Twitter

[waltworks]

I read the NYT summary of the situation and there really aren't any good guys. The judge sounds like a power-mad lunatic, and Twitter/X is actively responsible for a lot of particularly terrible untrue information going around in Brazil.

So a pox on both their houses, as far as I'm concerned. They deserve each other. 

-W

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"Musk slams Brazil judge over Starlink frozen accounts, X shutdown threat"
...
"This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied — unconstitutionally — against X," Starlink said.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/brazil-starlink-x-shutdown

Brazil seems to think one unrelated company can be forced to pay for the actions of another, when their only link is the CEO.  I've heard this from multiple sources, but with no explanation of how Elon Musk can be personally targeted.

In the U.S., certain crimes can allow courts and lawsuits to "pierce the corporate veil", allowing them to go after officers of the company instead of just the company itself.  But I've never heard of freezing the accounts of one company owing the behavior of another, which sounds like shaky legal grounds in any country.

[LennStar]

"Musk slams Brazil judge over Starlink frozen accounts, X shutdown threat"
...
"This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied — unconstitutionally — against X," Starlink said.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/brazil-starlink-x-shutdown

Brazil seems to think one unrelated company can be forced to pay for the actions of another, when their only link is the CEO.  I've heard this from multiple sources, but with no explanation of how Elon Musk can be personally targeted.

In the U.S., certain crimes can allow courts and lawsuits to "pierce the corporate veil", allowing them to go after officers of the company instead of just the company itself.  But I've never heard of freezing the accounts of one company owing the behavior of another, which sounds like shaky legal grounds in any country.

Well, in the US the government goes after the money of those companies that "help" through their normal business another company that reports about another company that reports about US war/human crimes. (for example, but not exclusivly: collateral murder, VISA etc. ordered by thread of fine (and if I remember correctly jail to the CEOs) to no longer enable donations toward Wikileaks which published recherche results of a journalist.)

It's hard to find a crime the US has not done. Which might be the reason why they are the only country in the world to have a law to invade an international court if one of their soldiers is in danger of being held responsible.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"Musk slams Brazil judge over Starlink frozen accounts, X shutdown threat"
...
"This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied — unconstitutionally — against X," Starlink said.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/brazil-starlink-x-shutdown

Brazil seems to think one unrelated company can be forced to pay for the actions of another, when their only link is the CEO.  I've heard this from multiple sources, but with no explanation of how Elon Musk can be personally targeted.

In the U.S., certain crimes can allow courts and lawsuits to "pierce the corporate veil", allowing them to go after officers of the company instead of just the company itself.  But I've never heard of freezing the accounts of one company owing the behavior of another, which sounds like shaky legal grounds in any country.

Well, in the US the government goes after the money of those companies that "help" through their normal business another company that reports about another company that reports about US war/human crimes. (for example, but not exclusivly: collateral murder, VISA etc. ordered by thread of fine (and if I remember correctly jail to the CEOs) to no longer enable donations toward Wikileaks which published recherche results of a journalist.)

It's hard to find a crime the US has not done. Which might be the reason why they are the only country in the world to have a law to invade an international court if one of their soldiers is in danger of being held responsible.

Maybe you can start a separate thread about how much you hate the U.S., but that wasn't the question I asked.  I wondered why a court in Brazil can freeze the accounts of Starlink, when it is not related to Twitter - except by having the same CEO.

[waltworks]

My understanding is that Musk announced that Starlink would provide free service to Brazilians and not block X, as a workaround to the ban on X in Brazil.

I have no dog in this fight but I can see how penalties for Starlink would make sense in that situation, since they'd presumably be assisting in defying the judge's orders/the law.

That said my understanding of the situation is not super comprehensive. I stand by my "assholes all around" analysis.

-W

[LennStar]

"Musk slams Brazil judge over Starlink frozen accounts, X shutdown threat"
...
"This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied — unconstitutionally — against X," Starlink said.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/brazil-starlink-x-shutdown

Brazil seems to think one unrelated company can be forced to pay for the actions of another, when their only link is the CEO.  I've heard this from multiple sources, but with no explanation of how Elon Musk can be personally targeted.

In the U.S., certain crimes can allow courts and lawsuits to "pierce the corporate veil", allowing them to go after officers of the company instead of just the company itself.  But I've never heard of freezing the accounts of one company owing the behavior of another, which sounds like shaky legal grounds in any country.

Well, in the US the government goes after the money of those companies that "help" through their normal business another company that reports about another company that reports about US war/human crimes. (for example, but not exclusivly: collateral murder, VISA etc. ordered by thread of fine (and if I remember correctly jail to the CEOs) to no longer enable donations toward Wikileaks which published recherche results of a journalist.)

It's hard to find a crime the US has not done. Which might be the reason why they are the only country in the world to have a law to invade an international court if one of their soldiers is in danger of being held responsible.

Maybe you can start a separate thread about how much you hate the U.S., but that wasn't the question I asked.  I wondered why a court in Brazil can freeze the accounts of Starlink, when it is not related to Twitter - except by having the same CEO.

This wasn't about my existent or not existent hate about the US, that was about the US centric view that you displayed and the fact that the US is very often the country that ignores the laws of others so doesn't exactly have a high moral ground to stand on in thise case.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"Musk slams Brazil judge over Starlink frozen accounts, X shutdown threat"
...
"This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied — unconstitutionally — against X," Starlink said.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/brazil-starlink-x-shutdown

Brazil seems to think one unrelated company can be forced to pay for the actions of another, when their only link is the CEO.  I've heard this from multiple sources, but with no explanation of how Elon Musk can be personally targeted.

In the U.S., certain crimes can allow courts and lawsuits to "pierce the corporate veil", allowing them to go after officers of the company instead of just the company itself.  But I've never heard of freezing the accounts of one company owing the behavior of another, which sounds like shaky legal grounds in any country.

Well, in the US the government goes after the money of those companies that "help" through their normal business another company that reports about another company that reports about US war/human crimes. (for example, but not exclusivly: collateral murder, VISA etc. ordered by thread of fine (and if I remember correctly jail to the CEOs) to no longer enable donations toward Wikileaks which published recherche results of a journalist.)

It's hard to find a crime the US has not done. Which might be the reason why they are the only country in the world to have a law to invade an international court if one of their soldiers is in danger of being held responsible.

Maybe you can start a separate thread about how much you hate the U.S., but that wasn't the question I asked.  I wondered why a court in Brazil can freeze the accounts of Starlink, when it is not related to Twitter - except by having the same CEO.

This wasn't about my existent or not existent hate about the US, that was about the US centric view that you displayed and the fact that the US is very often the country that ignores the laws of others so doesn't exactly have a high moral ground to stand on in thise case.

My only mention of the U.S. was in "piercing the corporate veil", which you didn't even realize is also found in Europe.  Your bias kicked in before you even checked for the same legal theory in your own country.

The term ‘piercing the corporate veil’ describes cases in which exceptions to the independence of a legal person are made. The terminology of veil piercing displays a pictographic character in many European legal systems.

https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Piercing_the_Corporate_Veil

[MustacheAndaHalf]

My understanding is that Musk announced that Starlink would provide free service to Brazilians and not block X, as a workaround to the ban on X in Brazil.

I have no dog in this fight but I can see how penalties for Starlink would make sense in that situation, since they'd presumably be assisting in defying the judge's orders/the law.

