back

by musha68k·3y ago·view on hn ↗
I don’t remember who stated this but basically there is this thought that Musk was in fact mad about how on Twitter the “common man” could indeed vocally and effectively share their disagreement with his decisions.

It also might have been an impulsive decision to become relevant in “new tech” at the same time (why would he care so much about this, boredom?). Ultimately he probably just wanted to get out of that impulsive deal again though but it was too late.

Lastly he probably also had/has some WeChat ambitions.

We can see how most of these potential goals are now falling apart spectacularly due to extreme unreflected and unchecked ego.

He seems to have succeeded in the first case though, the “moderated”/“mostly sane”(?) free speech “town square” basically destroyed and replaced by an increasingly irrelevant echo chamber for his greater brand.

9 comments
> (why would he care so much about this, boredom?)

> due to extreme unreflected and unchecked ego

Unfortunately, I think it's worse than that. My belief is that it's manic phases caused by bipolar disorder. If you squint and chart these 'manic' decisions, it seems to be about every 4-5 months. In between he'll often (though not always) post some self-reflective and more 'down' things and be generally more quiet (remember the diet-coke and gun pics?). Then, like with many bipolar sufferers, he'll get 'manic' again and do these kinda things to his businesses and to those around him who care. His personal life is famously a mess.

I want to be clear, I'm not a shrink, I have no degrees in this, and I'm 'diagnosing' this very far removed from the guy. But I do have a few bipolar people in my life and, to me, the parallels are very striking.

I feel for him in that way. Despite all the money and fame, the disease that I suspect he suffers from (with, again, low evidence) is a very tough one to accept. Of the people in my own life that suffer from it, none have moved past a confirmed diagnosis and started the long road to recovery and acceptance.

I'm not sure when in the last 9 months since he bought Twitter you found Elon reflective and "down". It's been lunacy after lunacy every single week.

Does it seem like manic? Yes. But when this behavior is persistent, not sure bipolar is the diagnosis per se.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/elon-musk-is-bipolar-has-ter...

> Sunday, on Twitter, Musk was also asked if he was bipolar, to which Musk replied, “yeah,” but then he explained further, saying his psychological highs and lows are associated with actual ups and downs in his life.

> “Maybe not medically tho,” says his tweet. “Dunno. Bad feelings correlate to bad events, so maybe real problem is getting carried away in what I sign up for.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/entertainment/elon-musk-tweeted-bip...

He's self-diagnosed Asperger's, self-diagnosed bipolar, many things.
In what sense is bipolar disorder worse than extreme unreflected and unchecked ego?
What I believe OP was getting at is that while he’s being an asshole he’s completely tormented by his own mind not allowing him empathy or understanding beyond his suffering. Since he, like so many with bipolar disorder (myself included) is that the cycle of suffering and abhorrent behavior will continue until he can accept that his brain will not let him out of torment long enough to see how his infliction is broadcast outward and who it really effects. Now combine that with the world’s biggest microphone being used by a man with enough means that it will be dumb luck for him to realize it as he has no consequences for his actions. It’s not impossible to make that realization on your own and it’s even harder to make it stick without medication to make your brain break out of a cycle that you have no more control over than anyone else, and it’s your own mind doing it to you.
Mixed episodes and the inevitable downward swing to depression.

Mixed episodes are no joke, I've experienced a couple and hope to never do so again.

I think (guessing) the two of you might possibly be using different definitions of “better”/“worse”.

We’re not morally responsible for the fact some of us may have mental disorders (some like OCD which I have won’t leave us entirely), so stealing which we would be morally responsible for is worse than having a mental disorder.

However, having a mental disorder would be worse than stealing in terms of its consequences (we just can’t get rid of it no matter how much we try).

(At least I think it makes sense to accept both of your statements that way since I think having a large ego is morally bad independently of any consequences.)

I don't think it's OK to remotely analyze a mental illness of another person.

I think that Mr. Musk is an undiluted asshole and one of the worst douchebags to ever grace our planet, which he has proven again and again.

But analyzing his mental condition is sure as shit not up to me or to anybody else.

He kind of opens that door by interactively self-analyzing in the public space. Also, while you make that point, you declare a lot of judgement on his personality; is that really any better then?
I feel that it's my right to make a judgement call on his behavior.

After all, he proved again and again what a sad excuse of a human being he is.

But I don't think it's OK to judge his mental state as an outsider.

I'm a bit perplexed that you see trashing a man's character with certainty as right and pondering if his actions could reflect a struggle with mental illness as wrong.

