[graemep]

I do not know about Germany, but I would characterise Elon's attempts to gain political influence in the UK as failed.

He tried to bribe one party to accept an extremist as a member in return for a huge bribe, and he failed.

He does not seem to have much influence on public opinion.

I do not think its accurate to say he was fighting countries either. He was trying to buy influence. Its not the same thing.

[Quarrelsome]

The man owns twitter ffs. The only way his attempts to gain political influence will ever fail is if the UK government block access to twitter or British people decide to stop using it. Until then he has significant capacity to sway political opinion.

As an example: there is significant power in cultivating the default UK experience of twitter for new accounts, which he's already had significant impact on by culling Twitter's internal moderation team. I've experienced it myself and its a an absolute disaster zone of disinformation and bot accounts trying to stoke internal divisions.

[graemep]

You would think so, but he seems to have had remarkably little impact so far.

[Quarrelsome]

you're focusing too much on him personally instead of the impact of his platform and how he runs it. Twitter has had significant impact on UK politics and will continue to do so, especially in spreading disinformation[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Leicester_unrest

[graemep]

The platform does spread disinformation, but he does not have much ability to direct it.

Yes, its a different issue from what influence he has personally.

[Quarrelsome]

> he does not have much ability to direct it.

This is like saying Steve Jobs didn't have much ability in making Apple devices so small you could fit them between your buttcheeks.

Compared to anyone else in the entire world: Elon Musk has the most agency in cultivating what people see on twitter because he owns it.

That your statement is so far divorced from reality as is possible, makes me think you are not taking this conversation seriously.