That said my understanding of the situation is not super comprehensive. I stand by my "assholes all around" analysis.

-W

Thanks, I hadn't read about Starlink assisting Twitter/X to get around the ban in Brazil.

[LennStar]

In the U.S.,  [...]  But I've never heard of freezing the accounts of one company owing the behavior of another, which sounds like shaky legal grounds in any country.

You said US. You talked about a certain behavior you didn't know about. So I pointed out the US did exactly that behavior (btw. more than once).

End of discussion.

[partgypsy]

So in the latest, Musk shared a post that recommends that the government be run by high testosterone (and non neurotypic?) males, and while those "unable to defend themselves" (females and "beta" males) excluded from participation.

Trumpers saying the quiet parts out loud.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-trump-x-views-b2605907.html

[LennStar]

So in the latest, Musk shared a post that recommends that the government be run by high testosterone (and non neurotypic?) males, and while those "unable to defend themselves" females and "beta" males be excluded from participation.
Again, the Trumpers saying the quiet parts out loud.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-trump-x-views-b2605907.html

I think his ego has been placed on one of SpaceX rockets, because it's certainly getting out of orbit faster and faster.

[Metalcat]

So in the latest, Musk shared a post that recommends that the government be run by high testosterone (and non neurotypic?) males, and while those "unable to defend themselves" females and "beta" males be excluded from participation.
Again, the Trumpers saying the quiet parts out loud.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-trump-x-views-b2605907.html

I think his ego has been placed on one of SpaceX rockets, because it's certainly getting out of orbit faster and faster.

I don't personally see this, from what I've read about him and the other founders at PayPal, his behaviour seems pretty consistent with how he's always perceived himself.

You have to remember that his entire business premise has always been that existing organizations of any amount of power are fundamentally stupid and inefficient and that he's best off following his instincts on how to do things. Also, that because he is always going against the established systems, and always pushing things to move as fast as possible and challenge as many assumptions and rules as possible, that it's just a normal cost of business to sometimes be wildly wrong.

So in his reality, there is no organization that yields any degree of power that he should respect, and his own failures do not indicate any flaw with his primary business reasoning.

The proof of the pudding for him is also in the eating, if he's one of the wealthiest and most successful men on earth, then how can his "first principles" philosophy possibly be wrong?

The problem is that despite his enormous wealth and influence, he's coming up against organizational power that's simply not likely to bend to him, which is driving him fucking mental, like the Scandinavian unions, because he's always so fundamentally convinced that his approach is smarter and more efficient than theirs.

It's a very interesting cognitive construct he's created where he never actually needs to be right about anything to feel superior, because it's not his individual ideas or contributions that make him a "genius," it's his ability to see that organizations must be inefficient and flawed, and his willingness to defy them according to that certainty.

Where his success has come from is his "founder" culture approach to management, where he has been able to attract incredibly talented people, tell them they can essentially break whatever rules are holding them back, and push them to work themselves into the ground to reach a state where they can achieve true brilliance.

But this isn't even Musk's playbook, it's Thiel's, literally, he wrote a playbook for founders outlining every single element of this approach with a very clear reasoning and rationale as to why.

And it worked for Musk for a good long time until he started picking fights with bigger and bigger organizations of power and started having bigger and bigger, very public hissy fits. The hissy fits aren't new, the PayPal stories are full of Musk's drama, which is why he was ousted and replaced with Thiel who *got shit done*.

He's always been like this, he's just hitting a wall with how formidable the organizations he's shitting on are.

[sonofsven]

Briliant analysis, @Metalcat — though on some level is it really novel for an entrepreneur to realize that existing competition is slowed by bureaucracy or inefficiency?

Last night, because Internet, I went on a deep dive about his ex, Grimes. It’s just so sad the depths to which she has sunk by swimming with Musk and his authoritarian tech/finance bros. Now it takes two, so she herself is responsible for embracing the importance of patriarchy in “gifting” freedom to women (her most recent post), embracing some degree of white supremacy, embracing San Francisco monarchist Curtis Yarvin (see pix from his recent wedding, littered with Trump hats), even suggesting Lex Friedman in his upcoming interview should ask Trump to explain where he stands on women’s rights (!).

On top of that, at 36 years young she now has a botched weird cosmetic surgery/filler face… which is as common as ketamine and cocaine in this circles (see Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Kimberly Guilefoyle).

One half to two thirds of the Musk story is the entrepreneurial success. The other significant part is the fame addiction, which has led him and so many others into a bizarre set of beliefs and actions. See Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, and many more for examples…

Not sure where I’m going with this, feel free to riff on it more…

Oh wait, I know… THEY ARE ALL DESPERATELY UNHAPPY!

Wait, they're cat owners?

[Metalcat]

Briliant analysis, @Metalcat — though on some level is it really novel for an entrepreneur to realize that existing competition is slowed by bureaucracy or inefficiency?

No, not at all the first, but it's very rare for them to have the conviction of certainty in their own superiority to create an entire corporate culture around defying all authority.

Thiel is the same on that front, but a very, VERY different creature, and the more I read, the more I'm perceiving Musk as the loaded gun that Thiel is aiming at things. It's become clear that he was a major push for him to buy Twitter, and he's one of the few people who Musk listens to.

Comparing and contrasting the two of them is a very interesting, from when they were essentially forced together against their wills with PayPal, to Musk's ousting and replacement with Thiel and then how radically their paths have differed since then. They are a powerful study of contrasts.

[Telecaster]

And it worked for Musk for a good long time until he started picking fights with bigger and bigger organizations of power and started having bigger and bigger, very public hissy fits. The hissy fits aren't new, the PayPal stories are full of Musk's drama, which is why he was ousted and replaced with Thiel who *got shit done*.

He's always been like this, he's just hitting a wall with how formidable the organizations he's shitting on are.

Great analysis.   Elon Musk's superpower is that he sees inefficiencies in the world as an opportunity.  For example, traditional aerospace companies worked on cost plus contracts.   Overhead is a feature, not a bug.   SpaceX by contrast has had a relentless focus on cost-efficiency and simplification.   Similar concept at Tesla where they don't have model years, in the traditional sense.  They constantly improve the cars and the manufacturing process.   

But his superpower is also his kryptonite.   He assumes the old ways are always wrong.   But they aren't always wrong.    For example, he misunderstood the purpose of the blue checkmark.   He thought it was a status symbol for influencers.   Instead, it was tool to improve the experience for the followers--which is most of Twitter.   So he had to bring it back after a long absence.   

He also clearly misunderstood the value of moderation.   One obvious part is that advertisers want to protect their brands and don't want their product appear next to neo-nazi content.   Another is that without moderation all public Internet communication turns into a cess pool at some point.   The non-cess pool faction is larger than the pro Nazi content faction for sure.  But not nearly as loud.

Musk has been pitching the idea that Telsa is really an AI/Robotics company and should be valued as such.  Maybe it is, but those are relatively new industries.   I don't know that is his blueprint for disruption is applicable here, and I'm certain his blindspots are not helpful. 

[Metalcat]

And it worked for Musk for a good long time until he started picking fights with bigger and bigger organizations of power and started having bigger and bigger, very public hissy fits. The hissy fits aren't new, the PayPal stories are full of Musk's drama, which is why he was ousted and replaced with Thiel who *got shit done*.

He's always been like this, he's just hitting a wall with how formidable the organizations he's shitting on are.