I don't like Musk, nor do I trust the things he says, but I usually err on the side of granting people some humanity.

> But analyzing his mental condition is sure as shit not up to me or to anybody else.

Why not? Am I unallowed to suggest that Howard Hughes had OCD? That Kurt Gödel was paranoid?

Submitting a hypothesis about some’s mental condition is a reasonable thing to do, given that you have a substantial body of evidence in the form of behavioural reports.

I don’t find the above argument convincing, but only because it’s vague and lacks specific examples - not because it’s ”not okay.”

> one of the worst douchebags to ever grace our planet

Cool your jets, man!

Musk has done plenty of good, for the country and the world. I can think of plenty, plenty others who have accomplished nothing but feel entitled to run other peoples' lives.

> Lastly he probably also had/has some WeChat ambitions.

Years ago I remember reading something about the Chinese microblogging sites and it was mentioned "these sites also have a character limits. However, b/c in Chinese a character can be an entire word, the 'word limits' are much longer."

Moving to the 4000 character limit feels very much a response to the above.

I sure hope it wasn't a response to that! Twitter dealt with that in 2017!

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2017/Giving-yo...

They made Unicode code points below U+1100 count as 1/280 of the character limit, and code points above it count as 1/140 of the character limit.

This is my problem with Twitter. It's not meant for serious discussion. We have blogs for that. Nobody wants to read it for an interesting article about geopolitics- foreignaffairs.com already exists. Know your audience.
> It's not meant for serious discussion.

What exactly is it meant for then if not serious discussion?

> We have blogs for that.

You mean the one sided discussions? Also not every thought is worthy of a blog post, but is worthy of being put out there.

> Nobody wants to read it for an interesting article about geopolitics- foreignaffairs.com already exists

Geopolitics isn't the only thing longer convos are for... The problem with pre-Musk/4000 char limit Twitter is that nuances are heavily lost because of the lack of characters and that nobody wants to do thread storms.

> Know your audience.

Ironic.

> What exactly is it meant for then if not serious discussion?

All other types of discussion. Promoting serious discussion elsewhere.

Well, at the time of the pandemic, our prime minister tweeted important changes to policies to have effect in the next few days.

Whether or not that was what the platform was meant for, it was what it was. And as far as I heard, our country was not the only one where this was happening.

He certainly has WeChat ambitions, he said it himself!

video: https://werunbtc.com/wechat.mp4

This just happened a few weeks after Geohot said that Facebook was the only alive startup company out there because they managed to change their name to Meta. (He said something like that on the lex friedman podcast.)
IMHO think it is something of a looking back / looking forward situation. Looking back, the Twitter brand has indeed accumulated massive goodwill. Looking forward, it would appear that some kind of LLM is replacing search (bard.google.com replacing google.com; chat.openai.com replacing bing.com). Elon has been very busy establishing the new https://x.ai/ as an alternative LLM "to understand the true nature of the universe", with no fewer than 11 new key executive technical employees this July. It is clear that looking forward, Elon has a hybrid vision of Twitter morphing not just into a WeChat clone, but going well past that and potentially knocking on the heals of ChatGPT/Bard as the next obvious incarnation of search.
It pokes a hole in the yes man bubble. Ironically society Algo bubbles it's leaders since the dawn of time and they can't stand it to rupture. Loyalty and uniform support or else the big boss gets anxiety atracks.At the same time they can not stop lurking near dissent, cause it's the last window to reality they have. Next on mamal brain bugs..
I feel like a lot of people don’t fully appreciate this point because they are well adjusted and hear no constantly.

You have to view these billionaires as toddlers. They never hear a simple “no”, and when they do they go apoplectic.

Not disagreeing, but these aren't just toddlers, but insecure toddlers who have never been told no and think people pushing back is equivalent to hate. A normal toddler who has caretakers who are loving and accepting does not respond like this.
As a parent (no longer of toddlers... but I had them), I have to disagree with this somewhat. In my experience even the best of parents, with the best of kids, sometimes has them go off the rails when they hear "no". Certainly there are some parents who are (significantly) less able to get their children to accept limitations ("no"), but I don't believe that this is something that is ever perfect.

None of this should ever apply to any even moderately-adjusted individual beyond childhood. Certainly not as an adult.

How often do you tell people no? I find it pretty common to get a visceral reaction when I disagree with people, and that's even after spending years working on delivering that disagreement in more friendly ways, both professionally and personally.

I think it's a relatively universal human trait to resent dissent, these guys just have more resources to make their distate known.

