Free Speech Absolutist Elon Musk Owns 9.2% of Twitter

Elon Musk is a free speech absolutist. Elon has revealed that he now owns 9.2% of Twitter. Elon is the largest shareholder of Twitter.

Elon has about 73.5 million shares of Twitter. Twitter is up 25% to $49 on the new todays. Tesla shares are also up. Elon’s stake in Twitter is now worth $3.6 billion. He bought the shares on March 14 for about $32-33 per share. Elon is up about $1.3 billion on his position. Elon exercised options and sold stock. Elon probably netted about $5 billion after paying his taxes. Elon might still have $3 billion in cash for another Twitter scale transaction.

Elon has one of the largest followings on Twitter. Elon will also be able to use Twitter to more effectively promote his companies.

Elon ran his Twitter poll about free speech about ten days after he bought his stake in Twitter.

Elon will be able to use Twitter and Starlink for various communication applications.

Elon probably has a plan for how to make Twitter more profitable and more open.

Elon and Jack Dorsey seem to be friends.

Elon can probably drive Twitter to do video and Tik Tok like short video.

Warrren Redlich describes how he believes that Elon Musk and his allies have a clear plan for making Twitter far more profitable. High profitability and reach would also mean more relevance.

Elon has over 80 million followers and he knows how to use and leverage all social media.

SOURCES- Twitter, Warren Redlich
Written By Brian Wang,

55 thoughts on “Free Speech Absolutist Elon Musk Owns 9.2% of Twitter”

  1. 1
    Overall Musk's/your argument seems that, quickly, some small number of people are/need to be incentivized (forced) to be independent by being placed at a large distance from Earth. Clearly, that would work! Sink or swim. Here is my condensed version of the logic, without the supporting details:IF Earth destroyed, *dependent* cislunar O'Neill insufficient. The dependency is due to being close to and intertwined with Earth. Achievement of independence is key, for Musk, thus distance of Mars First/Direct/Only needed.UNLESS Mars O'Neill orbitals?? Here, the basic O'Neill question is raised, with Mars as the planet, but the Musk lifeboat/distance problem has been solved. I will *assume* a mild form of O'Neill, that is, that much, but not all, is better done in Space, so as to have a logical safety net in case strong O'Neill, most everything is better in Space, is not yet clear. Running thru the logic with this assumption rather than the planet chauvinists' should present entertaining comparisons.

  2. 2
    "IF Earth destroyed." Main lifeboat solutions could be 0) O'Neill big, forget planets, even Earth, 1) Earth plus lifeboat Mars or more planets, "multiplanetary" 2) Earth plus limited O'Neill Settlements that are similar to Mars lifeboat. Independent considerations include the sequence of projects that lead to these solutions and the timing of success. Considerations such as the overall long term O'Neill end case '0' of majority safety even with Earth destruction, and quicker cases '1' and '2' where most would still perish, as few can fit on Mars for example. Also, there is a strong reason for not considering cislunar O'Neill sufficient as a lifeboat, at least until we are confident that no asteroid will hit the Moon. The debris will hang around cislunar in a way that it will not in the overall Solar system. But that is unlikely, so will stay with your "too close" reason for cislunar's Earth dependence.

  3. 3
    O'Neill argues that much of human activity should be in Space, as there is rare Earth process that cannot be easily better done there. He does not make the lifeboat project an exception. Apply O'Neill assumption as comparison to planetonly logic. Here, I MUST stipulate something I do not predict, that equal effort will be devoted separately to the '2' option as would be to the '1' option. That is, lifeboat 'belter distant O'Neill Settlements get the full dedicated effort Mars lifeboat would, not just left overs from Earth dependent economic activity. To make the comparison fair. Lifeboat is important, no?