Great analysis.   Elon Musk's superpower is that he sees inefficiencies in the world as an opportunity.  For example, traditional aerospace companies worked on cost plus contracts.   Overhead is a feature, not a bug.   SpaceX by contrast has had a relentless focus on cost-efficiency and simplification.   Similar concept at Tesla where they don't have model years, in the traditional sense.  They constantly improve the cars and the manufacturing process.   

But his superpower is also his kryptonite.   He assumes the old ways are always wrong.   But they aren't always wrong.    For example, he misunderstood the purpose of the blue checkmark.   He thought it was a status symbol for influencers.   Instead, it was tool to improve the experience for the followers--which is most of Twitter.   So he had to bring it back after a long absence.   

He also clearly misunderstood the value of moderation.   One obvious part is that advertisers want to protect their brands and don't want their product appear next to neo-nazi content.   Another is that without moderation all public Internet communication turns into a cess pool at some point.   The non-cess pool faction is larger than the pro Nazi content faction for sure.  But not nearly as loud.

Musk has been pitching the idea that Telsa is really an AI/Robotics company and should be valued as such.  Maybe it is, but those are relatively new industries.   I don't know that is his blueprint for disruption is applicable here, and I'm certain his blindspots are not helpful.

Exactly.

It's well documented that he decided on banking, automotive, and aerospace very early on as prime targets for ferreting out systemic bloat and inefficiencies. And I won't for a second discredit his instincts in those targets.

But as you said, his belief that any organization that doesn't work the way he wants it to is fundamentally wrong is both his biggest strength and greatest weakness. Because the bigger he has gotten, the more probable he has been to face off with organizations of power that the public support more than his priorities.

And therein lies the crux of both his strength and weakness: his need for attention. The very same need for attention allowed him.to create the cult of personality that attracted absolutely brilliant people willing to work themselves to death for his causes. Its also the source of his meltdowns.

This is where a study of contrast with Thiel is so astoundingly fascinating, especially to someone who professionally understands personalities. Thiel is famously one of the most inscrutable people on the face of the earth. If Musk is someone absolutely desperate to be seen, Thiel is someone absolutely ferociously desperate to be unseeable.

Very crudely, we can attribute a good chunk of that to growing up gay and closeted, but his case is nuanced as fuck. No one knows what the guy's values are, not even people who know him well. Aside from wanting to live forever and currently being extremely invested in alt right political dominance (why? Not sure), he's just unseeable.

The contrast of their leadership of PayPal is, to me, really iconic of the contrast between them. Musk got coerced into the partnership, desperately wanted to lead the company, had too many crazy ideas and hissy fits and got taken out by the other team for being a fucking lunatic. Thiel never wanted to lead but took up the role for the sake of the team that needed him to, only to pull back as soon as he wasn't needed because he had no interest in running any companies, just founding them.

Whatever Thiel does is to serve a mission, whatever mission Musk pursues is to serve the purpose of promoting his own legacy. Looking at Musk's parents, this makes a lot of sense.

But you really can't understand Musk unless you try to understand Thiel, because a personality like Musk's absolutely needs reassurance in times of criticism, and he trusts so few people, and respects even fewer. But he deeply respects Thiel, whose entire fucking thing is to pull people's strings behind the scenes.

So in a very real way, to grasp Musk is to grasp how his behaviour is useful to Thiel, because right now he's behaving like a very smart "useful idiot."

It has never aligned with any of Musk's ideological goals to overpay for Twitter and then run it into the ground...but it sure does align perfectly with Thiel's as he has long made media plays

"He made a fortune on PayPal and Facebook, sued the satirical muckraking publication Gawker into its grave and has spent the last several years funding or building a nearly invisible media empire."
-excerpt from https://www.salon.com/2023/03/27/what-does-peter-thiel-want-hes-building-the-right-wing-future-piece-by-piece/

Musk went from being the most praised and respected human being on the face of the planet, possibly one of the most broadly admired humans in history, and even if he didn't display strong, generational narcissism, that kind of praise would be extremely addictive.

Falling from that pedestal would make anyone close ranks and double down on only valuing the opinion of those the respect most. That would leave him extremely susceptible to influence from his long time, most trusted advisor.

[twinstudy]

I have a lot of respect for Musk, because unlike much of the population, he works his butt off, produces something others want to buy, innovates (either directly or via his companies), and doesn't hold back on his thoughts. Yeah, he's fallible and has made mistakes, but at least he's in the game to begin with, unlike all those without the skills or the work ethic to even play.

[Metalcat]

Oh wow, this is incredibly interesting! The only part I’m not understanding is how the Twitter purchase/debacle helps Thiel’s long plays in media?

Thiel's own writing doesn't impress me. Some random complaints, cliché imagery -- and then a suggestion that women's suffrage messed up democracy, because women aren't libertarian. Well, women and... welfare recipients?

Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

From ttps://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

But the biggest issue of all as that these anti-big-government guys, Thiel, Anderson, Vance and the like, are all eagerly seeking government contracts for their defense AI, databases, etc.

That's kind of my point though...he's not understandable. He has no clear or brilliant philosophical perspectives he's ever shared, his actions don't make much discernable sense, he most certainly isn't trying to maximize his business success, and yet he's fucking everywhere while at the same time, it's extremely hard to tell where he is and what he's doing.

The only sense I have of him is that over the past 4 years I've read about 200 books on tech investment, oil and gas industries, middle eastern economics with a particular focus on Saudi and MBS and his fucking nonsense, Russian politics, Chinese politics, Indian politics, climate change policy and the new economic systems around that, US politics and history with a focus on the rise of the alt right, and so on and so forth, and fucking Thiel keeps showing up. When articles about him say he's "everywhere," that's exactly the sense I have.

Remember, the guy doesn't want to be understood, so no surprise he's never written anything that would really facilitate that.

The only clear value he holds is that he wants to tear shit down, and he's become a rather effective player on that front, and controlling media/burning it to the ground is a very, very important play in that playbook.

Twitter was an enormous cultural organizing force and now it's in chaos. That is a VERY beneficial thing for a lot of people. Just not Musk.

Think about it. Thiel was instrumental in the degradation of facts and truth on FB, he enormously influenced Zuckerberg to shy away from moderating alt right content on FB, now Twitter, the other giant in controlling the dominant narrative of the internet has gone the exact same way.

Those two things alone are not minor impacts on the world.

So Musk buys Twitter for an absolutely insane price, which is a business move that doesn't benefit him or his other companies in any way, shape, or form, largely because during the pandemic he smashed heads with his first real wall of policy and horrible press and had an epic hissy fit that allowed people to influence him to do the absolutely batshit thing of working against his own interests by buying Twitter. Which, as stated above, he was addicted to, but didn't have any special insights into how it actually functioned or how to improve it.

He walked straight into a lose-lose situation where the move will almost be guaranteed to always look like failure. How it *looks* being important. He essentially can't make it a smart financial move, and Twitter being a social media was a tool for the public, and he's essentially broken that public tool. So it can't be a financial win, it can't be a win where the users say "this is so much better," and it can't be a PR win because he just looks more unhinged AND it hurts his other companies.

It's basically the perfect lose-lose-lose situation for Musk, so we have to ask ourselves: who wins?

The guy in the background who doesn't say much sure has a pattern of influencing much wealthier buddies to make giant social media platforms less stable...

