While I disagree with Musk on a variety of cultural issues, I see few other people on this planet that are tackling the same problems that he is, at the same scale that he is.

I think it's a shame that he has put himself in this situation that distracts him from larger ambitions -- space/Mars, electric vehicles, etc.

> I see few other people on this planet that are tackling the same problems that he is

Literally hundreds, if not thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of scientists and engineers are tackling those problems. For one thing, he is not personally developing anything, he employs people to do the tackling; and for another, other companies are invested in the same pursuits.

But are any companies as successful as Tesla and SpaceX? And would Tesla and SpaceX be as successful without Elon's leadership?

It's impossible to answer definitely, of course. I'm leaning towards no. I'm not a Musk fanboy, but he does something right.

It's not like very few people can do everything right, almost nobody can do everything right.

I think he's outstanding for building a trusted core of executives who can carry out his projects like he wants them to as good as anybody can. He has prevailed when the odds were against him, which may be the case with Twitter now.

It might have been better to build the same level of trust with the top Twitter people before letting so many go, bringing in Tesla outsiders as axmen is more like a hostile takeover.

Tesla and SpaceX aligned with his vision from childhood. Twitter takeover is born out of the greed to be the first Trillionaire.

Telsa and SpaceX were built ground up to challenge atatus quo. Twitter comes with baggage, is a new space for him and a new competitive area altogether.

Didn't he buy into Tesla?

Yes. He knew exactly where to invest, had the vision, and execute on it successfully. So Tesla is his baby.

Which vision was that, exactly?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-j... (2006)

https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux (2016)

It's weird how he claims in that first blog post to be a cofounder. I wonder which other things he exaggerates or just plain lies about?

>Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.

> In April, at a TED conference, Mr. Musk said of Twitter that “This is not a way to sort of make money. My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization. I don’t care about the economics at all.”

In light of recent events that run contrary to his stated position, what does this say about Mr. Musk?

To me this paints a picture of manipulation, dishonesty and shallowness. Not to be trusted.

A charitable viewing of his actions is that he's a guy with some noble visions in his head, but also a guy who's impulsive, chaotic, and make decisions without thinking things through or listening to outside advice (e.g. from lawyers).

I think he's insufferable, and I wish I could be a fly in the wall watching him in panic trying to fix things but fucking them up further instead.

I'd be game for charitable except now we know unflattering content from conversations he had privately which indicate he's really only out for himself. It's all fueled by ego and greed (moreso ego at this point).

Sources are linked here:

Musk's Twitter Plan is Proceeding as Stated

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33475031

I’m not so sure. While it was toxic, people seemed to really engage with the old Facebook group system before it became just a political tool. Meta has lost its reputation and its disrupters/competitors are all Snapchat “clones.” I think there’s a huge market of late 20s-middle aged people who never moved on to the new fangled apps but could be brought back: hell who probably even have dabbled with Twitter once or twice.

Further I do think Musk made a calculated move about this “free speech” ploy. Parlor, and whatever the previous app was, show that there is a Market for a platform ran and dominated by more conservative rhetoric.

The issue is

1. Most people aren’t /that/ conservative in general just on 1-2 issues. The far right turns them off and the far right can’t sustain a platform so once the moderates are gone it dies or becomes a cesspool of scams.

2. All conservative platform startups are beholden to Donald Trump. He brings the far rights and ensures they’re loud. Again this turns off the middle of the road guy who are the real market here. Twitter seems like it’s looking to keep the Trump wing silenced while pumping up the more traditional republicans. They have the excuse that he was already banned and its bad for business or any number of other ones.

So I do think that Twitter is in a good position to charge their user base and they will have a legion of people who will pay only because it’s the only option or they hate ad ridden apps. I also think if they do this they can replace Facebook as not just the default “social media app” but a model of how to do web scale applications without ads.

A conservative platform isnt an moonshot, but getting all those people to trust in and engage with a platform while keeping the center and the left is.

I don't know how much Musk is to be trusted. But I did see (I think it was a video interview) where he spoke of Twitter as a public square and it being important that such a thing exist and thrive in contrast to bubbles and echo chambers that don't attempt to distinguish between mainstream viewpoints and extremes. At the time, I accepted that his interest in Twitter wasn't primarily for profit or pushing a specific political agenda. I'll just be waiting and seeing how it plays out.