My Feed

Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:23:09 GMT

Elon Musk Must Take a Net-Zero Approach to Violent Hate Speech to Save his Businesses and Credibility Musk’s relationship with X is a commercial and political disaster. He badly needs an off-ramp.

Here’s the paradox. Elon Musk is a champion of net zero and a manufacturer of electric cars and grid-scale battery packs designed to store energy generated by wind or solar power.

Yet he is also a backer of Donald Trump – who has taken the US out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement once and plans to do so again if he is elected President.

On top of that Musk is owner of a social media platform which has tolerated hate speech, is accused of spreading climate disinformation, has alienated advertisers, and seen its users sign up in protest to competing platforms. How does this all stack up and where is it going?

Psychology Professor Sander van der Linden has speculated that Musk’s rightward shift has come about because he has radicalised himself on his own media platform Twitter/X.

Another possibility is that much of his embrace of right-wing populism is a ruse to protect his investment in electric vehicles (EVs) in case Donald Trump makes it back to the White House.

Musk’s Tesla company is by far America’s largest manufacturer of EVs, outselling all its competitors in the US combined. Elon Musk has turned net-zero into one of the most successful business plans in history.

Musk has been in the lead in the fight against climate change for many years. More than a decade ago Musk described using fossil fuels as “the world’s dumbest experiment”, and called for a carbon tax.

He clashed badly with Trump in 2017 when Trump decided to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. Musk resigned in protest from two advisory councils Trump had appointed him to.

When Musk acquired Twitter in April 2022 he acquired a global megaphone to promote politicians he might seek to influence on climate policy and other issues close to his heart. Donald Trump and his allies increasingly fitted that bill.

In July, Biden was lagging in the polls, and Trump survived an assassination attempt. Musk crossed his Rubicon and endorsed Trump. Days later, the tectonic plates of the Presidential race shifted.

Joe Biden bowed out as a Presidential candidate and backed Vice-President Kamala Harris as his successor. The race could be close, but Harris is currently ahead of Trump in the polls.

Musk backing Trump seemed to bring an immediate dividend as regards Trump’s attitude to EVs. In his message to supporters last Christmas, Trump described support for EVs as “lunacy” and hoped EV supporters would “rot in hell”.

Straight after receiving Musk’s support, Trump said to a rally in Georgia, “I’m for electric cars, I have to be because Elon endorsed me very strongly.” But it was a small concession.

Trump went on to say that EVs were suitable for a “small slice” of the population and that “you want every type of car imaginable” to be available.

Things got worse, from the point of view of Musk hoping to convert Trump, in an hour and a half long “conversation” between Musk and Trump. Musk tried to warn of the dangers of global warming, and push the virtues of EVs, but Trump was unmoved.

Trump followed up a week later with the hint of a job for Musk in his administration, and Musk jumped at it. If Trump is elected and the job ever comes to pass, history will repeat itself.

Musk will refuse the job or take it and resign because Trump’s policy on climate change is too outrageous for Musk to stomach.

Whether Trump wins or loses in November, Musk’s association with X has been a disaster in commercial and political terms.

Less than a year after Musk took over Twitter (by then renamed X), a slew of advertisers, including Apple, IBM, Disney and Sony, took their business elsewhere because their ads were appearing next to Nazi content and hate speech.

X responded by suing the advertisers for an unlawful conspiracy to boycott the platform. The debts of X risk Musk having to sell Tesla shares to pay them off.

On the political front, Musk criticised UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for highlighting the role of social media in provoking the UK’s race riots, and likened the UK to the Soviet Union because of arrests of those inciting to violence on social media.

A recent poll said one-third of Britons are less likely to buy a Tesla EV in the coming years because of Musk’s recent behaviour.

Musk’s position as a “free speech absolutist” can only lead to clashes between Musk/X and regulators around the world. The arrest in France of the boss of media platform Telegram because it has permitted criminal activity by users should serve as a warning.

Users of X who incite rate hate and violence on the platform in countries like the UK which offer no immunities for online speech will face the full force of the law.

As long as Musk appears to defend their right to peddle race hate and incite violence his new persona will continue to obliterate his standing as the world’s best-known champion of net zero.

Musk should moderate violent hate speech and lies on X, and steer clear of crazy people who contest the election if Trump loses

None of this is conducive to Musk’s overall business plan – developing sustainable energy and electrically powered modes of transport, and manufacturing and launching spacecraft.

Not to mention AI (where Musk supports regulation), colonising Mars and making money. Musk badly needs an off-ramp. It is not difficult to design one.

First, clean up X, and put in place moderation that effectively tackles violent hate speech and misinformation. Doing that would be consistent with the spirit of human rights guarantees in national constitutions and human rights conventions around the world.

This reform of X would bring back advertisers and their revenue, as well as retaining and recruiting users.

Second, stop baiting and engaging political leaders on X and return to the stance of political moderation Musk recently claimed as his own.

Third, don’t get involved if Harris wins in November and crazy people start contesting the election and bring their assault rifles along for company. Seriously – don’t get involved. A mad cavalry dash to oblivion would play havoc with your business plan, Elon. END/

Mon, 02 Sep 2024 19:54:14 GMT

James Cleverly has laid out his stall in the Tory leadership contest. He plans to revive the Rwanda scheme if he ever gets the chance, but he also seems to want to keep the UK in the European Convention on Human Rights. Is that contradictory? Not necessarily.

It is consistent with the ECHR and the Refugee Convention for a country to deport asylum seekers to a third country providing that country is safe - in particular is ready and able to consider their claims fairly and offer them settlement if their claim is genuine.

The reason the UK courts found the Rwanda scheme wanting was that the UK courts found that Rwanda did not have a system in place which was capable of dealing fairly with asylum claims. There was therefor a real risk that genuine refugees could be packed off back to, say, Afghanistan.

Many of the amendments tabled by opposition members of the House of Commons and House of Lords during the passage of the Rwanda Bill were designed to put these defects right, but the government was intent on going ahead anyway.

So, in principle, a UK government could relaunch the Rwanda scheme, providing that, objectively speaking, the Rwandan authorities were ready and able to deal fairly with asylum claims and offer settlement to successful claimants.