[FireLane]

See, I don't think there was any sinister intent behind Musk buying Twitter. I don't think it was part of a grand Thiel-backed plan to destabilize society or anything like that. You can explain it by ordinary, flawed humans doing ordinary, flawed human things.

I think Musk did what he usually does - he made a big, impulsive promise he didn't intend to keep, as a way of generating hype and keeping himself in the spotlight. Only he went too far this time and actually committed himself, and then couldn't back out of the deal because he got sued.

The... charitable?... interpretation is that what happened next is the same thing that's happened to so many other insecure men who use social media too much: he fell down a rabbit hole of right-wing content and got radicalized. He was seduced by the poison-whisperers telling him that all the criticism he receives comes from lesser beings who hate him for his natural superiority.

Musk would hardly be unique in this regard, although what is unique is that that he radicalized himself on his own platform. It probably didn't help that he's known for working ludicrous hours while taking large quantities of drugs; that can't have been good for his mental stability.

The less charitable interpretation is that Musk was always a fascist (I don't use that word lightly, but when you see him trying to stir up race war in the UK and musing about abolishing democracy, there's no other term that fits), and this is just him letting his true colors show.

[Metalcat]

Not saying it's a grand scheme, I think it's somewhere in between. I think he was in a very insecure state and one of the few people he trusts pushed him to do this, and that person is highly motivated to destabilize media. Patterns of influence don't have to be grand conspiracy theories, but they can be observed and noted.

Musk's fall from media golden boy to villain would have been extremely psychologically difficult for anyone. He would have been much more susceptible to influence from people whose praise he valued. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the nature of egoic behaviour.

[ChpBstrd]

Not saying it's a grand scheme, I think it's somewhere in between. I think he was in a very insecure state and one of the few people he trusts pushed him to do this, and that person is highly motivated to destabilize media. Patterns of influence don't have to be grand conspiracy theories, but they can be observed and noted.

Musk's fall from media golden boy to villain would have been extremely psychologically difficult for anyone. He would have been much more susceptible to influence from people whose praise he valued. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the nature of egoic behaviour.

Think it's consistent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Musk essentially traded widespread popularity for hero worship by a narrower demographic that still numbers in the millions. When I ask myself what sort of personality finds that a good deal, it brings to mind the sort of people who need a deeper sense of validation from others... someone who'd like to see people arguing about their greatness on the internet, or someone who sees the mainstream media as a competitor for attention.

[NorCal]

Peter Thiel is an influential person, but let's not put him up as a right wing "George Soros" boogeyman.  There are some common threads and themes throughout the Paypal mafia, but they're not some grand supervillains.  I could be convinced they're aspiring superviallans, but let's not confuse influence with being all-powerful.

I think the explanation for Twitter isn't that complex.  Elon Musk's motivations in life are fairly consistent with Trump's.  Money is important, but money is just a tool for ego, notoriety, and power.  People with power also commonly measure themselves based on the power of their perceived enemies.

I think Musk saw what Trump did in 2016 and was inspired.  Donald Trump was an asshole on Twitter as a tool to become President of the friggin United States.  Simply being an internet troll got Donal Trump the most powerful job in the world.  That was most of his 2016 campaign.

What else should an egomaniac do other than to buy the platform that can literally make presidents?  Why shouldn't he become the world's chief internet troll if that is a path to the most powerful job in the world?

[Metalcat]

Not saying it's a grand scheme, I think it's somewhere in between. I think he was in a very insecure state and one of the few people he trusts pushed him to do this, and that person is highly motivated to destabilize media. Patterns of influence don't have to be grand conspiracy theories, but they can be observed and noted.

Musk's fall from media golden boy to villain would have been extremely psychologically difficult for anyone. He would have been much more susceptible to influence from people whose praise he valued. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the nature of egoic behaviour.

Think it's consistent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Musk essentially traded widespread popularity for hero worship by a narrower demographic that still numbers in the millions. When I ask myself what sort of personality finds that a good deal, it brings to mind the sort of people who need a deeper sense of validation from others... someone who'd like to see people arguing about their greatness on the internet, or someone who sees the mainstream media as a competitor for attention.

I personally am not much of a fan of a lot of diagnostics and their criteria and I don't know the guy and am definitely not his healthcare provider. Honestly, the history behind personality disorder diagnosis is pretty fraught.

A lot of researchers are questioning the utility of personality disorder categories in the first place and saying that they should be categorized more as degrees of response to developmental trauma.

People raised by parents who have a lot of narcissistic behaviors tend to express a lot of narcissistic behaviours themselves, especially under pressure. It's an adaptive response. Musk's utterly loathsome father displays some pretty harsh narcissistic behaviours, he's pretty unsubtle about it. Musk displays a lot of narcissistic behaviours as well, whether they're consistent or whether they just show up under pressure is impossible to say. We do see them more when he's feeling threatened.

So he may not have a personality disorder at all, he may just have narcissistic abuse behaviours, which manifest as a lot of narcissistic behaviours. Maybe, maybe not. Again, I have no clue, I'm only explaining this to say that someone can appear extremely narcissistic to an observer if they had a narcissistic parent and are primarily observed when they feel threatened.

I'm sharing a hypothetical to illustrate how variable the interpretations of behaviour can be. Maybe he's a consistent grandiose narcissist, maybe he's an intensely sensitive and caring person who has episodic narcissism under threat. Most people are somewhere in the middle.

Although accounts from his ex certainly don't paint a picture of much sensitivity. But that could also be a product of neurodivergence as well. So really, who knows, and it doesn't really matter to anyone outside of his immediate circle.

So no, I have no idea if he has a narcissistic personality disorder, I couldn't begin to speculate, really. All I can do is comment on the patterns of his observable behaviour, which is frequently pretty narcissistic, but that alone is not at all uncommon, or even necessarily a bad thing.

Plenty of people with a lot of narcissistic behaviours are pretty happy, successful people who get along with others just fine. So me saying he has narcissistic behaviours is not me passing judgement on him on that front either.

A lot of communal narcissists are actually beloved members of communities because their narcissism revolves around their value to a collective. Tons of leaders display communal narcissistic behaviors.

What I see more at issue is his intense insecurity and reactivity.

I have a number of clients who are extremely gifted, and research is increasingly coming out illuminating how giftedness is a form of neurodivergence and can create intense isolation and frustration as a result.

What I see in his behaviours is very consistent with what I see in extremely gifted people, and given what I've heard from his father, it seems pretty self-evident that he was raised with some narcissistic abuse, and putting those two things together fits with a lot of his displayed behaviour.

But that's a very crude statement with extremely little nuance because I'm really only observing very, very limited behaviour. People are complex.

[Metalcat]

Peter Thiel is an influential person, but let's not put him up as a right wing "George Soros" boogeyman.  There are some common threads and themes throughout the Paypal mafia, but they're not some grand supervillains.  I could be convinced they're aspiring superviallans, but let's not confuse influence with being all-powerful.

I think the explanation for Twitter isn't that complex.  Elon Musk's motivations in life are fairly consistent with Trump's.  Money is important, but money is just a tool for ego, notoriety, and power.  People with power also commonly measure themselves based on the power of their perceived enemies.

I think Musk saw what Trump did in 2016 and was inspired.  Donald Trump was an asshole on Twitter as a tool to become President of the friggin United States.  Simply being an internet troll got Donal Trump the most powerful job in the world.  That was most of his 2016 campaign.

