To pretend he doesn't have powerful enemies is just silly. It's not some kooky conspiracy theory. The only question is if you think his enemies are justified or not.
Who are these enemies, and why do they oppose him?
I frankly don't see any "enemies." Are the SEC his "enemies?" I don't think so, he goes out of his way to bend securities law. If you go poking a bear and it takes a swipe at you - you're simply a fool, and the bear is not your enemy.
Read any recent ArsTechnica post on him that isn't part of the rocket section, and consider based purely on the use of emotive language if maybe someone has an axe to grind.
Being critical of someone does not make you their enemy. That is a super disturbing thing to suggest.
The fact that you had to eliminate part of the site to make the claim remotely plausible is something you should reflect on.
I will readily admit I think Musk is a bad CEO and a worse person who goes around saying he's saving humanity, but only willing to do it if it's sexy and cool and on his terms. Meanwhile real technologies that could really help the world go unfunded. Let's also not forget that he's suggested indentured servitude as a business model for Neuralink - we should all be able to agree that is a red flag.
Would you suggest that I am his enemy now? Would he be justified hiring private investigators to harass me? Should he direct his Twitter followers to brigade me? Is this the world you want to live in? Is this what free speech advocacy looks like?
This isn't about enemies or anything else. It's about what used to be a technical news site using emotive language to describe people. News should be impartial, but I see a significant amount of opinion-building.
Musk has always been Steve Jobs -ish. He focused on rockets and electric cars instead of shiny things that go in your desk or pocket or wrist though, and against all odds succeeded where many others have failed. Yes he's an asshole, and I'd hate to work for him, but he's also pushed humanity forward by corralling a bunch of people to all pull in the same direction.
My issue is more with Ars, where all the reporting used to be like the rocket section, but since the acquisition by Condé Nast the rest of it has turned into tech tabloid. I want newsworthy information, not what some guy did in his personal time.
This is goalpost moving. We weren't discussing the journalistic integrity of Ars Technia, we were discussing whether or not Musk's enemies are real or imagined. I didn't identify Ars as an enemy, I asked who these enemies were, and it was you who suggested it.
He is not pushing humanity forward and certainly isn't getting people to pull in the same direction. If you disagree, I would be curious to hear how Neuralink and his Twitter acquisition are related, or how his frequent scandals help to keep people to focused on the mission.
He has no real vision to be pushing humanity forward to, he has a series of smokescreens. It is plain for me to see that Musk has no strategy, and that these are a series of tactics to maintain relevance and distract from the issues he'd rather we forget about (such as the sexual harassment allegations that have recently been made public, or that FSD is not and has never been "one year away").
At best he's a distraction. But he's worse than that, he siphons energy and attention that should be directed towards actually addressing climate change and other existential challenges into a vortex that ultimately serves to empower him and feed his ego. His contribution to the success of SpaceX and Tesla is his prolific talent for charming people and attracting investment and attention. In many ways they succeed despite him, not because of him. In a world without Musk, people are still working on these problems and making the same breakthroughs, just under a different corporate entity.
It is not the unique insight of Elon Musk which makes these innovations possible. It is decades of research, mostly funded by the taxpayer, mostly taking place at universities and national labs. The engineers at SpaceX and Tesla are taking it the "last mile" to commercialization.
These are both critical contributions. But if Musk were not the one to hire these engineers, it would Bezos or Branson or somebody else - when the idea is ready to be commercialized, someone will be there to fund it. Being able to promote an idea and attract investment is a real and challenging skill, but it's not on the critical path to introducing these innovations to society. (It is absolutely on the critical path for creating and sustaining an individual company, however.)
You severely underestimate his impact on the success of both Tesla and SpaceX, it extends beyond just a 'getting funding and charming people' perspective. Ask Bezos about combustion instabilities in turbopumps and he isn't going to give you a 20 minute lecture on the pros and cons of gas bearings and alloy design. Toyota, the world's largest auto manufacturer, is still avoiding making an electric vehicle.
Musk is eccentric, and doesn't have all of his communication go through a PR team. Show me anybody else at a similar publicity level who isn't behind 3 layers of PR firewalls. Of course there will be scandals. You just don't see all the detestable opinions the other rich and famous people have.
In addition, he has a lot of powerful enemies. Big Oil, ULA etc have been hit hard by the work he's done to bring new tech to public consciousness. Who Killed The Electric Car etc. I'm surprised there haven't been many more of the unfalsifiable type of scandals or even court cases tying up his time.
3 years ago, everybody loved him. He was saving the planet with Tesla and bringing back American access to the ISS with SpaceX. Suddenly people care more about him not being married to the celebrity he is having children with, or that he isn't happy with a corporate deal, like somehow we're all major Twitter shareholders. It's ridiculous, and I'm pointing out how the media is shaping people's opinions on frankly irrelevant details in the greater scheme of things.
I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the contract Musk made with Twitter. Unless you're somehow different on both of those counts, it may behoove you to consider where your strong opinions on this matter come from, and whether they are really yours.
So Musk's enemies are Ars Technia. Then it wasn't about enemies. And now Musk's enemies are so plentiful and powerful, that I'm not even allowed an opinion, I'm just a dupe.
Musk's reputation was killed by Musk, and it was because he showed the world who he was. I realized his words were nonsense and formed an opinion based on his actions. You should consider doing the same.
As a final note, I think you should consider it a red flag in your own thinking when you can't even conceive that someone would disagree with you on this topic, and you need to invoke a conspiracy to explain my having a differing opinion. Regardless of how you feel about Musk, even if you're correct, that should jump out to you as a problem which deserves reflection.
Yes, the world has nuance. There aren't good guys and bad guys, everyone is mostly in it for themselves. It's all a big, ever-changing war for resources, all the way up from bacteria to us who think we're somehow above it all. Everyone is allowed their opinion, and nobody has to agree with it.
It isn't a conspiracy that rich people control the media - this was a big part of people's initial objection to his purchase of Twitter, wasn't it? Why would it be in any way controversial that other rich people don't like him and are trying to undercut him? Isn't this even what you're doing, on a small scale?
I absolutely understand people don't like him - I don't particularly like him easier, but I am impressed by the things he's managed to achieve. I don't need to like him as a person to recognize that he's done impressive things. And I don't think either of us are qualified to be making pre-judgements on whether the Twitter contract is Musk's Spruce Goose or not.
CORRECTION: I misspoke, I meant to say there were sexual _harassment_ allegations, NOT assault. I can't edit this comment anymore, but I'll email the HN admins to see if they'll fix it (ETA dang did). I apologize.
How did powerful enemies force him to make a public bid to buy Twitter, and then force him to back out of it? I'd like to hear the non kooky conspiracy explanation for that.
Who said anything about him being forced to do such a thing? People make bad decisions all the time, including Musk. But given human nature and frailty, people under a great deal of pressure and opposition like musk is, are likely to make worse decisions than they otherwise would.
