I think part of being a visionary is being willing to “swing for the fences”.
Tesla had a heck of a time becoming profitable, and could easily have failed at several points along the way. 20 years invested in developing reusable boosters could have resulted in a disastrous boondoggle. Widespread internet by launching a gazillion satellites into LEO using those reusable boosters? How many would have seen that as remotely feasible?
But I’m repeating myself. An inherent risk in swinging for the fences is the risk of striking out, and the fear of such failure likely dissuades many from making revolutionary technology a reality. Right now, Musk’s involvement certainly looks like a fiasco. But it certainly is entertaining watching it play out, however it goes.
I agree broadly with this.
That said, being a visionary usually means having a clear vision that people can get behind.
Two examples:
Reusable rockets and interplanetary space missions - clear visions that I think all but the most insufferable misanthropists should get behind.
Commercially viable electric cars - a clear vision that I think all but the most insufferable misanthropists should get behind.
Now, Twitter...
The vision is... I suppose... a proiftable (?), bot-free, politically neutral social media entity that allows free speech that abides by the first amendment and, which also doesn't become a sewer.
Yeah, sounds good, but two of those aspects pretty much work against each other (free speech non-sewer)
Musk himself
posted the current Twitter Safety rules. I don't know how much has changed (maybe nothing yet?) but under the rules pretty much everyone currently banned such as Trump, Milo, Gavin McInnes and Alex Jones would remain banned.
As much fun as the parody accounts mocking Musk are, I agree that under the rules they should be banned, and I also agree with the principle of banning people who impersonate others. Not sure if that is really against the first amendment, I doubt it though. I am pretty sure the rule about parody accounts has been there for a while as I know of people posting even the most obvious parodies being told to clearly state they are parodies or risk being banned.
But if he sticks with sensible moderation rules, and refuses to bring back people who violated them, then it does make me wonder what the point was in buying Twitter in the first place. It seemed to me that Musk somewhat bought into a culture war position that Twitter was somehow overly censorious of right-wingers, but that could be that right-wingers were more likely to be censored for overt racism (hate speech banned by Twitter), attempted meddling in elections (banned by Twitter), harassment (also banned), encouraging or glorifying violence (banned by Twitter), manipulated media (also banned). Some people have been saying that Musk has been finding out in real time what all the rules were there for in the first place, and ironically that is an example of the conservative idea of Chesterton's Fence. Instead of ripping out the fence because you see no reason for it being there, you should first find out why it was there in the first place. Musk is actually doing that right, from what I can see, by not making sweeping changes yet (apart from the Twitter Blue thing), but then, it suggests that Twitter may end up as having got things largely right in terms of moderation, and at the very least that simply a free-for-all that abides by the first amendment alone is surely not possible unless it becomes sewer-like.
I suppose the Twitter Blue thing could make people more accountable by having more of a stake in it. People would be less likely to act like ********* if they get banned and lose their accounts that they have paid for. Of course, some people will still act like ********* even with their names proudly displayed, but I wonder, then, if Trump, Milo, McInnes and Jones will just stay banned.
That said, the politically neutral thing seems to have fallen quickly by the wayside as he has now called on independent voters
to vote Republican in a pinned tweet...