What else should an egomaniac do other than to buy the platform that can literally make presidents?  Why shouldn't he become the world's chief internet troll if that is a path to the most powerful job in the world?

Really not the point I was trying to make, although the way I wrote it I can totally see how it came off that way. Thiel is everywhere, but that doesn't mean he's all powerful. My point was that he's very active behind the scenes while Musk is very active publicly.

Musk wants to be seen, Thiel tries to be invisible.

My point was to say they're an incredible study of contrasts, their parallel trajectories and radically different styles, from the day their companies combined have made them an almost Shakespearean-level character study. My point was also that I think that Thiel had a lot of influence on the decision to buy Twitter because it's so consistent with his more media-focused efforts than Musk's.

There's a lot of pattern to what Thiel gets up to, the guy has a lot of influence. Not all powerful influence, not even remotely close, but with how psychologically vulnerable Musk must have been at the time, I can see him being extremely susceptible to influence from someone he respects, who has a history of targeting media.

I'm more interested by the psychology of Thiel than anything else. The inscrutability is fucking fascinating, especially contrasted against Musk's desperation to be seen. As I said, downright Shakespearean shit.

[FireLane]

So, here's a thing that happened this week.

Darryl Cooper is a podcaster and historian. He's also a Nazi apologist. That's not hyperbole. He says that Winston Churchill is to blame for World War 2, that Hitler didn't want war, and that there was no organized effort by Nazi Germany to exterminate anyone.

Tucker Carlson interviewed Cooper on his show Monday and enthusiastically endorsed these claims, calling him "the best and most honest popular historian in the United States" (so yes, you can call Carlson a Nazi apologist and a Holocaust denier as well).

Guess who promoted the interview and called it "very interesting" and "worth watching":

On September 3, Musk shared a post from Carlson which included his interview with Darryl Cooper, a podcaster who hosts the history show Martyr Made. The pair discussed the Holocaust and events of World War II, with Cooper making comments that have been widely called out for appearing sympathetic towards Hitler.

In the now-deleted post, Musk wrote that the interview was, "Very interesting. Worth watching." He quickly received severe backlash along with Carlson, as Cooper claimed in the video that the Nazis did not intend to kill millions of people, but that they instead "ended up dead" because Hitler was unprepared for war.

Musk later deleted the tweet, so I guess we found the line even he won't cross. Or, rather, the line he will cross but will then hastily step back over.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Many years back, The Babylon Bee got banned from Twitter for transphobia/satire (pick left word if you're on the left, right word if you're on the right).  Musk specifically asked about the Babylon Bee ban when he visited Twitter, and lifted their ban after he had control.  I assume it was only one factor of several.

In the markets, most people didn't realize 2022 would be a bad year for stocks, bonds and the markets.  Many tech stocks, Twitter among them, tumbled that year.  Musk watched the value drop, and desperately wanted out of his offer to buy Twitter - but lost his case, and was forced to honor the documents he signed.  Looking at Twitter early in 2022 can give a very different perspective that late in 2022, when the purchase was completed (and everyone agreed he overpaid).

As far as I know, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is still defined by an absence of "theory of mind".  When young, people with ASD believe there is one reality, and everyone is on the same page.  Social situations are difficult, and understanding others even more difficult.

Muck claimed to have Asperger's when he hosted SNL.  Maybe that helps him focus on technical matters, which helps him at Tesla and SpaceX.  And someone on the spectrum probably prefers text messages - with no confusing non-verbal communication - over talking in person.  I can see why he'd like Twitter.  But when it comes to understanding others - to the social aspects of Twitter/X - I think he's shown he isn't successful.

[ChpBstrd]

Trump says he'd create a government efficiency commission led by Elon Musk
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-hed-create-government-181119840.html

Sounds like there would be massive layoffs in the federal government if Trump wins.

[NorCal]

Many years back, The Babylon Bee got banned from Twitter for transphobia/satire (pick left word if you're on the left, right word if you're on the right).  Musk specifically asked about the Babylon Bee ban when he visited Twitter, and lifted their ban after he had control.  I assume it was only one factor of several.

In the markets, most people didn't realize 2022 would be a bad year for stocks, bonds and the markets.  Many tech stocks, Twitter among them, tumbled that year.  Musk watched the value drop, and desperately wanted out of his offer to buy Twitter - but lost his case, and was forced to honor the documents he signed.  Looking at Twitter early in 2022 can give a very different perspective that late in 2022, when the purchase was completed (and everyone agreed he overpaid).

As far as I know, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is still defined by an absence of "theory of mind".  When young, people with ASD believe there is one reality, and everyone is on the same page.  Social situations are difficult, and understanding others even more difficult.

Muck claimed to have Asperger's when he hosted SNL.  Maybe that helps him focus on technical matters, which helps him at Tesla and SpaceX.  And someone on the spectrum probably prefers text messages - with no confusing non-verbal communication - over talking in person.  I can see why he'd like Twitter.  But when it comes to understanding others - to the social aspects of Twitter/X - I think he's shown he isn't successful.

My wife is a lawyer that works on tech deals.  She occasionally dabbles in M&A, but mostly does investment deals.

Her take is that the Twitter deal will be a case study for lawyers for decades.

If Musk was the type of person that would actually listen to his lawyers, he would have been able to walk away from that deal without much problem.  Maybe a modest breakup fee.

But Twitters lawyers did what they were supposed to do and built the contract to be truly binding.  Musk's lawyers should have pushed back on this and negotiated it heavily.  But there was clearly such a demand to get the deal done that Musk accepted contract terms that he really shouldn't have.  Simply listening to the professionals would have stopped this whole fiasco. 

[Metalcat]

Many years back, The Babylon Bee got banned from Twitter for transphobia/satire (pick left word if you're on the left, right word if you're on the right).  Musk specifically asked about the Babylon Bee ban when he visited Twitter, and lifted their ban after he had control.  I assume it was only one factor of several.

In the markets, most people didn't realize 2022 would be a bad year for stocks, bonds and the markets.  Many tech stocks, Twitter among them, tumbled that year.  Musk watched the value drop, and desperately wanted out of his offer to buy Twitter - but lost his case, and was forced to honor the documents he signed.  Looking at Twitter early in 2022 can give a very different perspective that late in 2022, when the purchase was completed (and everyone agreed he overpaid).

As far as I know, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is still defined by an absence of "theory of mind".  When young, people with ASD believe there is one reality, and everyone is on the same page.  Social situations are difficult, and understanding others even more difficult.

Muck claimed to have Asperger's when he hosted SNL.  Maybe that helps him focus on technical matters, which helps him at Tesla and SpaceX.  And someone on the spectrum probably prefers text messages - with no confusing non-verbal communication - over talking in person.  I can see why he'd like Twitter.  But when it comes to understanding others - to the social aspects of Twitter/X - I think he's shown he isn't successful.

My wife is a lawyer that works on tech deals.  She occasionally dabbles in M&A, but mostly does investment deals.

Her take is that the Twitter deal will be a case study for lawyers for decades.

If Musk was the type of person that would actually listen to his lawyers, he would have been able to walk away from that deal without much problem.  Maybe a modest breakup fee.