> You have to view these billionaires as toddlers. They never hear a simple “no”, and when they do they go apoplectic.

It doesn't have to be just billionaires, one of the startups I worked in had a leadership culture like this. I ended up leaving after the new person I was reporting to took this to an extreme.

I think they do it slightly differently.

One they are billionaires, hearing no is likely exceedingly rare, however to get to prestige, I'm certain they heard no many many times (or the equivalent, say "no way you can do that") so they're so used to people objecting and they succeed anyway - Tesla, SpaceX come to mind here - that no just makes them want to double down on what they're doing, combined with the fact that their inner circle at this point likely isn't saying no very often, if at all, directly to the person at hand, it makes them very resistant to real feedback

The jet guy broke Elon and there’s no putting him back together.
Elon Musk founded X.com before it bought one of its competitors and changed its name to PayPal. He bought the domain name back from PayPal in 2017 and had been sitting on it for a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.com

It looks like this isn't a rebranding so much as making an "everything app".

> On October 4, 2022, Elon Musk described his acquisition of Twitter as "an accelerant to creating X, the everything app".[28] This has been linked to x.com.[29] In conversation with Ron Baron a month later, Musk said he will execute the X product plan "with some improvements" which will make Twitter "the most valuable financial institution in the world."[30]

Well, it'll be interesting whether he succeeds or fails. But this does not look like it is impulsive.

"If a good enough X logo is posted tonight, we'll make go live worldwide tomorrow" sounds impulsive to me.

A rebranding would make more sense at the point where you actually roll out those everything features. Him being a marketing engineer, I guess he just had to stay in the conversation this week.

It’s marketing and storytelling.

The impulsiveness and crowd sourcing writes the headline itself.

I’m not implying it’s a super calculated masterplan, more that he just knows it’ll grab headlines and mindshare cheaper than any paid marketing launch ever could.

the people he's marketing to will eat that shit up.

those who are already looking at him skeptically will not care and were already on the way out / not using the app.

dumb, but riding the hype train is really his only play IMO.

> Elon Musk founded X.com before it bought one of its competitors and changed its name to PayPal.

Elon's company merged with Confinity. Confinity was already well underway with PayPal (owned trademarks, patents, and the domain name) at the time of the merger, and notably, had a working MVP.

I say "notably" because when Elon was initially selected as CEO, he spent his tenure trying to throw away this working MVP because it was written in Java on Solaris, which he didn't know, so he wanted it rewritten in Classic ASP so he could better understand the codebase.

A few months (four, IIRC) of stubbornness about that, and the board had had enough, and removed him as the CEO.

> But this does not look like it is impulsive.

Believe it or not, with all that being said, it still looks like it is impulsive.

Probably still can't believe nobody likes his cool domain name.
Agreed. Musk has been talking about this for a long time, if you’ve followed him at all.
that is pretty unfair. the common man never had that amount of freedom on twitter. the lobbies, the blue elite and the powerful however lost a similar if not more amount of control over the masses thanks to Musk.
What are you talking about? I used to be able to interact with interesting people in the public sphere on twitter, now it's just a bunch of people verified that I never cared who they were anyway, and everyone I joined to follow has been gradually leaving.

My own account is still in a banned state for telling Microsoft they suck for making their OS bloated. Before I was off twitter, because fuck deleting a reasonable tweet to appease some censorship bot and its review team, twitter was less and less 'free' for anyone not worshiping that rich ass-hat.

Twitter was the only platform I could tell our public health director they were doing way more damage with their insane covid mandates than good. I even got replies from the dude. There isn't any other platform out there where you can do this.

So while Twitter is indeed a toxic hellhole, it is oftentimes the only way you can directly attempt to communicate with "the right people" in an organization.

you might have missed the covid era under twitter. or the presential elections. all before musk, all freedom altering events by a scale your "microsoft sucks" is a story you tell yourself to think you a justice warrior.

they even censored the president of your country but no Musk is the evil lol. Somehow I can understand that the average joe is deep into politics and biased because they want their team to win but in HN, between engineers, that like facts and concepts that are abstract can't we just say that censoring the POTUS was something unseen in any kind of social media platform and that was probably the biggest event that ever happened? whatever we think of the guy, he got trough where he was through the voices of millions of american and just banning those is a danger to freedom and democracy

Banned for speaking the truth? Sad to hear of this.
"The Blue Elite" is the most unhinged concept to emerge from this whole thing.
why is that? people that are somewhat famous deserve a blue mark that favors them in many ways vs the normal people? unhinged?