It's a private space. He can do what he likes. We draw conclusions about what we think, but thats going to good-or-bad justified-or-unjustified consistent-or-inconsistent as matters of opinion.
I note that he said he wanted a space with less constraint. He said it quite simply and directly. He's capable of both changing his mind, and in believing this is consistent, and in not caring either way.
I left twitter some time ago. Long before Musk's offer to buy kicked in. I think this is a fight amongst people I have little in common with.
This isn't really a "who cares" post because it is interesting. And arguably important. Mostly it's importance goes to the problem that Musk is now overtly in Politics, and has declared his non-neutrality in the US domestic political sphere. If he hadn't done that, I think there would be little more to remark on here than when Jack Dorsey did mildly irrational things. But a declaration to partisan views in politics changes that somewhat: he has control of a massive media machine in a politically charged context.
It is theoretically possible the FTC and the FCC both are looking at this wondering what (if anything) they can or should do. I suspect its reached a point where neither can, arguably even if they should: they lost the moment of force and the basis of "why" has also become politically charged.
The FTC would only really be driven to act if he imperils US citizens private information or interferes in trade between entities in the public eye, Or if this influences investment decisions to the share value of SpaceX and Tesla assuming there is a public share concern.
The FCC would only be driven by communications law and since Twitter isn't a common carrier or ISP as I understand them and isn't in mobile communications or RF spectrum management spaces, I don't see their role.
He may now have burdens with justice department and warrents to examine logs and data as an ongoing cost of doing business. Not because of what he says but because of the evidentiary status of what Twitter is for other people in the context of the US LEA and justice system.
The EU wants to talk but their legal paths to talk to him about what he is doing to European cultural norms, LEA and related, regulatory, location of data, GDPR whatever else, is pretty complex. And as long as he provides other outcomes like EV for the transition off Gas, and starlink to circumvent ISP monopolies they probably don't want to yank the chain too hard either.
I'm curious where people see Musk in terms of his politics. I see him as center/right-center (U.S) with the occasional right troll post.
The part that I don't like about him taking over Twitter is this:
When he initially took over I was under the impression that he wanted to promote a free-speech platform that is primarily designed for thoughtful dialogue between people. However, I'm not sure the platform will trend towards this when he has so many troll posts (given his influence on the platform).
I think that given its current trajectory the platform in a few months will consist of primarily right-leaning individuals, and far-left individuals who feel it is their duty to constantly debate the right.
I used to believe his brand of libertarianism was an attempt at "neutral right" but the anti-union thing really strongly tilts right. He has since declared publicly he backs a GOP outcome. Given some of whats going on in the GOP that makes it very very hard to put him soft-right because a declaration of preference like that demands questions: what does he think about J6 and what does he think about vote suppression.
His commercial engagements in Europe and Asia (china) do not actually define him politically one way or another. Nor does the starlink/Ukraine thing although I value that immensely as a buffer against destruction of telecommuniations utility functions in Ukraine.
Several respectable US political long-term trends analysis suggest the GOP cannot be used as a "pole" in left-right center discussions unless you accept it has moved significantly rightward on many fundamental matters of civil rights. Views which previously would have been considered untenable have become normalised, and the overton window has shifted. It used to be the overlap in right DNC and left GOP was strong. It's no longer the case.
I am of course Partisan in this. I don't believe the shift has been a "both sides" thing. But others might disagree.
TL;DR what makes you right leaning now, puts you very firmly right in any 10+ year analysis of what "right" side is.
I should also be clear I am neither a US voter nor US citizen or resident so my views may count for significantly less no matter what.
My gut feeling (as a U.S resident) is that there has been a shift on both sides, but the overall country has moved more towards the left (so the shift on the right has maybe looked more extreme). I also think the overall media has become less trustworthy/more biased in their reporting so if you follow most western msm (which I believe is primarily left leaning) then even some right-center people can begin to look like strictly right (as I believe Elon is being made out to be).
My impression of Elon is that he just doesn't really like the left's 'holier than thou' political correctness (I don't think this meshes well with his corporate personality).
I agree he really doesn't like the largely left leaning media. So we're aligned on that. But his fundamental opposition to unions is different. I don't see the US news as pro-union, its not about the press. Its really down to his own core views.
I found south parks 'smelling their own farts' thing about Cali. prius drivers pretty funny, but that said, I'd rather there were Californians driving EV than not. Its kind of a dual-edged sword. So he hates the PC side of things but he's selling the drugs which feeds them (so to speak) -a rather strange state of affairs.
The burning Coal mob are going to have a cow over the Tesla big rig. I expect more than a few to have truck-nuts, and confederate flags and gun-racks on them.
I'll come back to the 'shift both sides' thing. I cant prove it, so its just opinion. But my gut feel is there has been some leftward tilt in the media overall, fox excluded, if we limit ourselves to news media ex-print, and we exclude the moonies investment, and maybe Bezos.. yea. Its there. But its like 10:1 the rightward/leftward shifts. So its polarized, its not a symmetric movement. The middle being assumed (which btw is a stretch because its divisive if there even IS a middle) then the press moved a bit left and the GOP and the Randean IT dotcom billionaires (Theil..) moved a very very long way right.
Sure, a biassed comment. But it is what I think.