But Twitters lawyers did what they were supposed to do and built the contract to be truly binding.  Musk's lawyers should have pushed back on this and negotiated it heavily.  But there was clearly such a demand to get the deal done that Musk accepted contract terms that he really shouldn't have.  Simply listening to the professionals would have stopped this whole fiasco.

Circles back to the risks inherent in a near total lack of faith in any external authority. Even when paying someone to possess said authority on how things should be done.

[LennStar]

Trump says he'd create a government efficiency commission led by Elon Musk
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-hed-create-government-181119840.html

Sounds like there would be massive layoffs in the federal government if Trump wins.

Well, wo else to do the 60% layouff needed under the project 2025 playbook, to be replaced by "politicals"?

[Metalcat]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

[LennStar]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

[Metalcat]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

It's the book that was just released all about Musk's purchase of Twitter. Tons of news outlets have been talking about excerpts from it.

[Glenstache]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

It's the book that was just released all about Musk's purchase of Twitter. Tons of news outlets have been talking about excerpts from it.

I had not heard of the book yet, but will chime in to say that it is a clever title.

[bacchi]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

It's the book that was just released all about Musk's purchase of Twitter. Tons of news outlets have been talking about excerpts from it.

I had not heard of the book yet, but will chime in to say that it is a clever title.

The excerpts are pretty good; I'll look for it at the library. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/sep/18/character-limit-by-kate-conger-and-ryan-mac-review-musks-twitter-takeover)

Related, Cards Against Humanity is suing SpaceX for using their (CAH's) fenced, "No Trespassing" posted,  South Texas land without permission. SpaceX apparently already offered CAH a limited-time deal for the land when they realized their mistake. This should be an easy win in pro-property rights Texas but being a billionaire lets you get away with a lot...like missing SEC depositions.

[Michael in ABQ]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

It's the book that was just released all about Musk's purchase of Twitter. Tons of news outlets have been talking about excerpts from it.

I had not heard of the book yet, but will chime in to say that it is a clever title.

The excerpts are pretty good; I'll look for it at the library. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/sep/18/character-limit-by-kate-conger-and-ryan-mac-review-musks-twitter-takeover)

Related, Cards Against Humanity is suing SpaceX for using their (CAH's) fenced, "No Trespassing" posted,  South Texas land without permission. SpaceX apparently already offered CAH a limited-time deal for the land when they realized their mistake. This should be an easy win in pro-property rights Texas but being a billionaire lets you get away with a lot...like missing SEC depositions.

This is a 0.38-acre parcel of vacant land that likely had a market value of tens of thousands of dollars at most. $15 million in damages for a property that had a market value of perhaps tens of thousands seems a bit much.

Here is a Google Streetview from 2021. The fence and no trespassing sign are a couple of wooden posts sticking up a foot or two with a piece of wire strung between them.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.962736,-97.2052073,3a,75y,265.94h,84.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAuaJxcJ_p76FsFKwbfKX0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxOC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Here's the full lawsuit. With the legal description
https://cah-sues-elon-musk.s3.amazonaws.com/240919+Plaintiff's+Original+Petition.pdf

Lot Eleven (11), Block Four (4), TARPON HAVEN SUBDIVISION, a subdivision in Cameron County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet 1, Slot 316-B and 317-A, Map Records of Cameron County

It's telling that nowhere in the lawsuit is a map or mention of the size of the parcel. Similarly, no reporter seems to have gone to the trouble of trying to determine this basic information that I was able to figure out with about 15 minutes of research on the county clerk's website (public records are great). The lawsuit and news reports talk about the $2,250,000 they raised to buy land along the border to prevent/delay Trump building a wall, but of course no mention is made of the fact that only a tiny fraction of that was spent on this parcel. The couple of news reports I read were basically just copied and pasted directly from the lawsuit.

SpaceX is clearly in the wrong - but this was almost certainly the case of a local contractor either ignoring information about one lot not being owned by SpaceX, or never asking in the first place. SpaceX builds rockets, they don't do sitework and construction of small metal buildings. SpaceX purchased or obtained leases with purchase options of almost all of the surrounding land - see the attached plat map I colored in below. I couldn't find any mention of SpaceX offering to compensate CAH for the use of the property - but the lawsuit is also tellingly silent on that point. CAH probably had no idea this had even happened until months after the fact and now they're trying to make a big publicity stunt instead of handling it like a normal business and asking for compensation before going directly to a huge lawsuit.

[Villanelle]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

It's the book that was just released all about Musk's purchase of Twitter. Tons of news outlets have been talking about excerpts from it.

I had not heard of the book yet, but will chime in to say that it is a clever title.

The excerpts are pretty good; I'll look for it at the library. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/sep/18/character-limit-by-kate-conger-and-ryan-mac-review-musks-twitter-takeover)

Related, Cards Against Humanity is suing SpaceX for using their (CAH's) fenced, "No Trespassing" posted,  South Texas land without permission. SpaceX apparently already offered CAH a limited-time deal for the land when they realized their mistake. This should be an easy win in pro-property rights Texas but being a billionaire lets you get away with a lot...like missing SEC depositions.

This is a 0.38-acre parcel of vacant land that likely had a market value of tens of thousands of dollars at most. $15 million in damages for a property that had a market value of perhaps tens of thousands seems a bit much.

Here is a Google Streetview from 2021. The fence and no trespassing sign are a couple of wooden posts sticking up a foot or two with a piece of wire strung between them.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.962736,-97.2052073,3a,75y,265.94h,84.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAuaJxcJ_p76FsFKwbfKX0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxOC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Here's the full lawsuit. With the legal description
https://cah-sues-elon-musk.s3.amazonaws.com/240919+Plaintiff's+Original+Petition.pdf

Lot Eleven (11), Block Four (4), TARPON HAVEN SUBDIVISION, a subdivision in Cameron County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet 1, Slot 316-B and 317-A, Map Records of Cameron County

It's telling that nowhere in the lawsuit is a map or mention of the size of the parcel. Similarly, no reporter seems to have gone to the trouble of trying to determine this basic information that I was able to figure out with about 15 minutes of research on the county clerk's website (public records are great). The lawsuit and news reports talk about the $2,250,000 they raised to buy land along the border to prevent/delay Trump building a wall, but of course no mention is made of the fact that only a tiny fraction of that was spent on this parcel. The couple of news reports I read were basically just copied and pasted directly from the lawsuit.

SpaceX is clearly in the wrong - but this was almost certainly the case of a local contractor either ignoring information about one lot not being owned by SpaceX, or never asking in the first place. SpaceX builds rockets, they don't do sitework and construction of small metal buildings. SpaceX purchased or obtained leases with purchase options of almost all of the surrounding land - see the attached plat map I colored in below. I couldn't find any mention of SpaceX offering to compensate CAH for the use of the property - but the lawsuit is also tellingly silent on that point. CAH probably had no idea this had even happened until months after the fact and now they're trying to make a big publicity stunt instead of handling it like a normal business and asking for compensation before going directly to a huge lawsuit.

SpaceX also has the funds to hire a contractor who will actually ensure that the area they are using for a project is owned by the contractee.  If not, that's on them.  Also, it's not just about compensating for use on the project.  There are before and after photos of the land which, if remotely accurate (which I say to acknowledge we can't know for sure they are from the same ground, and showing representative images of the overall condition before and after), show an open, grassy meadow and then a gravel covered dirt patch. 

