Hacker News Reader

Firstly, I don't think it's a hive mind. All of the threads I've read through have been absolutely split between people who broadly think he's over-estimating himelf/underestimating the problem and people who think everyone else is over-estimating the problem and under-estimating him.

I think the crux of it for me, is that whilst Musk comes at this fresh, he's not proposing fresh solutions. He has repeatedly suggested things that people have already tried, and then pivoted away from - realising the mistakes. It's very difficult to see this news today and not say "Oh, ok, so you're going to replicate Facebook's oversight board?"

I agree with you, he's acheived a lot. At the end of the day though 2+2=4 no matter who you are, and if we're shooting for 5, I might hope Elon can produce 5, but if I hope he's going to produce 5, and his big idea is 2+2, then I'm going to be skeptical. it's not that I think he's an idiot, it's that he's proposing things that are well trodden paths.

The minute he takes the company private his job there is done. Everything else will follow from the new incentive structure.

I think you need to be more specific than that. Before twitter was private, it was run by a group of people who were generally pro free speech but who had experience to know the real conseuences of inaction, and therefore had put in a framework to ensure that they could stay advertiser friendly. Musk has declared he also wants to be advertiser friendly, but also has big business interests in national defence, and in China. Surely, if anything he's more prone to being influenced than the previous team.

What happened? The "pretty smart billionaire" started calling anyone who slighted him a pedophile. The "pretty smart billionaire" continues to commit fraud with false promises over at Tesla. The "pretty smart billionaire" seems to have a disdain for his lowly peasant employees.

Whi else did he call a pedophile? I know of only one person.

Do you have any proof of fraud? If so, you should turn it into the SEC.

Musk is not known to give hugs. So what?

Musk already settled with the SEC over his securities fraud: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226

Not sure what reporting it again would do.

Edit: I'm guessing GP was referring to the continued potentially fraudulent FSD promises - there was a lot of HN discussion on that yesterday I think.

There's also the minor matter of the $258 billion Doge lawsuit.

>It’s amazing to me that the HN hive mind has decided that somehow one of the most successful people on the planet, who’s built a successful electric car company, a private rocketry company and was part of the people who laid foundation for a “payment system for the internet” is somehow doomed to fail in his new venture.

It has been interesting to read it today.

Fundamentally elon has simply called for politically neutral content moderation. I expect he's never going to allow calls to violence or incitement type things; who exactly thinks this is a bad decision? This is to solve the ongoing problem of censorship.

Yet the people see the above as a nightmare scenario. So what exactly are we missing? Is giving the republicans their voice back and allowing them to speak really such a nightmare? I don't think these people are upset about this. I suspect it's not a nightmare scenario if the republicans getting the ability to speak back results in landslide elections in their favour. Like we are potentially seeing now in midterm polling.

What if that's not the case. What if this is indeed a nightmare scenario? What exactly is the unsaid explanation?

I don't see the cause for concern let alone it being a nightmare scenario.

> I expect he's never going to allow calls to violence or incitement type things; who exactly thinks this is a bad decision? … Is giving the republicans their voice back and allowing them to speak really such a nightmare?

Well let’s see… last time the former President was using his voice on Twitter, he was inciting and directing an insurrection against the government. So if Musk wants to reverse that ban, and Trump decides to continue his rhetoric which already caused violence (which he will because he hasn’t stopped since 1/6), then yeah, that’s a nightmare.

>Well let’s see… last time the former President was using his voice on Twitter, he was inciting and directing an insurrection against the government. So if Musk wants to reverse that ban, and Trump decides to continue his rhetoric which already caused violence (which he will because he hasn’t stopped since 1/6), then yeah, that’s a nightmare.

I'm not american and just an outside observer. I believe the republicans/trump would not agree with your assessment. There is certainly a huge irreconcilable divide on how January 6th is viewed on either side.

Here's a left-wing viewpoint on the 'second american civil war': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_American_Civil_War

Which certainly agrees with you. Lets not forget Hillary Clinton has always held Trump stole the election and she even reiterated a few days ago the republicans are planning to do it again: https://twitter.com/IndivisibleTeam/status/15834963547345387...

Lets not forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict...

425 bills in 49 states the republicans pretty much universally didn't believe a free election occurred; so they want to restrict the vote and prevent people from voting for the democrats.

More importantly the election in mere days will indicate to politicians exactly what the populous believes. When the democrats win midterms easily, it will be the people telling the republicans they aren't popular and democrats genuinely represent the will of the people.

Do we even need to consider what the people are saying in the unlikely event republicans win midterms?

> There is certainly a huge irreconcilable divide on how January 6th is viewed on either side.

Yes, insurrectionists typically see their actions as justified, and will frame them as such. What happened was an insurrection though, and the 1/6 committee and DOJ have done much to prove that.

> Lets not forget Hillary Clinton has always held Trump stole the election

She’s free to feel however she wants. But note she didn’t go to Twitter to foment insurrection.

> she even reiterated a few days ago the republicans are planning to do it again

Probably a safe bet, given Trump hasn’t even given up trying to steal the 2020 election.

>Yes, insurrectionists typically see their actions as justified, and will frame them as such. What happened was an insurrection though, and the 1/6 committee and DOJ have done much to prove that.

