Skip to main content

Musk should be taken seriously and with caution

Elon Musk (Image: WIRED)

Up until recently had I not taken an interest in Elon Musk. Any news stories about him, my natural instinct was to blank them out - whatever he did, and whatever business he owned, they had nothing to do with me. It's only when he took over Twitter, for a reported $44 billion, that I felt as though I needed to learn a little about him at the very least, considering I'm one of its millions of users and that, despite me not 'following' him, the vast majority of his tweets still appear on my news feed.

If any of you wanted to discover more about Musk, I suggest you watch the fantastic and fascinating three-part documentary series, aired on the BBC earlier this year. It explored his rise to fame, how he became the richest human on Earth, his successes and struggles, and his future visions. We heard from everyone who knew him, including his nearest and dearest, and business associates and colleagues who either hold him to the highest regard, disregard or both. It's clear that he's a man who divides opinion and wants to achieve a lot in this world; I mean, who wouldn't if you had his bank account?

I suppose Musk's words before buying Twitter didn't quite matter. It wasn't as if he was irrelevant, far from it in fact. It was just that his belief of getting people to emigrate to Mars and popularising expensive futuristic cars weren't capturing the mass audience's attention. Sure, his movements were (and are) watched with intrigue by influential American politicians and a relatively small number of people who share his visions, but not to many more else. But his recent attention seeking antics have reached a point where we cannot afford to ignore anything he says, even about Mars and his beloved Tesla.

Since 2006, Twitter has been a solace for users worldwide. For almost 17 years, it's arguably been the closest way for 'ordinary' members of the public to connect with their favourite celebrities. It fed a gap at that time, where we had a vested interest in personalities who felt worlds apart from everyone else. As the site grew in popularity, it also quickly became a powerful tool in politics and, with the likes of Meta (responsible for Facebook and Instagram) and LinkedIn, have created this industry that is likely to overtake every traditional media when it comes to news and information consumption.

Pre-Musk, Twitter was under intense scrutiny over whether it's providing true free-speech, or its reported stagnation of user numbers. Perhaps the platform had been too comfortable, or perhaps some with certain beliefs felt left out because former US President Donald Trump, among other controversial figures, were banned. Regardless, Musk spotted an opportunity to expand his business portfolio and, after toing and froing, decided to take a chance with a sector he hadn't previously touched. He'd been a critic of the platform for a long time so he felt this was his opportune moment to put his money where his mouth is and reform, at least to his liking.

And he's sure made an impression. In a short space of time, we've seen significant personnel changes (some he's enforced, others have walked), the return of Mr Trump and the introduction of some interesting features, such as different colour 'ticks' to distinguish businesses and individuals apart. His presence alone has rubbed some people the wrong way, with users - many of whom had millions of followers - deciding to delete their accounts. Those who advocate free-speech at any cost are loving it, however.

I was quite indifferent about Musk's acquisition until the mid-term elections, actually, where he encouraged Americans to vote for the Republican Party. It wouldn't have mattered if he was an everyday user of Twitter, but he's the chief - it's like a media baron endorsing a party. Certainly, we've seen this with Rupert Murdoch and his words changed political landscapes. It's tacky and shouldn't be allowed. Musk is now as influential as the Aussie mogul, and his words matter now more than ever.

What Musk is doing is a reflection of what's going on right now. It's no longer trendy to look at topics from both sides, unfortunately. There is a desirable urge for people to blurt out radical thoughts in order to get noticed, and entrepreneurs tend to lead the way in this. In the 1990s, we had the likes of Steve Jobs, Richard Branson and Bill Gates who were pioneers, with their works standing the test of time. Their radical thinking got them to where they are today. That said, they also used their platforms to champion philanthropy, set realistic goals and made things believable. 

Musk is a generation later than the folks mentioned just now, but still in the same league - big thinkers and striving to achieve the impossible. Perhaps with Musk, he's thinking a little too much outside the box. We're not ready for Mars, and won't be for a long time yet. And Tesla isn't accessible for everyone, and won't be for a long time yet. His maturity and ways of thinking are perhaps a step behind Gates and the like.

The problem is that Musk has gotten away with making his niche visions mainstream, which has enabled him to get away with a lot, including buying Twitter for an obscene amount. US Presidents appreciated his support, though current President Joe Biden may seem a little distant now. Biden is indirectly right though - he (and other world leaders) should scrutinise his movements, in ways they hadn't done before. He's transformed himself from a harmless maverick to a serious player in the media business practically overnight. Whether Twitter lasts under him or not (and technology experts are questioning its future), he's the difference between political leaders winning or imploding.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Now isn't the time to choose a favourite baddie

Donald Trump and Benyamin Netanyahu (Image: Financial Times) I have been rather reflective of late. The global news agenda is dominated by powerful people doing unimaginably awful things, or at least capable of doing so - and they are seemingly given a free pass, having their evil justified, trying to find a reason why their actions aren't that bad compared to the 'other side'. And this is driving me absolutely mad. The less I hear from Benyamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and others, the better this world will be. Here we have, at least three cunning maniacs, at it for their personal gain to dominate countries, nationalities and ideologies. Farage has no power, but he is being tipped to be the next UK Prime Minister , for no good reason at all. He gets a few votes from those bored of a Labour government, and critics start getting giddy. Trump thinks of himself as a puppet master, and through his crippling tariffs and mafia-like tactics, is sending his country an...

The 'cancel culture' myth

Let's cancel the term 'cancel culture' once and for all (Image: Fox News) In recent months, we have seen the UK's Supreme Court declare ' what a woman is ', the rise of the 'far right' in the United States and larger parts of Europe and the centre-left being accused of echoing words which were deemed unacceptable the day before. These stories as isolated items don't seem a big deal but, through their individual merits, have become significant societal shifts. That's largely thanks to the campaign groups who led them. For a long time, they have been playing cry wolf, sharing viral sop stories about how their 'plight' has resulted them being on the verge of 'losing everything', including relevance. With victories heading their way, and their crocodile tears turning into money eyes, it is fair to say that 'cancel culture' is officially over. Let's be honest, 'cancel culture' never existed. The myth has brainwashe...

Done right, digital IDs can save lives

Sir Keir Starmer has a challenge to convince people over digital ID plans (Image: The Guardian) If we're to treat survey results as gospel, I find myself in the minority on a big debate. It appears I am one of the very few in support of a 'digital ID' . It had taken me a while to come to this conclusion as, since the idea was explored under Tony Blair's government in 2005, I really wasn't sure what the point of the concept was. But 18 years later, I feel that an identification of some digital kind is necessary, and potentially lifesaving, as I'll explain here. The digital ID has been brought into the British political limelight again thanks to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He wants to bring them in on a mandatory basis, as a way of proving we have a right to work in the UK. It forms part of his cunning plan to halt illegal migration and illegal labour - similar schemes are already in place abroad and are said to be doing well. According to a government pres...