Both D and R do gerrymandered stupid tricks on electoral zones. I don't think they do it equally either. I don't think as many D governors want to replace the electoral college movement with faithless voters they appoint. I could go on, but my underlying point is that there is a core of what the constitution is and means, and there are the things which undermine it, and "both sides" assumes equally both sides: I just don't think its true.
"defund the police" is a very stupid rallying cry. Sure. its a reaction to "blue flag" rightward behaviour in the cops but its alienating the middle ground which leftists need to secure as voters to win. Likewise the independent portland thing. It was fun. Its not helpful to securing national votes to run the country. Actions have consequences and if you believe in burn it down or destroy the joint, left-right is both burning and destroyed at that point. So a lot of comment here assumes maintenance of some perceived status quo politically around voting and state/federal boundaries and the role of taxation.
Historically the D were dirty as. Tammany hall, the carpetbaggers, people forget that was often the D side of things. the R side is not the party of Lincoln right now.
I guess I'm just talking about the movement in the last 10 years or so (I'm not old enough to remember much before that :D). I think the left had a bigger movement left in the Obama years and the right definitely had a bigger movement in the Trump years. Actually now that I think about it - if you're talking talking strictly about the politicians then I do agree that the right has shifted more (almost entirely due to Trump's presidency imo). However, I'm not sure that voters as a whole have shifted as much.
I'v lived in Texas, Minnesota and California (all within the past 10 years), and honestly none of them have lived up to their stereotypes in the media (with maybe the exception of the distrust between the police and black communities in Minnesota).
Sure California is noticeably more left and Texas is noticeably more right, but the people you see on the news are always the right or left most few percent. I think most people in both parties still fall somewhere in the middle (even if the political representatives don't)
Personally I'm a centrist and I'm not really too concerned with right-leaning politics - the reason being is that I think the party produces a lot of noise, but there isn't generally much substance behind it. I usually check right-leaning media just to see what the left-leaning media isn't talking about. Most of it I find to be bs, but sometimes it's worth exploring more.
On the other hand I find the left-leaning media more reliable, however, I also disapprove of the 'holier than thou' mentality behavior that some people have. I think this creates a lot of superficial communication where people fear they can't voice a strong opinion without offending others or being ostracized. I'm also concerned about the left's ability to persuade what I believe is a more educated audience with subtle biased reporting (i.e. smart people trust what they believe is a reliable source so much that they don't question biased conclusions). I also don't think that the left media's message to marginalized groups is that beneficial to those groups - I think at some point it becomes toxic empathy and leads to people have a 'victim' mindset (but I suppose you have to try to appeal to your constituents somehow :/ )
Anyways so far from what I've seen from Elon he seems to fall somewhere in line with that (i.e. occasionally trolling both sides, and never really falling in line with one side or another). I think that his recent actions definitely make it look like he falls inline more with the right (especially in regards to his trolling), but I think that might also have to do with the fact that since the takeover he has been getting deliberately attacked by the left msm. I'd prefer to seem him stabilize and drift back more to the left, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
"It’s likely Musk will turn to Hughes for guidance as the Federal Trade Commission threatens more legal challenges. If the FTC finds that Twitter misled users over privacy protections, that would violate a decade-old consent decree. NYT reported that the FTC has already sent Twitter letters asking how staff cuts have potentially impacted Twitter’s ability to uphold that agreement. Before he was dismissed from advising Twitter, Spiro had previously said that Musk “puts rockets into space” and was “not afraid of the FTC.”
Neither SpaceX nor Twitter immediately responded to Ars’ request to comment."
What this says to me is that the FTC already has a basis to put pressure on Musk, private ownership or not.
I note that he said he wanted a space with less constraint. He said it quite simply and directly. He's capable of both changing his mind, and in believing this is consistent, and in not caring either way.
I left twitter some time ago. Long before Musk's offer to buy kicked in. I think this is a fight amongst people I have little in common with.
This isn't really a "who cares" post because it is interesting. And arguably important. Mostly it's importance goes to the problem that Musk is now overtly in Politics, and has declared his non-neutrality in the US domestic political sphere. If he hadn't done that, I think there would be little more to remark on here than when Jack Dorsey did mildly irrational things. But a declaration to partisan views in politics changes that somewhat: he has control of a massive media machine in a politically charged context.
It is theoretically possible the FTC and the FCC both are looking at this wondering what (if anything) they can or should do. I suspect its reached a point where neither can, arguably even if they should: they lost the moment of force and the basis of "why" has also become politically charged.
The FTC would only really be driven to act if he imperils US citizens private information or interferes in trade between entities in the public eye, Or if this influences investment decisions to the share value of SpaceX and Tesla assuming there is a public share concern.
The FCC would only be driven by communications law and since Twitter isn't a common carrier or ISP as I understand them and isn't in mobile communications or RF spectrum management spaces, I don't see their role.
He may now have burdens with justice department and warrents to examine logs and data as an ongoing cost of doing business. Not because of what he says but because of the evidentiary status of what Twitter is for other people in the context of the US LEA and justice system.
The EU wants to talk but their legal paths to talk to him about what he is doing to European cultural norms, LEA and related, regulatory, location of data, GDPR whatever else, is pretty complex. And as long as he provides other outcomes like EV for the transition off Gas, and starlink to circumvent ISP monopolies they probably don't want to yank the chain too hard either.