Understanding Musk

There can be few better arguments for the idea that Twitter is, or had been, a de facto agency for government censorship than the Biden administration's proposal for a new Disinformation Governance Board only days after Twitter's directors accepted Elon Musk's buyout offer. But the ramifications go beyond the predictable political alignments. Witness the reaction of the Never Trump Hot Air blog:

Very encouraging that the new owner thinks it was bad form to silence a guy who had just incited a riot by conspiracy theorists at the Capitol and seemed capable of inciting a lot more amidst his mania to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump can rest easy now knowing that his mic won’t be cut the next time he tries a coup, I guess.

This report from the WSJ makes me consider a question to which only Elon Musk himself knows the answer. Namely, to what extent is buying a Twitter a business decision for him? Does he feel pure altruism in wanting to improve an influential communications platform by, among other things, trying to ensure that it treats all of its users fairly? Or are there bottom-line considerations?

I ask because it seems to me that having Donald Trump back on the platform would be good for business in various ways. Yeah, fine, “free speech” and all that. But there’s money to be made too.

Why bring Trump into this at all? Trump so far hasn't changed his position that he won't use Twitter again, but the writer's basic question here has nothing to do with Trump: is Musk doing this out of altruism, or is there money to be made? It sounds to me as though Allahpundit is as deeply suspicious of Musk as he is of Trump -- either Musk is naively altruistic (a billionaire? really?) or, like billionaire Trump himself, he's just cynically bottom-line.

The first thing Allahpundit doesn't understand about US million/billionaires is that most, even those mainly identified as tech moguls or steel-and-railroad industrialists, have always had either a direct investment in media or have at least clearly understood it. Thomas Edison was a pioneer in the film and record industries as well as light bulbs and utilities. Jay Gould, best known as one of the railroad robber barons, also controlled Western Union and worked closely with Edison to improve telegraph technology. His telegraph interests were always closely integrated with his railroads, with Western Union lines sharing rail rights of way.

William Randolph Hearst was a media mogul, though he also took an interest in politics. Joseph Kennedy was a stock market and real estate investor who branched into Hollywood. Steve Jobs was a tech innovator somewhat like Edison, but as he grew older, his focus was increasingly on media. Rockefeller Sr retired and put the family fortune under the control of Rockefeller Jr, who listened to Ivy Lee, the founder of modern public relations, effectively preserving the family's reputation through decades of attacks by muckrakers and socialists.

In that context, there's nothing unusual or particularly untrustworthy about Musk. An operator at that level is simply going to see opportunities in media that others will miss. Another skeptical piece from a different writer at Hot Air at least gets closer to Musk's likely intent:

Twitter has accepted Elon Musk’s offer but there are lots of people suggesting that Musk either can’t or won’t be able to complete the deal for various reasons.

. . . No sign from Musk that he’s having second thoughts so far but the idea of him changing course is certainly circulating at the moment. Another reason people are questioning the deal is that Twitter isn’t a very profitable company. Normally this type of leveraged buyout scenario would target a company that has a lot more profit.

. . . one way to make this deal make more sense would be to cut staffing dramatically.

So people are scratching their heads about Musk's motives but speculating there will be massive layoffs? What interests me here is that political writers like those at Hot Air, or indeed business writers, have apparently had no experience working in tech. I spent the latter years of my career commuting up to Silicon Valley, where the working environment is unique: free popcorn, free sodas, games in the break room, free beer on Fridays, set your own schedule, and the like.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the people who work in that environment are spectacularly unproductive. I'd waste whole mornings waiting for my counterparts to get off the phone with their brokers. The UK Daily Mail has at least a suggestion of what might be on Musk's mind:

Twitter staff have been told that their jobs are safe for at least six months, until Elon Musk takes over under the terms of a $44 billion deal to take control of the company, agreed on Monday.

. . . Concerns about immediate job losses were allayed, with employees told that business will operate as usual until a deal closes in next six months, Bloomberg's Kurt Wagner reported.

Staff were told there would be no layoffs 'at this time' - but no guarantees were provided when Musk takes over.

. . . In internal message rooms there was uproar, The New York Times reported.

'I feel like im going to throw up..I rly don't wanna work for a company that is owned by Elon Musk,' one staffer said, according to their reporter Talmon Smith.

Smith's source told him that it was 'absolutely insane' in the internal chat rooms.

Another Twitter employee reportedly complained: 'I don't rly know what I'm supposed to do…oh my god, my phone's been blowing up…We have a meeting about it at 5pm…the CEO is going to address everyone about it' (it=elon).

I have a feeling the real concern at Twitter is less about whether Trump will be back than how many people will still get beer on Fridays. In some ways, that would be a move as interesting as a former Ukrainian comic driving the final stake into the heart of Stalinism, and nearly as consequential.

Twitter wasn't making money, but it was indulging and spoiling a bloated staff who, when some of them got around to it, were providing a free censorship service to the deep state. Musk is asking, as far as I can see, first, why this service is being provided for free, or indeed at all, and second, why so many people are doing no useful work. Drop the free stuff, both to the government and the workers, and produce something people will buy.

I'm not sure why anyone sees a problem here.