Twitter

[Villanelle]

Even if it were true that ads together with Nazi content were only shown to one single account out of 500 million (which is just Musk's assertion, and how much stock should anyone put in those at this point?), that doesn't make it defamatory for Media Matters to report on it.

There's no "OK, technically what you said is true, but you shouldn't be allowed to say it like that" condition to First Amendment law. A self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" should know that.

Good journalism should be repeatable. Media matters got lucky and made it look like it was a common occurrence. This would be like changing your entire financial strategy because a friend won a jackpot at a slot machine.

So until somebody can repeat what media matters did, you might as well disregard it as a freak occurrence.

media Matters went that route bc they wanted to hit Elon where it hurt for him, which is money, in this case as revenue. One thing people agree on,is that extreme views are amplified on x or twitter. In particular far right views. So the overall composition has changed, the level of discourse has decreased, and twitter has admitted it's algorithm favors far right content. In addition sometimes Elon makes personal tweaks to what is showcased or not. He has special privileges in amplifies and pushing his tweets regardless of how one sets their preferences or swipe history. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2025334119

I understand why Media Matters did what they did. The issue is that it was unethical.

I don't understand this comment.  As I understand it, Musk said X could not happen. (I typed that with no pun about Twitter/X intended, I swear!  Didn't occur to me until I typed the period at the end.) Media Matters proved that X could, in fact, happen, and they reported that.  Where's the lack of ethics?  (Or my lack of understanding about what happened, if I have the facts wrong.)  If I say Y is impossible, and someone proves that one in a billion times, it will happen, they are wrong about the impossibility, even if it is still extremely improbably Y will occur.

Media Matters created a new account that followed far right accounts and corporate accounts. They then generated 13 to 15 times the number of advertisements that a normal Twitter user would see.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24172816-x-v-media-matters-complaint

They engineered it to happen and pretended that it happened regularly. They acted in bad faith.

And no, I'm not a Musk fanboy. I understand that there is always more to the story.

I still don't understand.  Maybe I'm incorrect about the facts, but here's what I understand them to be.  Musk said X could never happen.  MM proved that it could, and did.  Not that it could and did often, but that it did.  Which runs contrary to "impossible/never". 

How did they pretend it happens regularly?  (I will say, yet again, that I may well be missing some facts here. I'm genuinely coming from a place of curiosity as I don't see that in what I know of the story, and what a quick google turned up.)

So I'm not seeing deception or a lack of ethics.  You say A will never happen.  I show you that it did happen at least once.  That means you were wrong.

"An meteor/meteorite could never can never and would never hit earth."  "Um, here's all sorts of proof that it happened. It has happened. Therefore, you are wrong."  "Well, you are being unethical by saying that, because it's clearly very rare."  Huh? 

[Phenix]

I can't speak for Musk, but if I were in his shoes and my people are telling me the odds are ridiculously low that an event would happen for 99.9% of users, I would feel safe saying that it won't happen. For example, the odds of me getting a hole-in-one are astronomically small since I only play golf 4 or 5 times a year. I would feel safe saying that I will never be celebrating a hole-in-one. But if all of the sudden, I'm dead set on getting the result that is said will never happen, I might start going to a par 3 course 3 times a week. Now instead of seeing maybe 20 par 3s per year, I'm seeing 27 every week.

Media Matters created a situation that was so far removed from reality, that I don't see it as a gotcha. I don't use Twitter, nor follow anything that Musk has his hands in, but this seems like such a petty scenario from my perspective.

[Metalcat]

I can't speak for Musk, but if I were in his shoes and my people are telling me the odds are ridiculously low that an event would happen for 99.9% of users, I would feel safe saying that it won't happen. For example, the odds of me getting a hole-in-one are astronomically small since I only play golf 4 or 5 times a year. I would feel safe saying that I will never be celebrating a hole-in-one. But if all of the sudden, I'm dead set on getting the result that is said will never happen, I might start going to a par 3 course 3 times a week. Now instead of seeing maybe 20 par 3s per year, I'm seeing 27 every week.

Media Matters created a situation that was so far removed from reality, that I don't see it as a gotcha. I don't use Twitter, nor follow anything that Musk has his hands in, but this seems like such a petty scenario from my perspective.

I also personally don't see much of the world reacting as if it is a "gotcha," other than maybe folks who already hate Musk.

[Taran Wanderer]

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

[techwiz]

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

[LennStar]

I can't speak for Musk, but if I were in his shoes and my people are telling me the odds are ridiculously low that an event would happen for 99.9% of users, I would feel safe saying that it won't happen. For example, the odds of me getting a hole-in-one are astronomically small since I only play golf 4 or 5 times a year. I would feel safe saying that I will never be celebrating a hole-in-one. But if all of the sudden, I'm dead set on getting the result that is said will never happen, I might start going to a par 3 course 3 times a week. Now instead of seeing maybe 20 par 3s per year, I'm seeing 27 every week.