My land has a back section that's just a bunch of trees.  It's completely wild, as far as I can tell.  If someone came in and mowed down the trees while I was on vacation, covered the land with gravel, and used it as storage and a parking lot, I'd hope no one said, "well, it was just .5 acre, and the use fees if someone rents it would probably be >$1000 per month, so that's all she should get." 

And yeah, I do believe in punitive damages to prevent companies from arrogantly running roughshod and using whatever they feel entitled to. 

Would be be thrilled if you owned A and turned it in to B?


And if that was done by someone you find repugnant, in support of efforts you find vile?  What if someone opened an abortion clinic on an evangelical Christian's land?  Or even just used the land to organize pro-choice rallies? 

Is $15m reasonable, maybe not.  But I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask for far more than just the value of the land. 

[LennStar]

It's telling that nowhere in the lawsuit is a map or mention of the size of the parcel.

SpaceX is clearly in the wrong - but this was almost certainly the case of a local contractor either ignoring information about one lot not being owned by SpaceX, or never asking in the first place. SpaceX builds rockets, they don't do sitework and construction of small metal buildings. SpaceX purchased or obtained leases with purchase options of almost all of the surrounding land - see the attached plat map I colored in below. I couldn't find any mention of SpaceX offering to compensate CAH for the use of the property - but the lawsuit is also tellingly silent on that point. CAH probably had no idea this had even happened until months after the fact and now they're trying to make a big publicity stunt instead of handling it like a normal business and asking for compensation before going directly to a huge lawsuit.

Well, they are certainly trolling. The bought the land as a trolling measure against Trump's fence in the first place.
But that doesn't change that someone(tm) strolled in and utterly destroyed the pristine nature there. And of course the money they want is higher than what they will get. If you have ever seen a lawsuit where the suing party said they will start the lawsuit with less than what they expect to get?

I couldn't find any mention of SpaceX offering to compensate CAH for the use of the property - but the lawsuit is also tellingly silent on that point.

There is a good point to me be made that the SpaceX is owned by a person that is notoriously unwilling to compensate others for anything ;)
Anyway, does that matter? Even if there is an offer, there is afaik no law that mandates you have to accept this offer if the criminal does not want to be prosecuted. It's your right to use the judicial system - that is the only state service even libertarians agree on (mostly).

The website does mention that SpaceX offered to buy the land for half it's worth. But that is neither compensation for the damage nor the political and economical value. (as you yourself stated, a lot of money was donated for this.)
You could even argue it's all a conspiracy to damage the owners because they are against Trump to whom (and his views on the fence this lands prevents) Musk is a fan of. Would certainly be in character for Musk too. 

[GuitarStv]

At the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere.  If you choose to subcontract out parts of the work you need done, that shouldn't absolve you of responsibility for what the contractor you hired does.  The initial damages being sought initially seemed a bit excessive to me as well . . . but repairing a site to pristine natural site condition after it has been bulldozed can be quite expensive.  It's not just a matter of moving some garbage dumped there to elsewhere and calling it a job well done.

[bacchi]

Anyone reading "Character Limit"??

What do you mean? Is that a book? How is that related to the thread?

It's the book that was just released all about Musk's purchase of Twitter. Tons of news outlets have been talking about excerpts from it.

I had not heard of the book yet, but will chime in to say that it is a clever title.

The excerpts are pretty good; I'll look for it at the library. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/sep/18/character-limit-by-kate-conger-and-ryan-mac-review-musks-twitter-takeover)

Related, Cards Against Humanity is suing SpaceX for using their (CAH's) fenced, "No Trespassing" posted,  South Texas land without permission. SpaceX apparently already offered CAH a limited-time deal for the land when they realized their mistake. This should be an easy win in pro-property rights Texas but being a billionaire lets you get away with a lot...like missing SEC depositions.

This is a 0.38-acre parcel of vacant land that likely had a market value of tens of thousands of dollars at most. $15 million in damages for a property that had a market value of perhaps tens of thousands seems a bit much.

Here is a Google Streetview from 2021. The fence and no trespassing sign are a couple of wooden posts sticking up a foot or two with a piece of wire strung between them.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.962736,-97.2052073,3a,75y,265.94h,84.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAuaJxcJ_p76FsFKwbfKX0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxOC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Here's the full lawsuit. With the legal description
https://cah-sues-elon-musk.s3.amazonaws.com/240919+Plaintiff's+Original+Petition.pdf

Lot Eleven (11), Block Four (4), TARPON HAVEN SUBDIVISION, a subdivision in Cameron County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet 1, Slot 316-B and 317-A, Map Records of Cameron County

It's telling that nowhere in the lawsuit is a map or mention of the size of the parcel. Similarly, no reporter seems to have gone to the trouble of trying to determine this basic information that I was able to figure out with about 15 minutes of research on the county clerk's website (public records are great). The lawsuit and news reports talk about the $2,250,000 they raised to buy land along the border to prevent/delay Trump building a wall, but of course no mention is made of the fact that only a tiny fraction of that was spent on this parcel. The couple of news reports I read were basically just copied and pasted directly from the lawsuit.

SpaceX is clearly in the wrong - but this was almost certainly the case of a local contractor either ignoring information about one lot not being owned by SpaceX, or never asking in the first place. SpaceX builds rockets, they don't do sitework and construction of small metal buildings. SpaceX purchased or obtained leases with purchase options of almost all of the surrounding land - see the attached plat map I colored in below. I couldn't find any mention of SpaceX offering to compensate CAH for the use of the property - but the lawsuit is also tellingly silent on that point. CAH probably had no idea this had even happened until months after the fact and now they're trying to make a big publicity stunt instead of handling it like a normal business and asking for compensation before going directly to a huge lawsuit.

SpaceX also has the funds to hire a contractor who will actually ensure that the area they are using for a project is owned by the contractee.  If not, that's on them.  Also, it's not just about compensating for use on the project.  There are before and after photos of the land which, if remotely accurate (which I say to acknowledge we can't know for sure they are from the same ground, and showing representative images of the overall condition before and after), show an open, grassy meadow and then a gravel covered dirt patch. 

My land has a back section that's just a bunch of trees.  It's completely wild, as far as I can tell.  If someone came in and mowed down the trees while I was on vacation, covered the land with gravel, and used it as storage and a parking lot, I'd hope no one said, "well, it was just .5 acre, and the use fees if someone rents it would probably be >$1000 per month, so that's all she should get." 

And yeah, I do believe in punitive damages to prevent companies from arrogantly running roughshod and using whatever they feel entitled to. 

Would be be thrilled if you owned A and turned it in to B?
<image snipped>

And if that was done by someone you find repugnant, in support of efforts you find vile?  What if someone opened an abortion clinic on an evangelical Christian's land?  Or even just used the land to organize pro-choice rallies? 

Is $15m reasonable, maybe not.  But I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask for far more than just the value of the land.

+1 to the above.

The size of the parcel is irrelevant. American is not a plutocracy, despite what Elon thinks.

The criticism about the fence and the no trespassing sign is also irrelevant. It's posted. The "no trespassing" indicator in Texas can apparently be "purple paint marks" on freakin' trees -- no sign needed. SpaceX's actions (or its contractor's actions) is also far beyond trespassing. It's not as if CAH has a camera and caught some workers cutting the corner of the lot.

If it took you [Michael in ABQ] "about 15 minutes of research on the county clerk's website" to find the plat, couldn't the people hired to do that -- the contractors -- take that 15 minutes as well? That's their job after all.

