As far as I can tell he hasn't personally done much worse than say things on twitter that at least a third of people agree with, broken SEC rules and run companies his way.
As far as evil goes he isn't even going to be the evillest person in a room of 10 random people.
That said, the echo chamber effects will continue to get worse as the media continues to pile on him.
I'd respect Elon critics more if they frequently noted that they grade Elon more harshly due to his high level of influence, but I rarely see them do that.
Ultimately in a democracy, everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are lots of people who think the way Elon does, but most of them aren't as prominent about it as Elon is. Seems to me that in a healthy democracy, we shouldn't be particularly upset if an opinion that's common among the general population also has some representation among the elites. https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/explore/public_figur...
Indeed, if this weren't the case, and elites had wildly different opinions than common people (and also more influence), you could make the case that we were living in a plutocracy or an oligarchy, not a democracy. So Elon's willingness to say aloud what many common people think privately is pushing us away from that plutocracy/oligarchy failure mode.
I think Elon has made major mistakes -- funding of OpenAI being the biggest, from the point of view of humanity's survival. But the hate he gets rarely seems well-justified or rational. Here's my theory for what's going on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38046411
No idea about the others, I do grade Elon as harsh as I'd grade everyone else who does the same things. I only know about his attics the other peoples because of his public profile.
The danger I see, because already happened more than once, is that once certain opinions are publicly acceptable, those opinions risk becoming policy. And once those policies get enacted, as history showed, a lot of inncent people suffer.
And with Musks outsized crowd of fanboys, he is even more dangerous than he would be simply controlling Twitter.
>The danger I see, because already happened more than once, is that once certain opinions are publicly acceptable, those opinions risk becoming policy. And once those policies get enacted, as history showed, a lot of inncent people suffer.
This sort of reasoning doesn't help us identify correct opinions or good policies. I could just as easily say: "If critics are silenced, the people silencing critics may be allowed to dictate policy. And once the people who silence critics get their policies enacted, as history showed, a lot of innocent people suffer."
In a theocracy, the dictator can make arguing for atheism a crime, on the grounds that: "Arguing for atheism causes people to go to hell. A lot of innocent people will suffer. Therefore, we throw atheists in jail, in order to save innocents."
My basic position is: If your ideas are strong, you should be competent to argue with those who disagree. If your ideas are weak, you should not bully others into submission so you can enforce weak ideas.
Insimply explained why I argue against right wing opinions everywhere I encounter them. And I am all for having those arguements. Not being American, I see the reasoning behind certain limits of free speech, advocating for hate and violence for example. It should be up to the courts to act on those limits, censorship of opinions has to be avoided. I have zero issue with opinions having consequences so.
And yes, we have seen time and again that, as soon as othering people becomes policy, really bad things happen. That othering starts with words, and the political right are those using those words, and ideologies, far more often than the political left. And it is the right who does that othering on things like ethnicity, sexe, religion, skin color... The left tends to other based on opinion, which while still bad, is a far cry from actually argueing for interning said others in camps, excluding them from voting, access to health care...
Nobody is harmed by people thinking Einstein or Mother Teresa were great and not worthy people. Same for Gandi and MLK, if you choose which aspects to value and respect.
It is useful to have examples of people who made a positive impact on the world.
Look I am from a 3rd world country, and I have been observing online discourse on primarily US-based websites for decades, and the amount of kittens Americans have for their 1# richest member is amazing. I remember the days when Bill Gates was the Borg, then it was Bezos, now Musk.
If we were to plot a chart of misery caused in the average American's life, per million dollar of wealth, I doubt these three or other of their group would top the charts. They would be there definitely, but their wealth exaggerates their effect, imho.
I think the average American faces more misery resulting from the collective action of the thousands of non-famous multi-millionaires and low-billionaires.
These people have the wealth (usually inherited) and the capacity to cause a lot of misery while still flying below the public radar, and there are just so many of them in the US that it's impossible to collectively sum them up and point at.
They are from all walks of life, all race/gender/ethnicities, and yet their wealth allow them to a lot of things, either directly, or by donating to political action, indirectly, that would go unnoticed because we wouldn't even know where to look.
I am not saying that you shouldn't keep an eye out for Elon's wealth and spending, but to treat him as the spawn of satan is a bit much.
Today it's his turn, in some time, some other nincumpoop will be 1#, it's OK, look at BillGates, he was a weirdo but he turned out.... well mostly OK I guess.
We should use the pressure on the rich to bend them towards good causes, NOT to alienate them, all it does is give them a free leash to get into mischief. Keep the pressure on but keep them looped in.
I think you might be missing the conspiracy. Yes politicians are the ones causing the damage, yes they ultimately bear the responsibility. But you have to see how the interests of the rich are given a priority in any political system. Without the rich asserting their influence into politics, by persuading and demanding their interests in public policy, the politician is but a boring bureaucrat, neither making harm nor good. However with the rich conspiring with the politicians, the harm they do to the common people is ultimate.
I will not admire anyone who’s interests are looked after, compensated, subsidized, and payed for by our politicians. They are nothing but bastards, they deserve no praise for having been put in their place of privilege by circumstance and conspiracy.
IMO in terms of achievement and impact Musk is an Einstein-caliber historical figure, and we have to treat what he says and does very carefully. That's why anyone who follows him must always remember that road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As far as evil goes he isn't even going to be the evillest person in a room of 10 random people.
That said, the echo chamber effects will continue to get worse as the media continues to pile on him.