Media Matters created a situation that was so far removed from reality, that I don't see it as a gotcha. I don't use Twitter, nor follow anything that Musk has his hands in, but this seems like such a petty scenario from my perspective.

I also personally don't see much of the world reacting as if it is a "gotcha," other than maybe folks who already hate Musk.

Well, I for my part don't hate Musk, though I dislike him a bit more every week (not sure if he always was such a conspiracy nut with xenophobic tendencies or if Twitter made him into one). But Media Matters matters not. I didn't crop up in my Twitter at all - though I use Tweetdeck, so I only see personally selected tweets (and their retweets). And of course half of them are German.

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

In that case half of the murderers currently in prison would be free, because even to sentence someone to death you only need to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt".

There is a nice test from a law professer that 1st year students get asked:
A woman was murdered at 11pm at a certain spot in the city.
Here is a DNA test that is 99,999% correct. The test identified this man positivly. He was 100% identified just 2 streets away from where the murder happened, at the appropriate time.
Would you convict him?

The majority(!) of law students said yes.
Even though there are 5 other people in the city the test would positivly identify, and as someone living 3 streets away from the murder, it is not unusual to see him in a bar 2 streets away.

The only absolute is uncertainty.

[Metalcat]

The people who insure hole-in-one contests (or half-court basketball shot contest, or kick a field goal contest) know the difference between odds that are very, very low and odds that are zero. If something is not an absolute, don’t talk in absolutes.

0.1% of thousands of uses of Twitter by hundreds of millions of people is also definitely not 0 instances.

I have about a 1/1500 debilitating genetic condition. 0.06% doesn't sound like much incidence until it's something you really care about.

I'm waiting to find out about an extremely rare cancer, and 4 in 1M odds just doesn't sound reassuring right now.

For massive populations, it doesn't take much probability to equal a hell of a lot of occurences. 

Half a billion people shooting for a hole in one multiple times a day, every single day, one would definitely expect it to happen.

ETA: if people want to say this low probability means it's not important, then fine. But don't say it's not possible. It's that simple.

This is why almost every single person in a position of authority over anything learns to hedge their language.

[LennStar]

Half a billion people shooting for a hole in one multiple times a day, every single day, one would definitely expect it to happen.

Or someone winning the lottery jackpot even though the chances are 1 in 45 million (for the big German one that falls every few weeks on average)

[Villanelle]

And again, MM did say this happens all the time or frequently.  They just said that yes, it has happened at least once, because it happens to us.

There's nothing misleading about it.  If someone said that no one could ever hit a hole in one, they'd be wrong.  Objectively.  Very wrong, and demonstrably so.  Why would someone posting video of a real human getting a real hole-in-one be "unethical" or misleading in that case? 

[Travis]

Well, I for my part don't hate Musk, though I dislike him a bit more every week (not sure if he always was such a conspiracy nut with xenophobic tendencies or if Twitter made him into one).

Can't say if he's always been one, but Twitter is a feedback loop for a lot of people, and owning it outright gave him the keys to the castle. He's found people who agree with his viewpoints, makes his own commentary, and shares it with the world to circle back around and start again. And apparently he loses his mind when he thinks not enough people are paying attention to those opinions.

[Phenix]

And again, MM did say this happens all the time or frequently.  They just said that yes, it has happened at least once, because it happens to us.

There's nothing misleading about it.  If someone said that no one could ever hit a hole in one, they'd be wrong.  Objectively.  Very wrong, and demonstrably so.  Why would someone posting video of a real human getting a real hole-in-one be "unethical" or misleading in that case?

But it didn't happen to them. It happend to a highly unrealistic scenario created just to prove something. It's like Elizabeth Warren releasing DNA tests showing she had Native Americans in her ancestry 10 generations back. It's all just stupid and doesn't prove anything except the pettiness of humans.

[Villanelle]

And again, MM did say this happens all the time or frequently.  They just said that yes, it has happened at least once, because it happens to us.

There's nothing misleading about it.  If someone said that no one could ever hit a hole in one, they'd be wrong.  Objectively.  Very wrong, and demonstrably so.  Why would someone posting video of a real human getting a real hole-in-one be "unethical" or misleading in that case?

But it didn't happen to them. It happend to a highly unrealistic scenario created just to prove something. It's like Elizabeth Warren releasing DNA tests showing she had Native Americans in her ancestry 10 generations back. It's all just stupid and doesn't prove anything except the pettiness of humans.

And the fact that what Musk said couldn't happen could, in fact, happen. 

I can certainly see how someone would say that what MM reported on was mostly meaningless.  But unethical?  Nah. 

[FireLane]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

[Metalcat]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

Musk says a lot of things...that's his main problem these days.

[sonofsven]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

I haven't followed this issue very closely (because Musk) and I don't use Twitter/X, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why are there any fucking nazi ads in the first place?!

