feel like this is probably demonstrably wrong, but too lazy to google it.
i'd go more with, 'wealth can allow one to become monster', or 'wealth creates monsters', or similar.
the difference is 'creates' vs 'reveals'.
i.e. give anyone a billion dollars and watch most of them become monsters, probably. and one might turn out to be like mackenzie scott.
give everyone a hundred bucks and make them dependent on each other for survival, and watch antisocial behavior drop to near-zero near-instantaneously -- i.e. no monsters.
wealth creates power.
power corrupts.
it's why socialism has always probably been the answer. and if not that, then some semblence of equality - of power, in particular.
if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example.
but you wouldn't have to go outside your own daily lived experience to find all sorts of people doing all sorts of bad things because they are relatively unaccountable - they don't face real consequences for their behavior.
I agree with you in that money and power corrupt. I think some people want to believe it just “reveals character” as a defence mechanism, as in, that could never happen to them, they’re a good person, and they’d still be good even with wealth. If it happened to Elon Musk then he must’ve been bad from the start.
But:
> if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example
Not trying to defend the guy, but come on - he bought a company, took it private, and he is now free to ruin it as he sees fit. That’s not antisocial behaviour. He’s just making the decisions he thinks are best for Twitter (even if I disagree with them).
And we have to consider the fact that when a celebrity does something, it is blown to a much bigger proportion by the media. Some random small business owner blocking third parties? Nobody cares, most apps aren’t even that open to begin with. Elon Musk does it? “What an antisocial monster corrupted by power and money”
Meanwhile, murderers face real consequences for their behaviour, and you see it happening anyway, so your thesis that bad behaviour only happens because people are unaccountable is demonstrably false.
> Not trying to defend the guy, but come on - he bought a company, took it private, and he is now free to ruin it as he sees fit.
if you can legally do something, then it's ok to do it? or you should do it?
your argument seems pretty amoral - like, you don't expect musk to even have a sense of right and wrong, much less try to act in a manner which many/most would consider decently.
> And we have to consider the fact that when a celebrity does something, it is blown to a much bigger proportion by the media.
i could see this argument, but musk's actions are having serious consequences on thousands++ of people, at least -- thus, i would argue it is and should be a big deal. that he is a celebrity is irrelevant, imo.
> your thesis that bad behaviour only happens because people are unaccountable is demonstrably false.
only? no.
but is bad / antisocial behaviour much more likely when expected to be relatively free of consequences? i'd almost bet my life on it. maybe there's some wrinkle i haven't thought of yet, but it doesn't seem like rocket science.
Also hard to overstate the impact the new ownership has had, such that their assessment is now:
>>"...an increasingly capricious Twitter – a Twitter that we no longer recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer."
This, from people that partnered with Twitter for a decade++
The new owner had a lot of us, me included, fooled into thinking he was intelligent and trustworthy. Now, it is obvious he's neither.
Wealth reveals character, and it is sad to see that that character is so rotten.