Reid Hoffman: Musk 'bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, sinker' | Hacker News Reader

Reid Hoffman: Musk 'bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, sinker'

businessinsider.com

12 pointsmoose_man21 comments

Open articleView on HN

https://archive.is/mnTIL

-- Related --

Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha...

How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaire—and is now struggling to rein him in.

https://archive.is/HZ90b

----

Musk Told Pentagon He Spoke to Putin Directly, New Yorker Says : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told...

https://archive.is/wxeqp

The parallels with Trump keep multiplying. Putin knows how to deal with greedy, shallow infantile billionaires with more power than they deserve.

It's this kind of transparently biased trash journalism why folks hate the MSM.

The dude literally sided with a leader who threatened to nuke the United States. Putin is a a man with such a profound hatred of Americans he built a doomsday weapon like some villain in a comic book whose sole purpose is to irradiate the US coast so it is uninhabitable.

What makes it trash journalism? Is it false? Is Musk beyond criticism in this area?

Musk is one of the only individuals in the world that actively tries to solve real problems. And people hate him for it. Musk gives Ukraine Star Link terminals and access. The idea that he is league w Putin and his ideas is intellectually dishonest and betrays any kind of objective view.

Except the article doesn't say "he is [in] league w Putin"--it does say he repeated talking points that are Russian talking points. Even Reid Hoffman, whose comments gave rise to the article in the first place, isn't really saying that; he seems to be saying that Musk is just mistaken, not that he is in active cahoots with Putin.

The article brings in a number of facts surrounding Musk's statements and involvement w/r/t Russia and Ukraine, such as the Star Link stuff you reference. Unless the article genuflects to him and pretends like none of the other facts it mentions exist, you think it's biased?

> Musk is one of the only individuals in the world that actively tries to solve real problems.

Even assuming this is true (though it is a daft and cultish claim), that doesn't mean that he is above criticism.

> And people hate him for it.

You seem to be confused or simply disingenuous (my bet is the latter); people hate him because he's an arrogant man-child who has done things like used his fame to repeatedly call some guy a pedo, and who actively supports a political party that recently launched an insurrection in an attempt to overturn an election, among other acts of malfeasance. Even if you agree with his politics such as his views on things like Covid-19 and what he considers to be "free speech", don't go around pretending like people hate him because he "actively tries to solve real problems".

The article either contains fabrications or proves earlier articles have fabrications

What fabrications? Nobody in this thread defending him has identified anything the article has gotten wrong; you guys are basically just offended and triggered that it's reporting facts that don't look good for Musk.

There's details in earlier articles from CNN, the economist and the New York times that mean someone has to be lying.

They can't all be true because they contradict each other

Musk is one of the only individuals in the world that actively tries to solve real problems. And people hate him for it.

This is a delusional belief. Virtually no one hates him for solving problems and there a lot of people trying to solve real problems. People dislike him due to his treatment of employees and his treatment of his kids and his incessant hyperbolic claims that are false.

I've got friends who are social workers who solve real problems every day of the week. They aren't generally hated for it, though there are exceptions, like when a parent ends up losing custody due to child abuse.

Did you not think of any social workers because they aren't rich enough for you to notice them, or because you think the problems they solve aren't real enough?

I agree. Feet on the ground social workers go unnoticed and are agents of real help where is is needed. I should have said among high profile figures Musk is unique in his honest effort to save humanity.

While I don't believe Musk is honest[1], even if he were, I think Jimmy Carter and Dolly Parton have both made more honest efforts to save humanity.

(I'm assuming you don't mean "unique" in the sense that everyone is unique.)

[1] What do you think is the best example? How do you disentangle it from what appears to be half-assed efforts?

Demonstration of his efforts are lacking.

The article is largely factual. If somebody hates the MSM for articles like this... let them.

Do you have a more substantive complaint?

The article has several conflicts with the recent NYT article and also earlier contemporary reporting

That's not a "substantive" argument, that's vague and meaningless rhetoric.

This is a they can't both be true situation

Which NYT article? What earlier contemporary reporting?

Really would like to hear your argument about how this article that directly quotes Musk on the issue is somehow "biased trash journalism"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com