into getting anything from his X.com (banking!) website which was bought out by PayPal long after he was fired. The only reason he got anything out of that at all was he'd kept the stocks around.
He "invested" in Tesla so that he could get a cool car (he royally fucked over the actual founders in the process).
Low cost space? Low cost space? Do you live on Mars or some shit? Every one of those "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" events cost over one Billion. That ain't cheap buddy.
So why aren't the other tens of thousands of people borned in comparable money not becoming as rich?
Yes, low cost compared to what NASA or Ariane, for exemple, had been doing until then.
most people born into wealth do not flaunt it like Musk or Trump do. They are the exception not the rule.
they do so because of ego. They NEED the attention. Meanwhile, most billionaires don't go around publicly buying things like that. They do have investments similar, but they do so without appointing themselves as god emperor of the company.
The fact that Musk insists he must be the public face for any company he puts money into evidences extreme narcissism and the belief he is a genius.
Meanwhile. Other than seeing money and being a part time engineer for Space X. He doesn't have any real direct success for actual labour / work he's done. It's his inherited money that seems to have done the bulk of work. Buying in to banking, buying into space x, buying into tesla, buying into X. All essentially ideas by other people who just needed seed money.
You've moved to points about flaunting, having an egocentric media presence, and the absence of personal engineering success. I think I agree with those, but those are different points. My point was about how he became that rich, compared to other people with similar parents money, if he is a complete idiot.
But you're still wrong. Lots of people who inherited money grew their wealth, without the need to have their face in the media constantly.
the reason we see so much of Musk is because he purposely puts himself in the public. There are more billionaires than just Musk who have grown their wealth without you ever knowing their names. Arguably, there are far FAR more of these no-name billionaires than the Musk type.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/25-richest-billionaires-inherited-fortunes-010158127.html
some examples.
As other's have said, He has used his inheritance to create momentum and a cult of personality around himself, which has helped him make money despite being proven time and time again to be a business idiot.
So Far, He has been removed from Paypal by the board for bad leadership. He was removed from chairman of Tesla for illegal leadership and bad leadership. And all evidence has shown that he has also tanked the value of Twitter.
he has definitely convinced you through his cult of personality that he's some business genius. Rather than just a loud asshole with lots of money to burn.
That's still your point not mine, you're arguing against a point I didn make. I even told you I agree with this one.
You're using a straw man argument, I never said I consider him a business genius. Just reread what I said, there's nothing else to over interpret about it to make it easier to shut down.
You're lack of understanding about this doesn't constitute others arguing in a fallacious matter. We are not arguing a strawman but explaining to you HOW Musk got to where he was. Which is in SPITE of his intelligence, not because of it.
You're arguing your own fallacy based on your own lack of ability to grasp concepts. Congradulations, you're guilty of Personal Incredulity fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
I assume you think Trump is a very stable genius.
That's quite the opposite of the nuanced discussion I stupidly tried to have, but I guess your comment was not serious.
You sounded like you were arguing that rich means smart.
My point is becoming that rich does mean some skills and cannot be achieved by a total idiot as stated in the top comment.
Trump is that rich. What are his skills?
I think mostly communication, since his multiple frauds cases show he's not actually good at business, and having some instinctive understanding of what he should say to appeal to the poor uneducated white people who are afraid of falling lower. I feel like in the case of Trump, it's even more important to not use his populist and hate based tactics.
Oh yes, those excellent communication skills.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/
Link it to the second part of my comment, it does sound like crazy to educated or non-indoctrinated people, but it worked incredibly well with his base, as well as almost half of voters. There some kind of skill there, how would you call it?
I would call it a combination of a very well-funded, well-crafted campaign, well-funded and well-crafted by people other than Donald Trump, combined with the momentum that drew and the very American idea that if you worship a rich and famous person, you could get rich and famous yourself.
Donald Trump's wealth was earned by his racist father and the rest of it was failing upward and being used by everyone from the Mafia to the Republican Party.
Any reputable sources about this point?
That Donald Trump didn't fund his own campaign and that it was well-crafted by Republican campaign operatives? You really need sources for that? Because that's true for pretty much every presidential campaign.
Not the funding, but rather that he is not the real leader of his campaigns and political objectives, as I think you imply there's some people in the shadow using him as a front. I'm talking more than some influence or lobbies. I prefer to read reputable new sources about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Interesting, did this kind of organization not happen before for other presidential candidates?