[FireLane]

I saw this story today:

https://www.disruptionist.com/p/elon-musk-takes-america-x-handle

Elon Musk took the @America Twitter handle away from the person who owned it - not because they'd broken any rules, just because he wanted it for himself - and turned it into the account for his new pro-Trump super PAC:

“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally,” Musk posted in April 2022, when he originally shared his intent to acquire the company then-known as Twitter.

This past weekend, he abused his power at that same company in a politically biased way.

X helped its owner, Elon Musk, gain access to the X handle @America by taking it from its original user so it can be used in a politically biased way – to promote presidential candidate Donald Trump.

[Glenstache]

I saw this story today:

https://www.disruptionist.com/p/elon-musk-takes-america-x-handle

Elon Musk took the @America Twitter handle away from the person who owned it - not because they'd broken any rules, just because he wanted it for himself - and turned it into the account for his new pro-Trump super PAC:

“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally,” Musk posted in April 2022, when he originally shared his intent to acquire the company then-known as Twitter.

This past weekend, he abused his power at that same company in a politically biased way.

X helped its owner, Elon Musk, gain access to the X handle @America by taking it from its original user so it can be used in a politically biased way – to promote presidential candidate Donald Trump.

I mean, what do you expect from Dark MAGA himself? See also the post a few lines up about him just building over land owned by others. There may just be a pattern here.

Abuse of power is a feature, not a byproduct of MAGA-dom.

[Villanelle]

I'm surprised there's been no discussion ot Elon/Xitter's involvement in the sale of Infowars.  Seems Xitter/Elon is objecting to Infowar's Xitter account being part of the purchase.  They claim that no one owns a Twitter account except Twitter, so it can't be included in a sale.

Doesn't this open Xitter up to Sandy Hook liability?  If X and only X owns (and by extension, is responsible for, perhaps?) that account, then would Xitter not be responsible for the Sandy Hook content that was posted on it? 

[LennStar]

Not heard about it. Interesting.

Yes, imho if you are the only one, then you are responsible, of course.

But real speak, even if that account is the property of Twitter, the use contract and the password are still part of the sale - or inheritance for example. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

As I understand it, The Onion bought Infowars (verify it yourself - I still can't believe it).  Then Twitter mentioned its terms of service prevent the sale of Twitter accounts.  Musk is arguing the terms of service don't allow the sale, and that Twitter can shut down the account if the sale goes through.

I don't think Twitter, Facebook or YouTube are held liable for the content on their platforms, provided they take down content in certain situations.  If Alex Jones posts a conspiracy, Twitter just has to follow the law on taking it down or not.

"One key part of that legal landscape is Section 230, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content as well as immunity for removal of content in certain circumstances."
https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996

[LennStar]

Then Twitter mentioned its terms of service prevent the sale of Twitter accounts.  Musk is arguing the terms of service don't allow the sale, and that Twitter can shut down the account if the sale goes through.

I heard about the Onion thing (in fact watched a 10 minute video what happened), just not that Twitter had anything to do with it.

Now, I am not pretending to be lawyer in an insane field in a different jurisdiction. But I see the following problems with Musk statemend:

A) Even if the account is not sale-able, that does not mean the owner cannot give away the login data.
B) What right has Twitter to shut down the account? If it isn't saleable, then the "owner" still has it.
C) If the account is shut down, does Twitter do that to all accounts where the "owner" has sold them or has died? If not, would that not be discriminatory in whatever way, to close some but not others?

The core point of everythign is of course if you own the account or Twitter, and copyright law here also plays a role.

[ChpBstrd]

Then Twitter mentioned its terms of service prevent the sale of Twitter accounts.  Musk is arguing the terms of service don't allow the sale, and that Twitter can shut down the account if the sale goes through.

I heard about the Onion thing (in fact watched a 10 minute video what happened), just not that Twitter had anything to do with it.

Now, I am not pretending to be lawyer in an insane field in a different jurisdiction. But I see the following problems with Musk statemend:

A) Even if the account is not sale-able, that does not mean the owner cannot give away the login data.
B) What right has Twitter to shut down the account? If it isn't saleable, then the "owner" still has it.
C) If the account is shut down, does Twitter do that to all accounts where the "owner" has sold them or has died? If not, would that not be discriminatory in whatever way, to close some but not others?

The core point of everythign is of course if you own the account or Twitter, and copyright law here also plays a role.

I'm willing to bet that tens of thousands of small businesses have changed hands, and hundreds of big businesses gone through mergers, without any argument from Xitter.

Musk's obstruction of the Infowars deal is an example of media weaponization.

[LennStar]

It's an example of Musk's megalomania. Something very common in very rich people. They somehow believe they know better than anyone else what to do, in every aspect, just because they are rich. Even if they only inherited that money.

(A trait that, it must be said, is (latent) in any of us. It has been shown that e.g. people playing monopoly with an unfair advantage like an additional dice are more likely to put their success down to their skill rather than luck, as people without that unfair advantage do.)

It's a problem that is a part of the variant-rich... let's call it experience trap.
I am really good at X, so I must be good at Y too.
I im in politics for 30 years, so I know what is good for all people. (I have been a tax payer for 30 years, so I know better what tax rate we need than some politician in Washington!)
I have been police for 30 years, and I tell you, everyone is a criminal!

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think I've found a loophole in Musk's thinking (I'm not a lawyer).  The deal could involve Alex Jones being willing to share his account, as part of the deal.  Not sell it, not transfer it, but share it.  The thing that makes this bulletproof is that Trump does it.  :)

There's this frequent legal clause that a company retains their rights even if they don't exercise those rights.  Twitter may do nothing for thousands of small business sales, but they still reserve the right to step in anytime a Twitter account is transferred, bought or sold.  I assume they basically don't care, but want the ability to step in if they don't like something about the situation.

[Villanelle]

As I understand it, The Onion bought Infowars (verify it yourself - I still can't believe it).  Then Twitter mentioned its terms of service prevent the sale of Twitter accounts.  Musk is arguing the terms of service don't allow the sale, and that Twitter can shut down the account if the sale goes through.

I don't think Twitter, Facebook or YouTube are held liable for the content on their platforms, provided they take down content in certain situations.  If Alex Jones posts a conspiracy, Twitter just has to follow the law on taking it down or not.

"One key part of that legal landscape is Section 230, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content as well as immunity for removal of content in certain circumstances."
https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996

They generally aren't, or haven't been, liable.  But Musk's argument sounds, to me, like he's claiming ownership of accounts in a deeper way that has previously been generally understood.  So I guess my thought/question is that if he's saying that an account and it's content can't be sold/share/allowed to change hands, then that suggests that the actual content of the account belongs to Twitter.  if that's the case, then it seems like Twitter might be legally liable for that content.  So it seems to me like he's making a somewhat dangerous (to himself/Xitter) argument by trying to expand ownership over the contents of an account.

Your link mentions "third-party content", but is it really third-party if Xitter claims it owns the content in this more specific way?  If they own the content such that I can't say, "hey, Bob, here's my account info, per our agreement, and you can now run it as you see fit", then it seems like they'd be liable for that in a way they wouldn't be if they are just a hands-off ("third-party") service provider. 

I'm not a lawyer, and it's been several months since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but it seems like, depending on how he words his arguments here, he could be opening a can of worms.  Or maybe not.