  4. 4
    First, compare complete long term setting up "high-tech items like computer chips" and "replicate all of our industry and be independent" on Mars v O'Neill, at distance. I am not falling for the notion that O'Neill has to be deep in a planet gravity well, such as Mars or even Earth. That is planet chauvinism. Either get near an asteroid or use light sails to bring stuff. Little or nothing launched! And, esp early, the stuff that does come from cislunar or even Earth does not have to be landed on a planet or brought into low orbit. *Because* O'Neill is better than on Earth, as most things are, how could it possibly be even better on Mars? Without micr0g? We are moving away from planets, not onto them. Huge difference in outcome depending upon whether O'Neill is correct.

  5. 5
    Now, go into the steps along the way. "O'Neill habitats in cislunar space will generally be dependent on Earth". Certainly at the beginning, as the Mars effort would be. Earth will be totally dependent upon O'Neill for micr0g products. Which will happen faster, the growth of cislunar O'Neill capabilities when doing robust Earth business, or distant Mars surface, a charity case? Putting equal effort devoted to O'Neill lifeboat as Mars, remember? The creation of lifeboat O'Neill seems just more of the same as cislunar, just farther away or even towed out. Far easier than Mars. Use all non science Mars money to improve cislunar economic O'Neill so some can be lifeboat, no big thing with all that money. Will Mars effort have micr0g O'Neill ISMRU? Start there if so, it is easier. Then decide to go on to Mars surface.

  6. 6
    "easy access to material at zero ΔV cost" seems to miss the main point of micr0g advantage, moving stuff around or just holding it. Think of getting stuff from Bennu or lunar mass launcher as digging the hole at the Earth mine and ready to load the truck. After that, all the processes on a planet are a pain. The stuff in micr0g is a joy, and much will only be possible there. "And we can only do that by colonising another planetary system." is total opposite of O'Neill. Even Earth is deficient, certainly anything farther away!

    And now, consider that starting cislunar O'Neill may also be the fastest way to lifeboat Mars! I have been arguing this for over 40 years, feigning a long term goal of Mars. We seem to sort of be half way to that plan, using the Moon for practice of Mars, but not yet really infrastructure to do it, as that would also help non Mars things. But these other things can also help pay the cost. Things like Space Solar Power, O'Neill's main initial project for the 1980s. IF you are able to see them, are not a planet chauvinist. Should the lunar base be in lunar orbit, or on the surface?

  7. Thanx for the detailed ideas. Self consistent and clear. "It is not, actually" in line with his stated main interest?? His interest is in a lifeboat pop that can survive Earth sudden destruction, as I see it. Quick! But he is a planet chauvinist, so sees the only thing they can see, planets, and so limits his solution(s) to planets. For no actual reason, btw. Why limit the solution? If someone is interested in cheap gas, and I tell him it is cheaper across the street, his response that streets only have one side does not mean he is not interested in cheap gas. Something deeper going on. Yet the very term Musk uses to describe the goal/solution is inherently limited to planets, multiplanetary. The key to Azimov's term is the notion that the holding of the assumption is itself totally unseen, not merely that the assumption is false. Unquestioning because the alternative to planets is unimaginable. Until one reads O'Neill. I will reply to myself with more on your post, as the topic is important at this exact time and will overflow. Gateway!

  8. Establishing a high profit industry that has high demand for space launch facilities feeds directly into establishing a high volume space launch capability, which is a fundamental prerequisite for making us multiplanetary.

  9. What are you talking about? It's a business venture. Same as Starlink, which also "isn't consistent with his goals" of making us multiplanetary

  10. Excellent! I am writing a long response, but have just had a realization that goes along the lines JB has below. Isaac Arthur mentions this as to O'Neill Settlements, but I now realize that the comparison between O'Neill and Mars *lifeboat* total civilizations can be quite misleading if you forget that the O'Neill Cylinder is just the living quarters, yet the picture of the Mars city is the whole thing, industry and all. An equivalent pop in O'Neill Space would be a far smaller O'Neill Hab than the Mars city, as the industry is not in the Hab. It is outside, in Space, where the good stuff happens that makes Space better than Earth/Mars for these things. The rotating hab is a kludge for humans.