[Travis]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

I haven't followed this issue very closely (because Musk) and I don't use Twitter/X, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why are there any fucking nazi ads in the first place?!

Musk opened the gates for far-right ads and personalities because he felt it was far-left biased when he bought it, and echoes far-right ideology every day while calling himself a "free speech centrist."

[NorCal]

And to repeat the point, because some people are still overlooking it: we don't know how many Twitter users were being shown the Nazi ads.

Musk says it was an extremely small number verging on zero, but that's not proven fact. It's just his assertion. He has a financial incentive to say that whether it's true or not, and even his defenders, I think, would admit he's not the most truthful person alive.

I haven't followed this issue very closely (because Musk) and I don't use Twitter/X, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why are there any fucking nazi ads in the first place?!

Musk opened the gates for far-right ads and personalities because he felt it was far-left biased when he bought it, and echoes far-right ideology every day while calling himself a "free speech centrist."

I think the issue was actually that nazi / hate speech type Twitter accounts (but I repeat myself) were being shown alongside advertisements for legitimate and respectable companies. 

[dang1]

in a neighborhood facebook group, a parent of the student at a local high school today posted of a big brawl in the campus. Aside from that post in that close fb group, the only other site that yielded mention of it in a search is X. not even on tiktok. The high school confirmed it hours later. X is still one of my latest news source.

[FireLane]

While we're on the topic of Nazis, here's a new story for the day:

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-journalists-researchers-neo-nazi-cartoonist/
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/stonetoss-doxxing

An antifascist group uncovered the identity of Stonetoss, a Nazi/racist/antisemitic cartoonist from Texas. Elon Musk is protecting him by suspending accounts and deleting any tweets that mention his real name:

This policy change could possibly be in response to a post last month from Musk when he wrote, “Any doxxing, which includes revealing real names, will result in account suspension.” Still, in an interview with Don Lemon released on Monday, Musk said that moderation of hate speech is akin to “censorship.”

...Caraballo and others have pointed to accounts like Libs of TikTok and far-right troll Andy Ngo, both of which have shared private information about trans people but have not had their accounts suspended. Musk has also engaged with posts that doxed individuals on X, with seemingly no recourse for those accounts.

[Michael in ABQ]

I joined Twitter about 6 months ago because there's a thriving ecommerce and small business community on there. Those are pretty much the people I followed and interacted with and that's basically what I see in my feed. I only view it desktop, not mobile, so I basically never get shown ads of any kind. I've never seen any posts by neo-Nazis since I specifically don't follow people who are overtly political (right or left). The only issue is that I get a new follower every day or two that is obviously a bot since they have zero posts, a profile picture of an attractive woman and follow 1,000 other accounts with no followers of their own. It's a minor annoyance at most and I just go through and remove them every week or two as I have no desire to let my followers be inflated by a bunch of bots.

I do also follow some open-source intelligence accounts that post updates about the war in Ukraine and other geopolitical events. If I go into any of those threads, I'll definitely see comments on both sides since it's a pretty heated issue of life and death. Especially if it's anything about the various conflicts in the Middle East (Israel, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Iran, etc.). But that's to be expected on a platform that allows a level of free speech.

[LennStar]

As long as you only get the cl*ck me, f*ck me bots, that is not a problem. Once you catch the Russian propanga bots though...
a few days ago I answered a post about Ukraine and got 7 of them how stupid it is to send weapons to Ukraine and that we need peace in Europe.


But no ads on Desktop? You mean in browser? Strange. That version is flooded! Main reason why I use tweetdeck. That and that, as you said, if you only follow sensible people you don't get that right wing hate wave (though I do follow a few of those accounts for... scientific reasons.)

[maizefolk]

My sense is adblockers have a lot more freedom/scope on desktop/laptop web browsers than on mobile phone browsers (or worse yet mobile phone apps).

I just opened twitter, switched over the the "recommended" tab and scrolled for about a minute continuously without seeing a single ad.

[Michael in ABQ]

As long as you only get the cl*ck me, f*ck me bots, that is not a problem. Once you catch the Russian propanga bots though...
a few days ago I answered a post about Ukraine and got 7 of them how stupid it is to send weapons to Ukraine and that we need peace in Europe.


But no ads on Desktop? You mean in browser? Strange. That version is flooded! Main reason why I use tweetdeck. That and that, as you said, if you only follow sensible people you don't get that right wing hate wave (though I do follow a few of those accounts for... scientific reasons.)

I do have uBlock Origin installed on my browser (Chrome) so perhaps that's it. Most of the time I use Facebook I also don't see ads. Could be that Meta has just identified me as a poor prospect to target with ads as I never click on them except to hide/report them if they get annoying or inappropriate.

