Musk Pushback

I'm still trying to think through just what Twitter is -- it's not so much a product as a figment. To the left, it's a sort of totemic representation of civic harmony and correct opinion that's now under threat as Elon Musk eliminates moderation. To the right, it's a representation of everything that's wrong with the polity, which Elon Musk will correct in a grand gesture of civic good will.

To shareholders of Musk's companies, this is all beside the point, except that Musk's excursion into Twitter has turned into a tar-baby distraction.

CNBC reports that as Tesla shares sank eight percent on Tuesday to a new 52-week low, CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to argue with investors and blame the stock downturn on macroeconomic factors rather than his focus on Twitter in recent months.

Tesla shares closed on Tuesday around $138 per share, eight percent lower for the day which was largely mixed for other stocks. Long-time Tesla bull Ross Gerber tweeted that the stock price was being affected by the company having “no CEO” implying Musk was distracted with Twitter.

Clearly Musk is being forced into doing something about that Twitter distraction, which he brought on himself largely by drinking his own Kool-Aid. According to the New York Post,

A report from CNBC claims that Musk is “actively looking” for a new CEO to replace him. How long that search could take remains unknown at this time. But if and when he does “step aside,” he won’t be gone from the scene. Even if he’s not technically the CEO anymore, Musk will reportedly still be directing software development, security, or other functions, so he won’t disappear entirely.

. . . “The question is not finding a CEO, the question is finding a CEO who can keep Twitter alive,” Musk tweeted Sunday.

The Post has reached out to Twitter for comment. Musk eliminated the company’s communications team last month.

Other tweets from Musk suggest nobody so far has been interested in the job. Again, my view continues to be that Twitter is less a product than a figment that provides something of little actual value. Musk has simply been proving this in allowing himself to be backed into buying the company. The Post noted,

Musk has yet to publicly indicate whether he has developed a short list of candidates. But some of Musk’s top advisers who have been active at Twitter since his acquisition are potential options, according to Bloomberg.

The outlet noted that investor Jason Calacanis, former PayPal executive David Sacks and Andreessen Horowitz partner Sriram Krishnan have all played an active role in Musk’s Twitter takeover.

Well, if these were the guys who advised him to buy Twitter for $44 billion, why should he trust them now? Elsewhere, he's characterized Twitter as a plane crash:

Elon Musk compared Twitter to a plane crash, as he explained his rationale for cutting costs at the company by enacting mass layoffs in the weeks after he bought it.

"This company is like you're in a plane that's headed towards the ground at high speed, with the engines on fire, and the controls don't work," Musk said in a Twitter Space late Tuesday evening.

. . . Staff numbers have fallen from 7,000 to roughly 2,300 since Musk took over, per Insider's Kali Hays. The New York Times also reported that Twitter has stopped paying rent on its offices, and has refused to pay $200,000 in costs for private jet flights.

During the Twitter Space, Musk also spoke about his meetings with advertisers, explaining that they asked "hard questions" about their return on investment because of the declining macroeconomic situation.

"When you do not have a clear answer, then advertisers don't want to advertise because they're being sane," he added.

So the bottom line is that Musk allowed himself to be pushed into buying Twitter when he apparently had no notion about the company's basically nonexistent business model. Within weeks of his arrival, he discovered too late what he presumably should have learned earlier through due diligence, except he apparently boxed himself in with the terms of his $44 billion offer. No wonder the Twitter board sued him to go through with the deal, he bailed them out and will take the blame for the disaster they brought on.

I assume the investors he convinced to go in with him on the Twitter deal are unhappy, but now he's also got the Tesla shareholders on his case.

Would you rather be Elon Musk or Vladimir Putin?