Elon Musk Stepping Down As CEO of Twitter

Elon Musk is stepping down as CEO of Twitter. He is running a poll on Twitter for this topic and it is about 57% in favor of stepping down.

Elon Musk will still own Twitter and retain ultimate control of the company. However, he will get some head of operations much like he has Gwynn Shotwell running the day to day at SpaceX.

Elon does not have a Twitter CEO candidate.

36 thoughts on “Elon Musk Stepping Down As CEO of Twitter”

  1. He knew what the outcome of the vote would be. This is his way of saving face by stepping back and saying, ‘I’m not the CEO anymore, I didn’t cause Twitter to fail’.

  2. As I wrote her, Musk take over of Twitter is going to be a total fiasco. Twitter was meant to be a quick tool for Musk to indoctrinate the masses rather building a free speech tool. He was very quick to censor anything anti Musk in Twitter. Musk like many people is learrning that his work in this world is to serve, not to control.

    • Agreed. No more distractions. The EV transition which is so important doesn’t need any hiccups or a black eye, which Musk is now giving Tesla, and by extension, the rest of the EV market.

      • No, they actually didn’t. They banned the CDC spending money on propaganda. “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

        Then the CDC decided that it wasn’t worth funding honest research, instead of the propaganda pieces they’d been buying with the money.

        • Not exactly. The ban has now been reversed after Congress reinterpreted the amendment such that it doesn’t ban spending on research into gun crime/deaths, only spending on advocacy for gun control. Previously the amendment had been interpreted as a ban on research because such research could be used in gun control advocacy, which of course, was the reason for the amendment. Remember however, that the original author of the amendment also changed his position on the ban before his death, stating in public his desire to see research into gun crime.

          • I cited the original language just above. It clearly does not prohibit research. It prohibited advocacy and promotion.

            Keep in mind that the CDC had, prior to the Dickey amendment, come right out and announced their intention to render guns unpopular. ““We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Rosenberg said in 1994. “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned.”

            Then they’d funded some real garbage research, the sort designed to come to a predetermined conclusion, and started using it to lobby for gun control. THAT was what Congress was responding to. Not actual legitimate research, just churning out propaganda. The sort of ‘studies’ that could be used in a statistics class as an illustration of how not to do things. Kates gives a pretty good rundown on how bad it really was.


            Now, I generally object to the CDC researching gun violence, for exactly the reason I’d object to the DOJ researching kidney disease: Criminology and medicine are not the same field, and the CDC has no relevant expertise. But it wouldn’t be terrible if they actually funded legitimate research, competently done.

            I don’t hold out much hope of that. The CDC is still run by people who regard gun ownership as a scourge to be fought by any means necessary.

        • Because there is no honest research that doesn’t result in the finding for more and better gun control. Therefore, it is illegal for them to do it. Thanks to the right.

          • We don’t need gun control we need criminal control. In New York State there used to be a law that any crime committed with a gun got immediate death penalty. Anyone who did, went straight to the electric chair in weeks. NYS had almost no gun crimes at all. Look it up if you don’t believe me. People need guns because fools and people who have little in the way of forward-thinking attack, steal from and murder innocent people. It’s even worse now they let people go who run over people with cars and try to kill them, only to let them and have them murder more people. Only a fool would give up their guns with this sort of law un-enforcement. You can’t have lenient crime control and not want people to have means to defend themselves.

  3. Nonsense approach.
    One does not hold a vote to remove alleged badness, as there is always many ways to do that and many motives for that. Witness Brexit – chaos.
    One holds a vote for a way forward to alleged goodness.
    The absence of badness is not goodness; it’s chaos.
    Leaving the Dark does not naturally lead to the Light.
    The vote should have been about who to bring in, not who to remove.
    Doesn’t anyone know how to do Democracy right?

  4. This is a hopeful development. He believes in trying stuff, failing fast, making corrections – this is an example. He doesn’t belong as CEO of Twitter. I’d hope he’d also start to back pedal on some of the right wing political idiocy he’s been associating himself with. In the past he’s shown a lot of capacity to accept constructive criticism and the results of failures to adjust his decisions.

    • Dude – the decision making process and relationship with our intelligence agencies shown in the ‘Twitter files’ so far released are not okay.

      Do you really believe there is more danger and less truth in a public square that is open to views from the informed to the offensive, than in one that is heavily curated – up to and including the curation of statements of fact – for the public good? Do you really want to live under a system that insists that you look experts and policy advisors, rather than the data itself, and presumes you are unethical to do otherwise?