  11. They will be dependent on a big industrial base and mining source.

    That can either be Earth or the Moon. Earth in the short/mid term.

    But it can also be the asteroids, driven by their own companies and interest in the longer term.

    Let's say they will be dependent on Earth for a relatively short historical period, while they develop an autarchy with space resources.

  12. Social science (singular is valid) is not really a science in the same way natural science or formal science is. The fact that it had to call itself as "science" is because it's not in the same class as, say, physics. However, you are right, since the word science itself has lost its meaning with "scientists" declaring that it's "scientifically proven" that there is no biological basis for gender and it's a completely social construct.

    Please avoid using terms like straw man. It belongs to the same class as conflate, gas lighting and ad hominem.

  13. More direct and vastly cheaper is to meet politicians/candidates and give money to political campaigns, and let them know what his needs are: things like more freedom to launch whatever and whenever he wants, not allowing dealers to prevent sales of his vehicles, maybe allowing solar panels from China back in. That "anti-dumping" thing was a lie. Clearly a lie, as China is not losing any money selling these panels to all the other countries on the planet. Our justification is clearly false. Now, this may or not help him. I don't know how easy it is to incorporate Chinese solar cells into what he is doing at SolarCity. But, it clearly would reduce the cost of building solar farms, and maybe he would benefit from battery storage demand increases…assuming he can open up that battery bottleneck…and produce more batteries than he needs for cars and trucks.
    I am just guessing here. He probably has a different wish list. Getting Federal dollars for tunnel digging for electric cars? Feds pay for rural satellite internet/phones? Maybe getting the SEC off his back about tweets?
    (and that wasn't my downvote)

  14. Whom to applaud for improvement in telling a "truth" that fits their own purposes and intentions best?
    His position simply seems justified, because a system for communication does not decide, what's the purpose for communication or what's a preferable content within (legality principle and common habits) communication. (What else would have been the "American way of life"?)
    Me wondering, how power addicted his surroundings are (in times to come)?

  15. Social media swarms direct not just the US military* but the militaries of the West. The nation states of the West have been hollowed out. See John Robb's "Brave New War" .

    *Politics is the continuation of war by other means — so policies governing AMZN (WaPo) are at stake. GOOGLE (youtube) can fight back but not as efficiently in the sense of Robb's notion of Open Source Warfare.

  16. In that case three predictions.
    1. Elon won’t be selling Starlink in China.
    2. Elon will continue to criticise the US President.
    3. Elon will not criticise the Chinese President.
    With many US businesses from McDonnell Douglas then later to Apple and many others the strategy is profit first and America second.
    If Elon wants to sell cars in China he will self limit his free speech.

  17. Unfortunately, twitter is like peanuts compared to AMZN (WaPo) or GOOGLE (youtube), I doubt, even with a community board to blacklist (2 conservatives, 2 liberals + unanimous vote to suspend) an account, that this will make any dent on the current control of the information market.
    The better approach would be to make voting for board members from ETF's that hold these stocks open to the stock owners. Censorship Accountability then, can be directly tied to the owners of media companies. The media companies' board members then can be held accountable for actual censorship.

  18. It is not, actually. O'Neill style habitats is great and all, but it will definitely not allow humanity to survive if, say, an asteroid were to strike Earth or massive volcanism released teratonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere, as it seems happened with Venus 725 million years ago.

    This is because O'Neill habitats in cislunar space will generally be dependent on Earth for most of its industry, certainly for producing the high-tech items like computer chips which will be necessary to maintain them far into the future. If we as a species want to survive past the destruction of Earth, we need some fraction of us where we will be forced to replicate all of our industry and be independent, modulo sharing knowledge and the occasional tourism. And we can only do that by colonising another planetary system.

    Could we do it by creating an O'Neill colony around another planet instead? Sure, I guess. But creating a massive cylindrical station in Earth orbit is already an inordinately difficult project, let alone trying to do it 250 light-seconds away (at conjunction). No, planetary surface has its disadvantages, but also its advantages, like easy access to material at zero ΔV cost. For now, we need to kill one titan at a time.