[FireLane]

In a sign of how great things are going at Twitter these days, Elon Musk filed a lawsuit against dozens of major corporations in which he claims it's illegal for them to not give him money:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/6/24214536/x-elon-musk-antitrust-lawsuit-advertisers-boycott

[GuitarStv]

Musk is such an incredible champion of first amendment rights.

[Glenstache]

Except that private orgs, much like X, have the ability to approach free speech as they wish and reap the according windfall or lack thereof.

This feels like an incel lashing out at women who won't date them.

[Travis]

Except that private orgs, much like X, have the ability to approach free speech as they wish and reap the according windfall or lack thereof.

This feels like an incel lashing out at women who won't date them.

After cussing them out. Remember when this started he dared all of those advertisers to quit and "Go F*ck themselves!" Now that they basically did what he asked he's claiming they're required to pay him.

[NorCal]

Except that private orgs, much like X, have the ability to approach free speech as they wish and reap the according windfall or lack thereof.

This feels like an incel lashing out at women who won't date them.

After cussing them out. Remember when this started he dared all of those advertisers to quit and "Go F*ck themselves!" Now that they basically did what he asked he's claiming they're required to pay him.

I don’t recall this strategy in “how to win friends and influence people”.

[LennStar]

Except that private orgs, much like X, have the ability to approach free speech as they wish and reap the according windfall or lack thereof.

This feels like an incel lashing out at women who won't date them.

After cussing them out. Remember when this started he dared all of those advertisers to quit and "Go F*ck themselves!" Now that they basically did what he asked he's claiming they're required to pay him.

I don’t recall this strategy in “how to win friends and influence people”.

I am sure that was in the part of seeming to be helpless to boast their confidence.

It's amazing how many people think a big child's little child tantrums are a sign of genius. Both Musk and Trump are simply obsesst with themselves and can't accept when somebody else does not agree to them. I guess more people want to live out their inner child and can't do it, and that is why they are so faszinated. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I am sure that was in the part of seeming to be helpless to boast their confidence.

It's amazing how many people think a big child's little child tantrums are a sign of genius. Both Musk and Trump are simply obsesst with themselves and can't accept when somebody else does not agree to them. I guess more people want to live out their inner child and can't do it, and that is why they are so faszinated.

So everyone acting like an adult in public is a genius?

Musk's public behavior is partly - but not entirely - the result of being on the Autism spectrum.  He is unable to process social interactions the way 98% of people can (the other 2% being ASD).

Roughly a hundred electric car companies failed, yet Musk took over Tesla and made it a success.  Okay, not a genius... then he guided SpaceX towards reusable rockets, which had never been done.  I think those companies could not have succeeded without his problem solving abilities.  To me, that is a better indication of someone being a genius.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

In my view, Media Matters did a "hit piece".  They had bots load Twitter over and over until they got their 1 in a million story.  Is that ethical journalism?  I don't view it as good journalism.

Twitter should detect combinations of story and advertisement that are inappropriate, and prevent the ads from being shown.  Media Matters detected a flaw, although it isn't clear users had hit that same flaw yet.  My guess is Media Matters prevails in the lawsuit, because they actually found what they claimed.

At the risk of "what-about-ism", Google and Facebook should have already learned this lesson, but apparently haven't.

"Google has been accused of profiting from people looking up suicide methods after a Telegraph investigation found the tech giant advertising rope in its search results."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/03/google-profiting-people-researching-suicide-advertising-rope/

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/meta-hide-posts-suicide-eating-disorders-from-teens-instagram-facebook-feeds/
"Meta to hide posts about suicide, eating disorders from teens' Instagram and Facebook feeds"

[ChpBstrd]

Musk's public behavior is partly - but not entirely - the result of being on the Autism spectrum. 

I've heard something along these lines before, but is sounds a lot like the armchair psychological speculation about Trump having narcissistic personality disorder or Biden suffering senility. Do you know if this diagnosis has been confirmed or admitted to somehow? Is it a group of experts' opinion? Or is it sort of an observation lots of people on the internet have had?

In my view, Media Matters did a "hit piece".  They had bots load Twitter over and over until they got their 1 in a million story.  Is that ethical journalism?  I don't view it as good journalism.

Twitter should detect combinations of story and advertisement that are inappropriate, and prevent the ads from being shown.  Media Matters detected a flaw, although it isn't clear users had hit that same flaw yet.  My guess is Media Matters prevails in the lawsuit, because they actually found what they claimed.

At the risk of "what-about-ism", Google and Facebook should have already learned this lesson, but apparently haven't.

"Google has been accused of profiting from people looking up suicide methods after a Telegraph investigation found the tech giant advertising rope in its search results."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/03/google-profiting-people-researching-suicide-advertising-rope/

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/meta-hide-posts-suicide-eating-disorders-from-teens-instagram-facebook-feeds/
"Meta to hide posts about suicide, eating disorders from teens' Instagram and Facebook feeds"

IDK, let's compare this to standard investigative journalism and see if we can find a difference. Suppose 60 Minutes or somebody is investigating a supplement company for having toxic contaminants in their products. They act as fake customers to buy dozens of products in multiple states and have a lab analyze the results. Then they call the company's help line and record the interactions while they request help with the product, again posing as someone they're not. As a result, the journalists' "hit piece" informs hundreds of thousands of Americans about a danger to their health and alerts government regulators to a major problem.

