According to Forbes’ ranking of the world’s richest billionaires, Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, tops the list with a net worth of $223.8 billion.
His super-wealth exceeds the net worth of kill shot pusher, Bill Gates and entrepreneur/investor, Warren Buffett, combined.
It’s more than the total wealth of Jim, Rob and Alice Waltons of Walmart infamy.
The firm’s “Always low prices” are made possible by union-busting practices, sweatshop conditions and exploited workers paid poverty wages with scant or no benefits.
According to Glassdoor.com, 58% of Telsa workers would recommend company employment to a friend.
Nearly three-fourths (73%) approve of how Musk runs the company.
Employees say they’re paid well, are surrounded by smart staff and benefits are great.
At the same time, $19 an hour for production assistants at a time of soaring inflation isn’t enough to make ends meet in California — a high-cost-of-living state.
Some staff complained about long hours, including weekend work at times and stressful conditions.
Yet overall, staff called Telsa a good place to work.
On Friday, the WSJ reported that on acquiring Twitter, Musk fired the firm’s CEO, CFO and general counsel.
Hours after completing his $44 billion takeover — making it a private company and calling himself “Chief Twit” — he vowed to implement a policy of free expression, tweeting:
“The bird is freed,” separately claiming:
“I didn’t buy the firm to make more money (sic).”
“I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love (sic).”
Musk didn’t become the world’s wealthiest billionaire by prioritizing a love for humanity.
Separately, he told Twitter advertisers the following:
He bought the firm “have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.”
At the same time, he said:
Twitter “cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences,” adding:
The platform must be “warm and welcoming to all (so users can) choose (their) desired experience according to (their) preferences, just as (they) choose” films, video games and make other marketplace choices.
Yet questions remain about the firm’s business model ahead.
To what extent will it change or resemble its pre-takeover platform?
As a highly successful entrepreneur, Musk’s vision for Twitter is “one-stop shopping” E-commerce.
According to Insider Intelligence:
He wants to “replicate China’s WeChat in the US.”
Reaching over 800 million users, it’s extremely popular in the country.
His admiration for WeChat is public knowledge.
Last June, he reportedly said the following:
Money is “fundamentally digital at this point and has been for a while.”
It “make(s) sense to integrate payments into Twitter so it’s easy to send money back and forth.”
He praised China’s social media and mobile payments app WeChat and video-sharing app TikTok as examples of directions where he’ll take Twitter.
His goal is a super-app for one-stop shopping, financial management, communications and commerce — a super-highway for all of the above to maximize revenues and profits.
That reflects his concern for bots.
He’s buying access to maximum numbers to achieve his business model goals, including influential, wealthy, well-educated segments of society.
If Twitter’s platform becomes a wild west of free expression anything goes, it’ll turn off the most important users he seeks to attract in large numbers and keep.
So while openness at Twitter may improve, they’ll surely be limits imposed.
Free and open expression on its platform may have an unacceptably low ceiling.
I highly doubt that it would be receptive to some of my recently titled articles, including:
Nothing to Offer But Hegemony — referring to what Vladimir Putin said about how both wings of the US war party operate.
Or the reality that the Biden Regime Wants You Dead — by pushing kill shots.
Or that “Nazified Ukraine (is a) Weaponized Failed State Platform for Perpetual War on Russia.
Or calling profoundly undemocratic Dems contemptuous of peace, equity, justice and the rule of law in pursuit of their diabolical aims.
My Twitter and Facebook accounts were suspended before for remarks like the above.
I highly doubt that Musk would tolerate them.
Yet I expect openness at Twitter will improve somewhat under his stewardship — an improvement even if not enough.
By letter to the firm’s staff, he said the following days earlier:
It’s “important…to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner…”
There’s likely a positive side to Musk’s acquisition.
Why else would hostile to peace, equity, justice and the rule of law, NYT, headline for following:
“The Robber Barons Had Nothing on Elon Musk (sic)”
Calling him “a rogue billionaire in our midst,” the Times claimed that he’s “a tech genius who…break(s) the rules, exploit(s) and excise(s) those who work for him, ridicule(s) those who stand in his way and do(es) as he wishes with his wealth (sic).”
More of the same rubbish followed — what the self-styled newspaper of record would never say about Wall Street crooks, merchants of death and mass destruction weapons makers, Big Pharma kill shot pushers or other notorious corporate predecessors.
And this shot across the bow from EU commission for internal market, Thierry Breton:
“In Europe, the bird will fly by our (draconian anti-free and open expression) rules.”
It’s highly likely that Musk will permit free and open expression with limits — going beyond what Twitter allowed before but not too far.
He didn’t become super-rich by being a good guy.
He’s highly unlikely to jeopardize his wealth and influence by going too far against the grain.
A Final Comment
Musk is very much a bad guy for providing Ukrainian Nazis with military intelligence via Starlink satellites.
By so doing, Russia may consider them legitimate targets to destroy, warning:
“(S)uch activity constitutes involvement in military action through a proxy.”
“Quasi-civilian infrastructure may be considered a legitimate target for a retaliatory strike.”
Russia’s Security Council Deputy Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, urged Musk to “quit (the) Starlink in Ukraine business.”
Failure to act responsibly on this issue may cost him dearly.