  19. The social sciences (plural) are definitely a thing. Anthropology, Archaeology, Economics, History, Linguistics and Sociology are all social sciences, and they are indeed sciences.

    You may argue that, at any given time, none of the skill sets in the social sciences would be useful to Musk, but "not a real science" constructs a straw man which deflects from the real argument at stake.

  20. Well, the right usually finds it sufficient to not subsidize opinions they don't like, allowing them to be promulgated privately. The modern right doesn't typically try to censor speech that isn't funded in some way by government, such as public school teachers during work hours.

    I'm not saying that all the right is libertarian in regards to freedom of speech; A lot of this is just due to not being in a position to censor, and knowing quite well they have less than no influence over most media outlets.

    But it remains that most modern censorship in America is at the hands of left-wingers today.

  21. It is consistent with his goals, in that he won't be able to effectively pursue them if he has to worry about being deplatformed. He needs free access to speak to people.

    Also, I think the consequences of the 2020 election have demonstrated to him that he can't afford to ignore politics, because politics won't ignore him.

  22. "Why not let the twitter user fine tune his/her own filter, that removes
    content that he/she does not like? And give the control to the customer,
    of course."

    This is, in fact, contemplated by Section 230:

    "(d) Obligations of interactive computer service:
    A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service
    and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such
    customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware,
    software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may
    assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to
    minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access
    to information identifying, current providers of such protections."

    The reason Twitter isn't enthusiastic about this approach is that they WANT to censor content users will want to receive. They're not protecting their users, they're manipulating them.

    This is endemic in social media platforms. FB, for instance, routinely changes their software to break third party filters, like FB Purity. Because they're not trying to enable the customers' choices, they're determined to override them.

  23. Here is what I don't get.

    Why can the "border" of what you are exposed to not be around the receiver than around the speaker? In normal spoken speech, you remove yourself from any conversation or company that you don't like.

    Why not let the twitter user fine tune his/her own filter, that removes content that he/she does not like? And give the control to the customer, of course.

    That way, all snow flakes could be spared hearing blasphemous words, and speech in twitter would still be allowed up to the limits of the law.

  24. Furthermore, if you think about it, should you not be allowed to say things that are false according to physics? Say… That clairvoyance is real? Or that you can make engines that use normal tap water as a fuel? Or that electrons are heavier than protons?

    All of these statements are patently false, yet I really think that you should be able to persist in your folly.

  25. I think that falsity of a statement should not be a determinant at all if it should be allowed or not.

    As soon as you open the door to "truth", then you have lost. We already have laws that set the boundaries. Libel, child pornography, etc. Why not just stick with those?

    Now, if you think that falsely claiming that you don't need vaccines to fight COVID, then make a law and pass it in congress. If you can't pass that law, then it's probably sufficiently clear cut and the benefit/harm is so large that you can convince congressmen/women to vote for it. If you cannot, well then, the case was probably not that clear cut after all..

  26. If Elon actually turns Twitter around from the cesspool of stasi-like censorship it has become, he will be even more of a legend than he already is.

  27. He does not seem to understand O'Neill. Which is right down his stated main interest. "hoover up science knowledge he lacks is a little terrifying" would be a good thing right now!

  28. "recognised for the destruction" would be a free speech sort of thing. Does gov decide which claim is correct? By censoring the other? Not sure I'm going to panic and overdose on GHGs merely from someone yelling. HOWEVER if you are selling GHGs or fossil fuels and knowingly lie about the safety or effects of what you are selling, that is simple fraud. Charging money for stuff is not expressing an opinion, it is a promise. The fact that they spoke the lies is evidence against them. Use it, don't let it be censored entirely. Who monitors the censor?

