The only people who actually do care about Twitter are journalists. Musk proceeds to ban some prominent ones from Twitter, for utterly frivolous reasons, which makes them realize that 1/ they're not immune to this and 2/ one of their main work tool is brittle, and will make them actively search for another, if they weren't already.
This behavior is strange. Either Musk is engaging in self-harm, for some reason, or he's testing how much he can get away with.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-12-15/the-se...
This is so true. Why sabotage your main user base? Owning Tesla is similar to staying in trump tower. I am really waiting for tesla sales numbers in liberal states like California and NY.
Or at least, want to pretend that they care, considering Tesla makes most of its money selling carbon credits to other companies so that they can pollute more. Buying a Tesla doesn't cause less emissions.
We will see if that works out.
I wonder if you're in a bubble here?
There are other options as well for why he wants to take apart Twitter:
- revenge Peter Thiel-style against "librul" ideas that "made" his daughter trans (or his ex-wife Grimes date Chelsea Manning). Twitter is the biggest forum there is for left-wing and progressive people, and it was/is in financial duress, which made it a perfect target.
- the Saudis, who are the main financial backers of the deal (and even the dozens of billions they paid are petty cash!), want him to destroy Twitter, which has been an incredibly useful tool to organize protest and spread information about government violence
- Musk, like other SV billionaires, thinks they are the best that God has sent to Earth and what they do and want is best for everyone. Unfortunately, as a result he doesn't realize that large markets like Europe see it precisely the other way around.
- Musk, again like other SV billionaires, sees technology as the one and all solution hammer against society's problems. Hate speech? Have algorithms "moderate" the platform, instead of booting out abusers and putting those who cross legal lines behind bars. Fossil fuels? Invest in electric cars (and sooner or later, nuclear fusion vaporware, mark my words), instead of investing in renewable energies and public transport. And again, he doesn't realize that wide parts of the planet do not follow their idea(l)s.
what are you basing this off of? Are you specifically saying buying doesn’t cause less emissions (ie manufacturing) or overall compared to a generic ICE car that a Tesla generates more emissions?
* Manufacturing. This includes not just the factory, but also the mining of lithium and other metals that is an environmental disaster.
* Electricity emissions through its lifetime: if you're in a country that uses primarily natural gas for its electricity production (like the US does), you might as well keep running an ICE instead, it'll be just as bad.
* Carbon credits granted, that will lead to the construction of one more ICE from another manufacturer.
Buying new cars will not solve problems. No matter if it's an EV or an ICE.
I'd be willing to bet that the Qanon crowd is also the last set of people who still reliably click on ads and fall for vitality pill scams, so Musk pandering to them makes financial sense.
Believe me I agree. Check my post history. :)
> Electricity emissions through its lifetime: if you're in a country that uses primarily natural gas for its electricity production (like the US does), you might as well keep running an ICE instead, it'll be just as bad.
Uses primarily now doesn't have to mean uses primarily for all time. I'm also not sure how to compare here because you have a limited number of natural gas plants, coal plants, etc. and maybe you can reduce that actual output of c02 into the atmosphere. Can't really do that with an ICE. It'll be very difficult as well to really capture the systematic emissions. How do you account, for example, for the US military and required spending to maintain global oil supply? Should we account for it? Idk.
I agree that you raise valid points here in comparing carbon emissions, but these ideas don't translate into facts or "proof", which is what I originally asked for.
Or how well it would actually pay out, as he's alienating his original user base at the same time.