      What is nonsensical about saying that what is affirmed by all parties now demonstrates that social media and government authorities have not acted in good faith for the last few years? You have access to the same information I do, and it’s there in black and white.

      • It isn’t only the right that is trying to tear our nation apart. Other nation-states were using Twitter to foster conflict in the USA, I think it’s proper for our intelligence agency to monitor Twitter and sometimes to work with Twitter to moderate the attacks by these nation-states.

        • Both the actions and the core tenets avowed by the Left show that peace was never on the table. An ideology defined by the institutional and cultural destruction of the oppressive ‘other’ excludes tools of civil society a priori as a useless fiction; the only option is intimidation and force.

          The Twitter files highlight that Twitter’s relationship with our intelligence came with the threat of consequences if they didn’t suspend accounts as requested. It involved teams working outside the purview of CEO, with no consistent policy standard for suspension, and overwhelmingly targeted accounts of no conceivable relavence to security, the bulk comprising small followings, satire, and reliable parties sharing information or studies that, while factual, would be siezed on by proponents of disfavored narratives – some of which have since been widely acknowledged to be true.

          Meanwhile, public officials were doxed, posts calling for harassment with a tone that invited worse were allowed to stand, little action was taken against the distribution of underage material, and pleas by victims for the removal of material depicting them fell on deaf ears.

          None of this was positive, or effective. But it was the natural, predictable outcome of an arrangement that should be rejected by any society that values it’s liberty.

      • Perhaps a read of what conservative WSJ had to say about those supposed ‘Twitter Files’. It’s an excellent article. I’ll break the down the one and only important point there. They’re a nothing burger. There’s nothing there.

        • The conservative WSJ? Do you have a time machine, perchance? The WSJ hasn’t been conservative for a decade or more. At best they’re middle of the road.

          • WSJ is usually described as:
            The reporting is fairly straight down the line, especially on financial and corporate news, as the readership consists largely of finance industry types who will both notice if the reporting is wrong, and lose money on being misinformed.
            The editorials are typical journalists being able to write what they want. Hence left wing.

  5. Good. Leave that wretched hive of scum and villainy to someone else.

    Save Earth by setting the example, not by lecturing those not wanting to be de-indocrinated, thinking they already are the right side of history.

    • There’s a grossly, inaccurate drug-induced point of view. He knows the dumpster fire he created is circling the toilet. This is his way of saving face and shifting the blame for failure unto someone else, of something that didn’t need fixing or his meddling.

    • You certainly have the stones making sure assertions. History books clearly show the fascists and racists losing WW2. Those opposing the sudden rise of such human shortcomings are on the right side of history.

      • But which side of the twitter debate is the “fascists and racists”?

        You can’t just assume that everyone agrees with you, because that’s what the entire dispute is about.

        • The allowed reintroduction of individuals previously banned for racist comments, ideas and promotion of violence good enough to point the finger?

          • And kicked out a bunch of other people who’d been making racist comments and calling for violence.
            The difference being which particular groups they were racist and violent towards.

    • Wow… I’d quote what Bush said about Trump’s inaugural address here (because it applies) but for language that he used might offend the ears of your sensitive readers.

    • I just hope that he will find someone else as CEO that can drive the technical improvements of twitter the way he could. Not 100% sure there is such a person…

      Also, I hope that some of the Elon’s really good non-technical ideas will be implemented, such as always marking when a post has been “shadow banned”/”banned” and for what reason. I.e. transparency.

      • Um, Jan: The “shadow” in “shadow ban” specifically means that it’s not transparent. Shadow banning is banning somebody without telling them, and trying to keep them unaware it has happened so that they won’t try to do anything about it.

        For instance, if a site using FB commenting decides to shadow ban you, (It’s one of the administrator options.) you’ll be able to comment as usual, you’ll see your own comments, but nobody will be engaging with you because you’re the only person seeing them. The site is feeding you an illusion of not having been banned, so that you won’t try to circumvent the ban. Twitter was doing something like that, where banned accounts would see things looking normal, but engagement would drop off a cliff because they weren’t turning up in OTHER people’s searches.

        I like to think Must has had his fun, and is now looking to get back to running SpaceX hands on, while handing off Twitter to somebody he trusts to run it well. I like to think that.

        But remember that he tried to get out of the purchase when he found out how screwed up Twitter really was. And wasn’t permitted to. It’s quite possible he doesn’t think it’s salvageable, at least not during a recession, and with the entire left-wing media/government complex dedicated to tearing it down if they can’t rule it.

Comments are closed.