  29. We are taught Economics in high school, but everyone seems to miss that the actions Congress and government often make, can only serve the industries and special interests, not the public. Even though it is obvious they are doing things daily that harm the public. The public just buys the ridiculous supposed reasons for the bills or actions.
    As an example. How on God's Green Earth can it really be in our interest to allow lots of defense contractors to merge? Yet not only is it not stopped, it has been actively encouraged multiple times…especially in aircraft manufacturing. And cost estimates have become a complete farce in government contracts. The more the need looks critical, the more deeply gouging digs. And such important things that they cant really stop, get strung along for decades sometimes costing 10x what they bid.
    And paying their extreme prices just gives them more money to buy more responsible contractors and raise the prices of everything they do.

  30. It does not sound consistent with his goals. This does not further the environment or work toward being a multi-planet species.
    And it is not a startup with plenty of room to grow.
    And it does not address any of his current problems either. Like making more chips, mining more lithium, getting new models in production.
    It doesn't fight dealers by countering their influence with money…that is just the ugly truth of our system. Why is he not helping Andrew Yang make a new political party, maybe shape the Forward Party platform a little, so it is more viable? Democrats and Republicans are already bought, and rarely serve the interests of the public.
    We need people to learn to think well too. Too late for many adults, but kids can learn to think well. I am not talking politics here, I am talking reasoning skills, and strategies. People don't know how to understand statistics and the tricks people use to make them appear to say something they are not. People don't know our natural biases, so they can't be on guard when advertisers, politicians and others try to exploit them. Then there are flawed reasoning patterns, lazy acceptance, accepting things someone says because you accept other things they also say. And people don't know how to be ingenious. That can be taught. People need to recognize the tricks of propagandists like slowly increasing the volume as they speak, and many other tricks, that manipulate emotions without substance.

  31. If there is general consensus that *Falsely* yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is not free speech, then the same should be said of *Falsely* yelling there is nothing to worry from GHGs when there is! It's about time those who deny science and spread falsities in regards to our climate are recognised for the destruction they are helping bring forth.

  32. For me the bottom line is alignment with the science. The rest is trivial. And that is a much bigger problem for the Right than Left.

  33. Tonedeaf? Adept at social sciences?

    I have zero respect for tone sensitive or even tone aware people. Just actively try to understand what the other person is trying to say and get on with it. Communication is difficult enough, let's not construct additional hurdles.

    No one is adept at social science because it's not a real science and the specific aspect within social science that you seem to be referring to, is not of any value. Musk seems to be good at fund raising for low probability ideas, social media attention grabbing, negotiating favourable terms from politicians, effectively marketing to millions without any ad spend, boosting up stock price without a communication department, making large teams work super hard etc. etc. I am not sure what a or any liberal arts expert could contribute without being a hindrance.

  34. I dunno, if he sticks his hands into Twitter too much it will fail catastrophically, as he can be (surprisingly to some) very juvenile and tonedeaf to the general public.

    People need to remember that he can fail, such as his X bank venture that was on it's way to failure before it got bought out by Paypal, thus minting him as part of the "Paypal Mafia" series of angel investors underpinning much of silicon valley currently.

    He always struck me as a genius edgelord. What he can deliver, he delivers quite well, but what he can't, he really can't. He's adept at physical sciences related things, but he doesn't strike me a particularly adept when it comes to social sciences. In many situations he brute forces his way through, using his alpha persona, which is based on the appearance of technical superiority leading to substantial success (and implied leadership). He is certainly one of the hardest working people I've ever met, and his ability to hoover up science knowledge he lacks is a little terrifying. But that creates a barrier between himself and the average man.

  35. Wonder how much pull this gives him, is he on the board? I hope he gets some control there, and puts Trump back on, that would be the first step.

  36. A common problem is declaring matters of current controversy or simple opinion to be "false information", as a pretext for banning them. It's generally best to avoid all cases where falsity isn't absolutely clear cut and objective.

  37. Certainly if there is money or such involved, that is fraud. Otherwise, *may lead* can place too much burden on the honest speaker. Tort style considerations start to come into play. Reminds me of the recipe that called for 1 cup of popcorn as turkey dressing. POPPED ALREADY!

