One billionaire replaced another billionaire at the helm of a major company, and proceeded to restructure the company. That happens all the time, and no one hears about it or cares. The only reason this is front page news is the anticipated changes in censorship policy.
Not really. It's not just 1 billionaire replacing another billionaire.
Twitter was public and is now private. That's a huge difference.
It's not just any billionaire. It's literally the richest person in the world. That also makes a difference.
The idea that the only reason this is in front page news is changes in censorship policy does not seem to follow considering nearly every other major purchase makes it to the front news. Michael Dell taking Dell private was heavily in the front page news. There were no censorship policy concerns there.
Space man has direct impact on my agency; I need to believe in money and wealth for him to be rich.
I really don’t get the general public deflating the value of their self agency for dedication to Elon and Co todo list. We’ll except the copious amounts of government backed nation state scrip they command. But government bad too mmmk
Public talks a game about freedom and democracy while reciting a curated set of acceptable language regarding business, and bending their agency to the idea using the environment like an open sewer is optimizing for self.
But yeah flippant sarcasm about space man covers if. Yer so smert
It is difficult to take comments like this seriously. Are you serious?
Do you really believe that Elon Musk's role in the U.S. is akin to people like Roman Abramovich or Mikhail Prokhorov who literally robbed Russia of state owned assets during the market reform period? Does he compare to China's princelings, whose insane power over 1 billion+ people is derived almost solely from their being born to the Chinese communist political elite?
Those are examples of real oligarchy. Musk is an example of an outsized success story in a free country. He bought Twitter using the assets he gained in the building of Tesla and SpaceX–two companies of crazy high importance and utility to society.
The people fired are in an at-will employment arrangement in the most lavishly compensated industry in the world, at a company that has dramatically underperformed against its potential and (former) peers for years.
Twitter has long been seen as the worst example of unproductive, entitled employees that has become emblematic of the rot-from-riches that is rife within tech.
These people will be just fine, and they will (freely) find other jobs.
Twitter users contribute to Twitter's capital by virtue of reified social relations(capital) and the content they create. Yet, the users who create this capital have no say in the handling of the value they create. Instead it's a single person. Any analysis that doesn't take this into account is fundamentally flawed and willfully neglectful to the point of absurdity.
I guess you're right. But only if we redefine the term "capital" in defiance of hundreds of years of usage and practice.
Do you expect this kind of "capital" from all businesses you patronize? Do you think you should help decide strategy at McDonald's if you buy an Egg McMuffin?
You can come up with a novel idea like radically defining capital, but that doesn't mean you're correct or that anyone will agree with you.
I don't think it's terribly controversial. Consider two Twitters: the present one, and another devoid of all users and their content. Does one have less value than the other?
We're already engaged in dialog which respects content as capital. Consider Ben Lee (legal counsel to Twitter) who said, "Twitter users own their Tweets." How is it that a tweet is ontologically capable of being owned? Well, it's intellectual property and as such an object capable being owned. Moreoever, it's owned by author, not Twitter. If you answered in the affirmative above, then it's even participating in the circuit of value creation. Yet, the production of tweets contributing to Twitter's value happens largely for free. It's quite simply benefiting on the backs of free labor.
Anticipating your next point, yes, Twitter users willfully choose to participate, but this doesn't negate the process that's taking place. Free labor creates capital.
This process is markedly different from your McDonald's example. It would be akin to people voluntarily supplying McD with beef patties for free. Happy to discuss that though. I'm fairly certain it would be a fruitful discussion.
But, for the sake of argument, let's take your notion of "Free labor creates capital". This implies a one-way exchange/robbery. That is not factual. People use Twitter and are not required to pay for it. This is an app requiring huge costs to build and maintain at scale. Again, they are using it for free. Users are getting the tools for creation and the (mass) distribution of the created objects for free. Moreover, users agree to TOS as part of that. Nowhere in the TOS will you find the notion of "owning your tweet" or being a capital creator/owner.
Again, you're radically redefining terms in a hand wavy, because-this-is-what-I-believe manner while also overlooking the basic facts of the situation and 100s of years of convention. Which is fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to get on board.
I don't think it necessarily implies a one-way trade. Users supply twitter with content-capital(and their time in attention) and in exchange they get the benefit of access to other users and socio-digital engagement. Yes, it's for free - there's no money being exchanged, but it isn't a one-way process by any means.
As far as re-definining terms, you can guess I'm not in agreement. But also know that my analysis isn't some idiosyncratic redefinition. In fact, my analysis sits staunchly after the historical development of Ricardianism, but prior to the marginal revolution. To claim that it isn't based in fact is a nod to the implicit assumption of the orthodoxy of marginal-realism. It's funny. HN will claim that the world could use more heterodox thinkers, but when it's presented with them fiercely holds to orthodoxy.
He’s riding on the coattails of his family’s mining business with a suspect ethical history.
I love these “don’t punch down the people who started at the top.” Why do you hate yourself so much you would deflate your own worth by idly idolizing the idea Musk is “with billions.”
We live in a carefully managed memory that deifies the figurative identity of a minority and aims our agency at protecting it.
It isn’t just Twitter; what of real human value has IBM offered to the masses except hype? Oracle?
The entire tech industry is an agency capturing religion, spouting the equivalent of catechisms. It’s not lost on me their leaders were raised in a far more religious era. They probably are true believes in the “greater good” gibberish despite being normal humans by all scientific measures.
These normal human engineers will freely go work for another “outsized” winner in order to maintain their grift.
> He’s riding on the coattails of his family’s mining business with a suspect ethical history.
There is no good source for how much money Elon got from his family, but it's fair to assume it was probably 7 digits. Turning a few million dollars into being the most wealthy man on the planet is riding his family's coattails? He founded Zip2 in 1995 with $200k in funding and sold it for $300 million in 1999. Even if he had millions of dollars to start with, he made more for himself than his family ever did by the age of 28.
But making a lot of money in a market that’s organically interested in tech the last few decades still does not make Musk literally the most valuable person alive except when measuring in politically correct fiat currency terms.
He’s literally one man in a society with a history of teaching idle idolatry.
Society follows the demands of a minority of wealth holders. Science minded engineers who prattle on about doing for science not “story mode”.
There is no science that suggests the leaders we have are infallible. It’s all politically correct story-mode based drivel to follow these “leaders”.
The technology changes but human agency has not moved on from being captured by high minded empty promises of forced expansion and growth for humanity; we’ll be long dead and never able to verify.
Their past success is leveraged to prop up caricature of who we should aspire to. Meanwhile their success is traditional political corruption.