This is similar to what happened with Firestone tires in the early 2000's. The tires were blowing out and causing crashes, particularly in Ford Explorers and particularly on hot days. The company denied anything was wrong, but journalists did a "hit piece" exposing the flaws. Next thing you know, executives are being interrogated by Congress and tire quality control mysteriously improves.

With social media or search companies, everyone gets different results. If the journalists used only a few accounts as evidence for their hit piece, their work could be criticized for relying on a tiny sample size or leaning too hard on anecdotal evidence. The bot approach yields a more defensible answer and shows a systemic pattern in systems designed to generate variable results for different people. There is no other way that someone like a middle-aged man who doesn't use Instagram could ever learn about how teenage girls often go into a depressive spiral after starting the app. We need investigative journalists and their methods to uncover that.

Similarly, we need investigative journalists to use subterfuge to uncover dangerous medications, supplements, and consumer products, as well as corrupt political practices, scams, misinformation operations, and miscarriages of justice. I think anyone doing such work deserves special legal protections under the 1st Amendment because of the value of their "hit pieces" to society. Think about the whistleblowers who were interviewed for The Social Dilemma, a modern day version of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and imagine a society that would use the legal system to suppress them instead of considering the value of their message.

[Kris]

I am sure that was in the part of seeming to be helpless to boast their confidence.

It's amazing how many people think a big child's little child tantrums are a sign of genius. Both Musk and Trump are simply obsesst with themselves and can't accept when somebody else does not agree to them. I guess more people want to live out their inner child and can't do it, and that is why they are so faszinated.

So everyone acting like an adult in public is a genius?

Musk's public behavior is partly - but not entirely - the result of being on the Autism spectrum.  He is unable to process social interactions the way 98% of people can (the other 2% being ASD).

Roughly a hundred electric car companies failed, yet Musk took over Tesla and made it a success.  Okay, not a genius... then he guided SpaceX towards reusable rockets, which had never been done.  I think those companies could not have succeeded without his problem solving abilities.  To me, that is a better indication of someone being a genius.

I know a fair number of people with autism. None of them act like this. My armchair diagnosis is, he’s just an immature dick.

[LennStar]

Also saying him blabbering insane right wing conspiracy theories is beause he is autistic is an insult to autists.
I might accept that this is the reason for him to force 60+ workhour weeks on his people since he also does this, but not him ignoring people that this might be a bad idea long term. Or him lying about his daughter. Or...

[GuitarStv]

Roughly a hundred electric car companies failed, yet Musk took over Tesla and made it a success.  Okay, not a genius... then he guided SpaceX towards reusable rockets, which had never been done.  I think those companies could not have succeeded without his problem solving abilities.  To me, that is a better indication of someone being a genius.

Musk has had some pretty public failures too . . . twitter, hyperloop, cybertruck, the boring company, solar city, etc.  There's the constant overpromising and underdelivering.  And then there are the many lawsuits Musk's companies have lost related to discrimination, working conditions, violating environmental regulations, health and safety violations, illegal union busting, etc.

At the end of the day, I dunno if the label 'genius' really fits.  He's a very rich investor and CEO with a lot of drive/passion for some things.  He has made some really good and some pretty terrible calls.

[Metalcat]

Roughly a hundred electric car companies failed, yet Musk took over Tesla and made it a success.  Okay, not a genius... then he guided SpaceX towards reusable rockets, which had never been done.  I think those companies could not have succeeded without his problem solving abilities.  To me, that is a better indication of someone being a genius.

Musk has had some pretty public failures too . . . twitter, hyperloop, cybertruck, the boring company, solar city, etc.  There's the constant overpromising and underdelivering.  And then there are the many lawsuits Musk's companies have lost related to discrimination, working conditions, violating environmental regulations, health and safety violations, illegal union busting, etc.

At the end of the day, I dunno if the label 'genius' really fits.  He's a very rich investor and CEO with a lot of drive/passion for some things.  He has made some really good and some pretty terrible calls.

As I've said previously though, his willingness to make absolutely terrible calls is a huge part of what is defined as his "genius."

The very fact that he sees all conventional wisdom as worth ignoring that makes it possible for him to achieve the way he has. But that also makes him very liable to fail.

I think people have a very poor understanding of just how slim the margins are between reckless failure and wild, innovative success.

I remember reading a book years ago about the history of genius and invention and the book outlined that history does not support the concept that necessity is the mother of invention, in fact it's quite the opposite.

Utter insanity seems to be the mother of invention and then necessity finds some way to put new ideas to better use.