  38. Correct. It's established that yelling 'fire' when there is none can be a cause of injury or death. Likewise, any other false information that may lead to the same outcome, should be treated as such.

  39. I think most of these 1st para issues have to do with whether it is *speech* rather than whether it is censorship. *Falsely* yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not speech, even tho fire is a word. Threats similar. Porn is evidence. Not that I claim to know the perfect solution!

  40. I agree, to a point. Child porn, Pedofilia, Snuff pictures/video, doxing, and physical threats of violence should be barred. So 'absolutist' has caveats.

    However, 'fact-checking' by left-leaning 20-year-old activists, and blatant suppression of political discourse is evil. I am grateful that Brian has allowed opposing viewpoints on Next Big Future, including those I disagree with.

  41. Unhappily, I have to agree. (for now) However, "And we have to pick a side or risk getting out of any representation." is a situation that is even worse in US than most election places. US does not have *proportional representation* so that non majorities still get some seats. Each position is separate and districted so only one of the top two has a chance. Corporations would never do this. Minority shareholders get seats, and sometimes hold true power if the others are almost equally divided. Not as good as Liberty, but a step in the right direction. Some city councils are doing this, even a state does it for pres electors!

  42. But their group of friends is some clue to what their actual agendas are. Which, given the incidence of dishonesty in politics, is all you can call their clearly stated agendas, too.

  43. Yeah, I'm convinced the right and left divisions are boneheaded. We should vote for the elected officers clearly stated agendas and backgrounds, not for their group of friends.

    But that's hitting the human limits of attention and tribalism. Most people don't care about an elected officer's background, unless it serves them to attack the other camp.

    We prefer simple and clear cut choices. And we have to pick a side or risk getting out of any representation.

    Funnily, the traditional camps already are leaving a lot of people out of any representation, and that's where populists thrive.

    It seems to be unavoidable of democracies. The other choice is some form of despotism, which one can hope to be enlightened, but mostly they're not.

    Ideally, we should elect people out of merit, preparation and results. But that is strongly against the popular sentiment of unfairness of distribution of such things.

  44. Given that "socialists", non libertarians to be specific, have a main trick of dividing into two power wielding camps and forcing you to decide between them, while neither is at all for Liberty, are you sure you could tell which is "right" or "left" given masked historic examples? Even if you could, would the differences you use to decide be at all important, compared to the difference between socialism and Liberty? "Once understood, the system must be destroyed."

  45. Removing illegal content, at least in the American context, does not violate free speech absolutist principles. As far as "detestable", that is in the eye of the beholder.

  46. While "right wing" censorship is usually inept and very in-your-face, left wing is much more devious.

    They prefer to control the channel, being the gatekeepers controlling what gets said or not, without overtly showing their intentions. At least not until their control of the channels get to be near complete.

    And let's not forget the public shaming, ostracizing and cancelling tactics, which are also a specialty of the left of late.

  47. As you can see, libertarians' claim that "right" and "left" are the two wings of the gov bird of prey is now exposed as true for all to see. They are the same power addict neurotics! The labels are so you will not see the possibility of Liberty.

  48. I don’t think “Free Speech Absolutist” really represents his position even if he used the phrase, more like the algorithms that censor the platform ought to be minimalist, public and themselves open to debate.

    With no rules or censorship any platform would quickly sink into something illegal and detestable.

  49. Censorship does not harm democracy, it harms EVERYTHING. "Once understood, the System must be destroyed."

  50. Or actively conflating left wing idealogies with things they are pretty remotely detached from.

  51. "Lefties"?
    You write as though they are the only people who would suppress opinions they don't like.

  52. LOL and many though he was about to create a Twitter alternative.

    Nah, just buy a bigger part of Twitter and demand they stick to some free speech policy.

    The lefties on Twitter will be apoplectic, given how much they love freedom of speech (/s).

Comments are closed.