I have no skin in this game, just curious what you think.

Why do you think trump said, "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Kind of a pretty terrible insurrection as well, a bunch of unarmed idiots in costumes ransacked a few offices. Normally an insurrection is more of a 'round up the politicians and execute them' type thing.

Or was it perhaps not an insurrection and it was instead a riot, not unlike the 2 years of racial riots, that got out of hand?

From inside I feel pretty certain that the Republicans will win decisively. The economy, inflation, and general stress levels are just too high right now for the party in power to stay in office. Not the outcome I'm hoping for, but the world is feeling pretty bitey lately.

Here's a pretty good podcast on the topic, if you're interested: https://slate.com/podcasts/political-gabfest/2022/10/democra...

>From inside I feel pretty certain that the Republicans will win decisively. The economy, inflation, and general stress levels are just too high right now for the party in power to stay in office. Not the outcome I'm hoping for, but the world is feeling pretty bitey lately.

So lets say the republicans win decisively as you predict. What does that mean, what do you think the populus is telling the democrats?

Is it the people believe the election was stolen? Much akin to republican's clear response in the one link?

I don't know what link you’re referring to, but I think it just means that people are afraid they won’t be able to afford food, gas, or rent, and they think voting for the other party will somehow fix it. I definitely don’t think it has to do with bogus claims of a stolen election for anyone but people on the fringe.

What do you think it means?

> Is giving the republicans their voice back and allowing them to speak really such a nightmare?

I wasn't aware Republicans were being suppressed for their desire for a more conservative economic policy, smaller government, and lower taxes.

Or...which Republican ideas do you see being suppressed online.

Be specific :)

>I wasn't aware Republicans were being suppressed for their desire for a more conservative economic policy, smaller government, and lower taxes.

That would be a pretty simplistic view of the republicans. Sure seems to be a faulty generalization fallacy to me.

>Or...which Republican ideas do you see being suppressed online.

Not many anymore. They realized their voices were suppressed and moved to new platforms. Now their voices aren't suppressed and oh boy midterms not going well for the democrats.

i've said it before, there's much easier money to be made than better against Musk. When presenting a big idea he's pretty much been laughed out of every room he's ever walked into. Then, much to everyone's dismay, he does it. I'm withholding judgment for a few years...

I too enjoy commuting to work using my city's hyperloop while charging my self-driving cybertruck with my solar roof.

An objective assessment of Musk's batting average requires considering the big ideas that flop, never materialize, or fall far short of what was promised. Once you do that, Twitter seems like it could go either way from here. That's not even considering how split his attention must be at this point.

To be fair, he hasn't delivered on most of his promises, and it's the trade-off for taking risks.

On the other hand, with that amount of wealth, the average intelligent person probably feels that they could do better, and I'm not sure they'd be completely wrong.

Tesla is a battery company, not a car company. GM, Ford, Toyota, and all of the other automakers will be buying batteries from Tesla gigafactories, not the other way around. The bluster around FSD is a smoke screen. I believe that it's just R&D for vehicles operating off planet, like the robots.

SpaceX delivers boost to orbit at a cost that beats every other major player.

Clearly, he's done nothing. /rolls-eyes

I don't think he has presented any big idea regarding Twitter. In case I missed it, I'd be happy to learn what his big idea for Twitter is. By all impressions, he was dragged kicking and screaming into finalizing the deal - that doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he has bold ideas he'd like to try.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-elon-musks-x-the-every...

It's not that we decided that Elon will fail. It's that there is no agreement on what success looks like. More freedom of speech for some means more abuse and bigotry for others. Both 4chan (no moderation) and HN (moderation) have succeeded by some metric and have a loyal audience. Twitter tried to satisfy too many parties for too long and now is facing a backlash from everyone. If Elon decides to prioritize one of the parties - the other groups will protest. And vice versa.

There is still animus between musk and certain groups of thought. Certain people always see the negative and worst case scenario. Others see opportunities with various levels of risk aversion.

Clearly Musk is in the latter camp.

I said earlier that twitter has been hemorrhaging money to tune of nearly 2 billion over the last 2.5 years.

While possible, its likely that Musk can't possibly do worse than the former leadership.

Obviously it is a gamble, but what isn't a gamble? And what do such men gain without nothing ventured?

> Clearly Musk is in the latter camp.

Is he actually thought? If so, why did he try to maneuver out of the deal right up until it was clear he would not be able to?

Because the tech market crashed right after his pledge and it makes no good financial sense to go through with a deal that includes a massive loss from the outset unless you're absolutely compelled to.

I don't see the causal connection people are drawing between this and his motivations and his vision for twitter, it's purely a financial logical decision to try to renegotiate or cancel the deal given the current market conditions.

I'd imagine Twitter withholding data would make any potential buyer have doubts.

He also could have been trying for a better price, which any buyer is foolish not to at least try.

Or he wanted to box them into a deal with a take-away, forcing twitter to publicly state intentions to complete the deal.

All of this, (yours & mine), are still purely speculative.

You know why? Because we want to get off this rock... and anything that takes EM's focus off of SpaceX is bad :-)