The book illustrated so beautifully how incredibly close lunatic failures and brilliant innovators are and how the line that separates them is largely determined by chance.

So if you understand reckless, foolish, behaviour that's highly likely to cause failure IS genius when the outcomes are good, you can see that genius is more a retroactive narrative than an actually differentiating characteristic of an individual.

[LennStar]

Yeah, of course. It's like all those people who say you only have to work really hard to be very successful.
And ignoring that for each that was hugely successfull there are ten who made it to millionaire and 989 who failed.

[Glenstache]

Trying new things has a high failure rate, a lot of dead ends, and often some amount of social derison for trying something outside the group. Edison succeeded on this method, and, like Musk, often used other people's ideas with brute force to move forward. What makes that approach work is an expectation of failure and to use that as a learning experience. However, that does not mean that being a dick is a qualifying characteristic.

[simonsez]

Roughly a hundred electric car companies failed, yet Musk took over Tesla and made it a success.  Okay, not a genius... then he guided SpaceX towards reusable rockets, which had never been done.  I think those companies could not have succeeded without his problem solving abilities.  To me, that is a better indication of someone being a genius.

Musk has had some pretty public failures too . . . twitter, hyperloop, cybertruck, the boring company, solar city, etc.  There's the constant overpromising and underdelivering.  And then there are the many lawsuits Musk's companies have lost related to discrimination, working conditions, violating environmental regulations, health and safety violations, illegal union busting, etc.

At the end of the day, I dunno if the label 'genius' really fits.  He's a very rich investor and CEO with a lot of drive/passion for some things.  He has made some really good and some pretty terrible calls.

Depends how Musk defines success.  I don't think he bought Twitter to enhance his pecuniary station.  I mean, he has said as much multiple times so it makes less sense to view that transaction on balance sheets alone.   He wanted to make an electric truck that could withstand bullets.  By that statement, he succeeded in a sense. 

I don't think he likes the CEO hat but has to wear it if he wants to have the power to choose which projects get funding.

He genuinely seems to not GAF how others view him or label him.  He continues to innovate regardless of financial success and will likely continue to do so until his previous projects and decisions have failed so much that he has no more money.

Humans can't stop their obsession with pattern recognition and must delineate and categorize.  We normally assign value to entrepreneurs and leaders in the business world by $.  Musk is different (many are different, just it's rare to see a billionaire and not judge them in terms of money) and $ doesn't always serve as the best proxy.  Example - if he goes bankrupt that wouldn't make him an idiot in my book.  Sure, he might have many stupid decisions when viewed through an economic lens but that seems reductionist when assessing someone's level of genius.

[GuitarStv]

He continues to innovate

Does he?  He was part of the dev team with zip2 and Paypal.  What has he innovated since then?

Musk didn't innovate at Tesla, he was initially just an investor in the existing company and later took the role of CEO.  He is the CEO of SpaceX and also took the title of 'Chief Engineer' (later 'Chief Designer') as well although it's unclear what, if anything he has designed at the company (other than telling the other designers to make their ships 'more pointy' because he heard a line that he thought was funny in the movie 'The Dictator'.  Musk is the owner and co-founder of Neuralink.  Musk is the owner of The Boring Company.  Musk is the owner of Twitter.

What innovation exactly are you referring to?

[simonsez]

He continues to innovate

Does he?  He was part of the dev team with zip2 and Paypal.  What has he innovated since then?

Musk didn't innovate at Tesla, he was initially just an investor in the existing company and later took the role of CEO.  He is the CEO and also took the title of 'Chief Engineer' (later 'Chief Designer') as well although it's unclear what, if anything he has designed at the company (other than telling the other designers to make their ships 'more pointy' because he heard a line that he thought was funny in the movie 'The Dictator'.  Musk is the owner and co-founder of Neuralink.  Musk is the owner of The Boring Company.  Musk is the owner of Twitter.

What innovation exactly are you referring to?

Just noting not everything is about dollars to him (or to everyone).

In terms of innovation, how do you define it?  Here is one definition:  make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

You're saying Musk introduced zero new concepts, ideas, or products at Tesla or any of the other companies he has owned or co-founded since PayPal?  Really?  It seems more likely to me he has innovated since PayPal.

Either you have a much different or narrow version of innovation than I do or you have a bias against him. 

In my job, we get formally graded on various critical elements once a year and innovation is one of them.  You don't have to be a genius to come up with new ideas or ways of doing something that gets you good marks in that category.  I don't feel like innovation is some binary Yes/No construct or only constrained within some niche industry (like having to be on a dev team) and is more of a sliding scale.  I'd wager that Musk is on the higher end of that scale and if he were my federal employee, I suspect I'd be grading him as a 4 or 5 (out of 5 with a 3 being adequate) for his Innovation element.  If you do not agree or at least you don't think he has been innovative at all for 20+ years, cool, I guess.  Luckily our semantics don't change anything.

