Hereās an interesting thesis about Musk and his problems at Twitter:
ā¦at SpaceX, Elon was basically a child king. He was an important figurehead who provided the company with the money, power, and PR, but he didnāt have the knowledge or (frankly) maturity to handle day-to-day decision making and everyone knew that. He was surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions.
ā¦
People were willing to do that at SpaceX because Elon was giving them the money (and hype) to get into outer space, a mission people cared deeply about. The company also grew with and around Elon. There were layers of management between individual employees and Elon, and those managers were experienced managers of Elon. Again, I cannot stress enough how much of the company culture was oriented around managing this one guy.
Twitter has neither of those things going for it. There is no company culture or internal structure around the problem of managing Elon Musk, and I think for the first time weāre seeing what happens when people actually take that man seriously and at face value. Worse, theyāre doing this little experiment after this man has had decades of success at companies that dedicate significant resources to protecting themselves from him, and heās too narcissistic to realize it.
I know three engineers at SpaceX and that is not at all what I hear from them. Words like visionary, driven, and capable are. YMMV.
Iāve found this article on Musk at Twitter interesting.
Elon Muskās Twist On Tech Libertarianism Is Blowing Up On Twitter - POLITICO.
Thanks for sharing that! It was an interesting read!
Good article:
ā Mike Solana noted the national pressā lack of understanding when it comes to Silicon Valley, saying āthere are engineers in SF trying to work at twitter right now entirely because they think it might be hard,ā something political writers āgenuinely can not fathom.ā In short: Liberals and even many establishment conservatives simply donāt get the philosophy that Musk is bringing to Twitter, and their dismay at his changes to it is proof enough in itself.ā
Not really sure how liberal and conservative come into play when evaluating how a business is being run. I once considered myself conservative & now lean liberal. Iām pretty sure I would have thought it was a dumpster fire even in my conservative days. I think perhaps itās more just not understanding the mindset of the people who want to work in that environment. Iāve always been an extremely hard worker, and I love a challenge. Just not in that environment.
" Media watchdogs worry that his free speech maximalism will lead to a glut of āmisinformation.ā Safety-minded bureaucrats worry that the platform might simply break, endangering a crucial tool for [emergency communications]. Liberals worry about banished foes like former President Donald Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and psychologist-turned-Daily-Wire-personality Jordan Peterson flooding back to the platform and causing mayhem, making Musk the equivalent of the EPA flunky who [shuts down the containment unit]in Ghostbusters."
What I find the most fascinating is that all of these complaints are about a free service (for them). For example, ābureaucratsā are concerned that a free service will not be available for what they want and when they want it. If an emergency communication system is needed, shouldnāt the ābureaucratsā build one? Why is it a private companyās responsibility? If the āliberalsā donāt like who is allowed on a free system, why not build their own platform?
My key takeaway from that article was that Musk and co believe you can apply the same theory of āpermissionless innovationā to Twitter that allowed Uber, AirBnB etc to thrive in competition with legacy taxi and hotel industries.
Unfortunately itās not that simple. For a start thereās no comparable legacy business to attack: Twitter has to compete for advertisers and a subscription service wonāt cut it (the few social media sites like Angieās List that have tried to build a subscription business have performed very poorly). Thereās been talk about building a payments app on top of Twitter but thatās a heavily regulated business where rival companies like Facebook have already tried and failed to make inroads.
And more importantly you canāt simply ignore regulations like Uber and AirBnB did in their early days. Youāll not only offend advertisers, but regulators like the FTC and the European Commission are watching closely and can and will impose billions of dollars in fines. The existing worries around privacy make it even harder to imagine Musk will get a banking license.
However āhardcoreā Muskās coders might be, they canāt escape the reality of the business that Twitter is in.
Looks like he has done one thing right so farā¦ 
Media watchdogs (and others) have always been concerned that the information provided to the masses over various free communication networks has been accurate and reliable. Inaccurate and unreliable information has real, oftentimes expensive, and sometimes dangerous consequences.
Perhaps the media watch dogs (whoever they are) should instead launch their own services.
And, note to consumers - if the service is free - you are the product.
Fantastic. Then āmedia watchdogsā can continue to fact-check to their hearts desire. (btw: not sure that media watchdogs are the arbiters of āaccurateā information since they have their own biases.)
If information has ādangerous consequences,ā anyone harmed should sue for damages in civil court. And/or if laws are broken, folks should be prosecuted. Hold 'em accountable for spreading dangerous info.
Congress could amend Section 230, but chooses not to.
āMedia watchdogsā was @bluebayouās phrase, quoting the politico article (by the way the quote is inaccurate). Whatever it means, Iām not talking about fact checkers or potential competitors. I am more talking about entities like the ftc (see twitterās consent decree, for example) as well as advertisers (the real customers of twitter). Erratic, undisciplined behavior, decision-making, and corner-cutting have consequences.
If he gets fined it will work itself out one way or another, perhaps in the courts.
Statements from fired and potentially disgruntled former employee should be taken with a grain of salt.
Best quote from the article is: āMeanwhile, Muskās personal lawyer is telling people, āElon puts rockets into space, heās not afraid of the FTC.ā
Elon should remember that the main reason US is a magnet for VC investments is our legal system with its strong protections for property and more. Sure it is not perfect, but without it, it is a Wild West out there.
The biggest benefit for Musk of owning Twitter is that it gives him a bigger mouthpiece to try and manipulate public opinion. Heās been very successful in the past but now many more people are focused on his many lies and exaggerations.
As far as the courts go, Iād give better than even odds that he ends up being charged with something before the end of the year.
Iād take that bet. But, Iām sure that we can we all agree that we should not rush to judgement
As it should. Fine him and/or charge him, as appropriate. Moreover, if advertisers donāt like the new/revised platform, they wonāt return. And his investment becomes the worst tech M&A deal in history, worse than the purchase of AOL.