Elon Musk deletes post spreading fake news about UK 'detainment camps'

I always wondered how much of his worldview is influenced by his childhood in South Africa and the diaspora.

Him and David Sacks are both products of the the 1980s, when plenty of wealthy and educated White South Africans began leaving due to the Sanctions regime, but continued to hold onto regressive views about race, especially exacerbated by the instability of the 1990s.

Why is it ironic? Racism and right wing extremism comes in many shapes and colors. Some want to make Poland Germany again, others what to keep non-Europeans out of Europe with all means necessary

> It is very ironic that far right extremists organise themself globally

The one that’s baffling to me is the Irish far-right movement, which is essentially a satellite movement of the British one (to the point where one of their propaganda rags, “The Irish Light” is literally a localised version of a British one called “The Light”). Given the history between the UK and Ireland, and the general attitude of the British far-right to Ireland, this is all just bizarre.

While there are a couple of Ireland-and-Northern-Ireland political parties, the far right is the only truly integrated political movement between Ireland and the UK as a whole. The whole thing is very odd. It’s er, not where you’d normally expect internationalism.

They don't continuously prove that they are huge gaping arseholes with the intellect of a mollusc like he does.

Bezos is very far from sainthood, but he is also not nearly as interesting. I make tiktoks about project management and management in general. Elon's loud management-by-exhortation style is a vivid lesson in how not to do it.

There is a fascinating contrast between his successes, like Model 3, and subsequent failures in which he stopped listening and, apparently, started telling people around him to just make it work, as in Cybertruck.

I've also covered how the 787 project and the Boeing CEOs of that time are the origin of a lot of Boeing's trouble today, and how Jack Welch was an epic bullshitter, but Elon puts them in the shade for the number of fascinating examples. What's interesting about Tim Cook is how he can make large bets, lose some of them, like the Apple Car, and not create drama, but it's not as interesting as dead chimps and useless holes.

I guess its bc he is so two-faced many see his actions almost as an act of betrayal.

I mean, Bezos, Cook and Buffett rarely uncritically spread far-right propaganda, so there’s that.

Like “why don’t people give attention to these people for doing a thing they don’t do” is a weird take.

Is the issue that they don’t provide a platform to Nazis—sometimes literally Nazis or descendants of Nazi collaborators, as we see here in mainland Europe?

I’ve seen him retweet a false narrative from a local known guy deep in the Blood, Soil, Honour, and Loyalty scene, who has made headlines for posting the most vile content imaginable even going to camps in East-Europe to "train for the race war". And when people makes him aware, he doesn't care one bit.

But that’s not even the main problem. If he claims to be a free speech absolutist, why does Twitter overlook racial slurs and violent threats but deem the word 'cisgender' problematic?

> I don't see this kind of attention given to figures like Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, or Warren Buffett.

All three work hard to stay out of the public gaze.

For example, Tim Cook kept his sexuality under wraps for decades until he was outed in the media, Warren Buffett almost never criticized sitting officials and living in Omaha means he's out of the media gaze, and before Jeff Bezos stepped down as CEO he was notoriously private about his personal life (and is more than making up for it post-CEO life and thus shielding Jassy)

Lots of billionaires are notoriously private - can you name the top 50 richest Americans without resorting to Wikipedia or Forbes?

In this case it's because he controls a major social media platform. He is in charge of the obsession itself.

It was true before that, and that's because he likes being outrageous in a way that Bezos, Cook, and Buffett don't. We could obsess about them if they wanted it, but they don't seem to want it. They're not totally silent in public but they tend to avoid being especially obnoxious.

Musk bought the platform precisely so that he could amplify his own voice and opinions. It's no surprise that people pay attention.

Beyond the obvious answer that Twitter was influential in the tech industry and many people here worked there or used open source projects which had ties there, Musk gets a lot of attention because he seeks it out. He really likes to portray himself as the hero-industrialist saving the world from dysfunctional “politically-correct” governments which was common in the 80s and 90s sci-fi novels he almost certainly was exposed to at a young age. A lot of people here really wanted that to be true - the dream of rockets to Mars, brain interfaces, etc. is cool and the way he talks about “real engineering” sounds really appealing to anyone who’s cranking out CRUD apps at an MBA-dominated company.

He could have kept his mouth shut and enjoyed that reputation for the rest of his life, but he seems to crave being in the limelight and especially painting himself as some kind of hero standing up to orthodoxy. When he bought Twitter, a common comparison was to an alcoholic buying a bar and I think that’s really true. He’s thrown away billions on incredibly bad business decisions starting by locking himself into an agreement to pay twice as much as Twitter was worth, financed in a way which immediately created a huge cash flow problem, and promptly drove away enough advertisers to make the problems even worse.

Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, etc. would likely not have bought it in the first place but if they had, it wouldn’t have been amateur hour. They would have paid an appropriate amount, had a business plan which makes sense when sober, and above all they wouldn’t be spouting off in public giving people reasons to leave and linking it so heavily to the corporate brand. If Jeff Bezos was secretly an extreme Republican, he’d be talking in public about how taxes should be lower to help strengthen business or the other kinds of anodyne statements which are priced in for billionaires. If he wanted to funnel money to an extremist candidate or cause it’d be run through industry groups and PACs explicitly to avoid giving Amazon customers a reason to hesitate the next time they’re shopping. Tesla is getting slaughtered because a huge fraction of their prospective buyers have been forced to recognize that their money goes to someone with views they strongly oppose - the CEO of Toyota probably has beliefs I don’t share but I don’t know any of them and it’s not linked to the brand identity, whereas the number of people view a Tesla as a MAGA hat on wheels must be giving their marketing department daily stress headaches.

Seems obvious they wouldn't want to provide further visibility to it. In the interest of journalism.

It was obviously not satire

There's two screenshots of it embedded in tweets in the article.

Look, I realise it is tradition, on this here website, not to actually read the article, but in this case you, er, apparently read a bit of it but ignored the screenshot of the offending tweet, complete with fake news piece? Like, come on.

EDIT: Though, actually, the thing you quote doesn’t appear in the article at all. Are you commenting on the wrong article or something?