[GuitarStv]

He continues to innovate

Does he?  He was part of the dev team with zip2 and Paypal.  What has he innovated since then?

Musk didn't innovate at Tesla, he was initially just an investor in the existing company and later took the role of CEO.  He is the CEO and also took the title of 'Chief Engineer' (later 'Chief Designer') as well although it's unclear what, if anything he has designed at the company (other than telling the other designers to make their ships 'more pointy' because he heard a line that he thought was funny in the movie 'The Dictator'.  Musk is the owner and co-founder of Neuralink.  Musk is the owner of The Boring Company.  Musk is the owner of Twitter.

What innovation exactly are you referring to?

Just noting not everything is about dollars to him (or to everyone).

In terms of innovation, how do you define it?  Here is one definition:  make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

You're saying Musk introduced zero new concepts, ideas, or products at Tesla or any of the other companies he has owned or co-founded since PayPal?  Really?  It seems more likely to me he has innovated since PayPal.

Either you have a much different or narrow version of innovation than I do or you have a bias against him. 

In my job, we get formally graded on various critical elements once a year and innovation is one of them.  You don't have to be a genius to come up with new ideas or ways of doing something that gets you good marks in that category.  I don't feel like innovation is some binary Yes/No construct or only constrained within some niche industry (like having to be on a dev team) and is more of a sliding scale.  I'd wager that Musk is on the higher end of that scale and if he were my federal employee, I suspect I'd be grading him as a 4 or 5 (out of 5 with a 3 being adequate) for his Innovation element.  If you do not agree or at least you don't think he has been innovative at all for 20+ years, cool, I guess.  Luckily our semantics don't change anything.

I don't super closely follow Musk, but fanboys constantly gush about his genius and innovation.  You were mentioning his innovation so was wondering specifically what innovations you attributed to Musk.

My understanding is that his days engineering things largely ended after paypal - he transitioned from being a creator into being an investor/CEO/Big Ideas Guy^tm.  I guess that generally I think of innovation more as where the rubber hits the road and you have to actually create something new that works.  As far as I can tell, Musk's main game since paypal has largely been using his money to either buy companies that were already doing something he thought was a good idea, or to hire very smart people to try to make some of his wildest speculation into a reality.  As you've mentioned though - this is also a type of innovation.

[simonsez]

Reminds me of when Bill Burr questioned what was so great about Steve Jobs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liOZ1fW1F8

"I want all my entire music collection in that phone.  GET ON IT!!!" - Jobs yelling to his engineers.

I imagine Elon similarly and it's fair to question just has much of a positive presence a person has when talking about advancements, especially when considering all of the externalities, and of course who should receive credit for intellectual property.  Is it the idea person or is it the developer who takes the idea and builds something?  Lot of different hats that can be involved and perhaps deserve credit when it comes to innovation.  Big egos and corporate structures can certainly muddy the waters.

His name is attached to enough ideas, companies, and products that even if I find him annoying on a outward-facing social level, I'd still call the guy innovative, which of course means zilch.  I'm not big into hero worship and wouldn't call myself a fanboy or anything in that vein in relation to Musk and think it's good to discuss the merits and demerits of people in the limelight.  In this regard like I said I think his public persona is not great and not something to gush over (though I'd say the opposite is also not true, he's not evil) but that doesn't mean I will ignore other contributions, no matter if he was on a dev team or not or just a boss/owner yelling out ideas for the "real innovators" to figure out.

[Metalcat]

Reminds me of when Bill Burr questioned what was so great about Steve Jobs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liOZ1fW1F8

"I want all my entire music collection in that phone.  GET ON IT!!!" - Jobs yelling to his engineers.

I imagine Elon similarly and it's fair to question just has much of a positive presence a person has when talking about advancements, especially when considering all of the externalities, and of course who should receive credit for intellectual property.  Is it the idea person or is it the developer who takes the idea and builds something?  Lot of different hats that can be involved and perhaps deserve credit when it comes to innovation.  Big egos and corporate structures can certainly muddy the waters.

His name is attached to enough ideas, companies, and products that even if I find him annoying on a outward-facing social level, I'd still call the guy innovative, which of course means zilch.  I'm not big into hero worship and wouldn't call myself a fanboy or anything in that vein in relation to Musk and think it's good to discuss the merits and demerits of people in the limelight.  In this regard like I said I think his public persona is not great and not something to gush over (though I'd say the opposite is also not true, he's not evil) but that doesn't mean I will ignore other contributions, no matter if he was on a dev team or not or just a boss/owner yelling out ideas for the "real innovators" to figure out.

The Founders by Jimmy Soni covers Musk's particular style and contributions as a founder and as an executive. I read that after reading The Contrarian about Peter Thiel, and the combo gave me a ton of insight into how and why they work they way that they do.

[Taran Wanderer]

Part of that innovative mentality is the courage (or obliviousness) to keep pressing on in the midst of failure or others’ doubts. For example, I want rockets to land vertically. The math works! I don’t care if they say it can’t be done. I don’t care if the last 3 crashed and blew up! I WANT MY ROCKETS TO LAND VERTICALLY!!! Part of that is the willingness to press on after spectacular and public failures, and giving the organization permission to fail.

I think Musk has gone off the rails and at this point is probably dangerous to our interconnected and interdependent society, but I think it’s hard to win an argument that he’s not innovative in several areas.

[rocketpj]

It is possible to be Asd, a genius (at some things) and a total dick, all in the same package.  I've known more than a few people who ticked two of those boxes.

It is also possible to overstay your welcome and get a really much bigger notion of how special and smart you are than is justified by objective reality.  I think there is a certain 'billionaire derangement syndrome' where everyone around you gushes at you all the time.  After a few years it becomes your reality, so someone having the audacity to disagree with you feels like a personal attack.  Which goes a long way to explaining the massive overreaction some wealthy people have to relatively minor setbacks or slights.

There is an analogy to my experience of some very attractive people.  They get used to all the people around them doing backflips to make them happy, and then someone is indifferent or even just doesn't like them - and they feel attacked because that person isn't gushing at them.

Regular people go through life and have some people say positive things, and other say negative things.  We all learn to deal with it, but I don't know how grounded I'd stay after a decade or two of getting everything I want and having everyone around me tell me how great and smart I am.

There is probably a hedonic adaptation concept buried in there somewhere.

[blue_green_sparks]

I don't care how "innovative" or "smart" Musk is. I wish him luck on Mars. Engages in everything and anything that would dismantle democratic institutions that were implemented to protect people from the likes of him. We have to get big money out of politics. 

[GuitarStv]

I don't care how "innovative" or "smart" Musk is. I wish him luck on Mars. Engages in everything and anything that would dismantle democratic institutions that were implemented to protect people from the likes of him. We have to get big money out of politics.

I think it makes sense for Musk to do that.  He exists at a place well above the need for those protections and democratic institutions, so to him they're just annoyances that get in the way.

[ChpBstrd]

I don't care how "innovative" or "smart" Musk is. I wish him luck on Mars. Engages in everything and anything that would dismantle democratic institutions that were implemented to protect people from the likes of him. We have to get big money out of politics.

I think it makes sense for Musk to do that.  He exists at a place well above the need for those protections and democratic institutions, so to him they're just annoyances that get in the way.

Musk is probably too old to see Mars colonies happen or go to Mars himself. However, I can't help but notice the parallels with the Weyland-Yutani corporate monopoly in the Alien sci-fi franchise. Will a 90-something year old Musk in frail health be helped onto another planet by a robot his corporation built? Much of his work seems to be oriented toward this outcome - diverting his car company into making expensive humanoid prototypes, advancing rocket technology, Neuralink, and seizing control of the social media platform that has a monopoly on journalistic information dissemination and effective control over a big chunk of public opinion in the 2020's.

More to the point, as the Prometheus movie illustrated, and the opening scene of Covenant clarified, Mr. Weyland is a character with a dreadful fear of death and emptiness as his key motivating flaw. Musk's delusions of grandeur might manifest themselves in a similar way over time, as the wrinkles present themselves in the mirror each morning.

The play goes like this: Utilize control of Twitter to tilt the global consensus toward being in favor of AI and space tech development, perhaps by encouraging fragmentation of populations and war. Use Twitter to encourage top-down, authoritarian leadership. Make the political parties in democratic countries beg for his favor, as the one who pulls the strings to shape public opinion. Apply corporate and government resources toward technologies like AI, brain-machine interfaces, and space equipment that will get him to Mars within his lifetime, or to help him achieve immortality through the upload of himself through successor technologies to neurolink.

In the movies, Weyland shifts toward a religious understanding of how he can escape death, and deludes himself into stumbling upon an alien biological weapon. Perhaps Musk will do the same, becoming a founder of something new and awful, and putting humanity to hard labor on a quest of futility like the Egyptian pharaohs did.

If this seems ambitious, remember who we are talking about.

[twinstudy]

I don't care how "innovative" or "smart" Musk is. I wish him luck on Mars. Engages in everything and anything that would dismantle democratic institutions that were implemented to protect people from the likes of him. We have to get big money out of politics.

I think it makes sense for Musk to do that.  He exists at a place well above the need for those protections and democratic institutions, so to him they're just annoyances that get in the way.

At a certain level of wealth, it makes sense (from a self-interested perspective) to be libertarian. You don't even need to be Musk level. A couple of professional workers earning combined high-six figures in wages will be paying more in tax each year than they could ever use in that time span in public services. Even accounting for the need for private security, etc, there's no way that a couple of DINKs' infrastructure needs would exceed $300k a year.