Comment by belligeront
3 years ago
Amazing that just a month ago he tweeted[1]: "It's remarkable how many people who've never run any kind of company think they know how to run a tech company better than someone who's run Tesla and SpaceX.".
It's been fascinating watching so many VC types ignore so many red flags just because some of Elon's early actions validated their priors (e.g. tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff).
For sure. Given that Musk was fired from [deleted, see note 1] and PayPal, you'd think they might have had more questions. But people look at failure much more carefully than they look at success.
I think the next wave of interesting questions is around the extent to which Musk contributed the apparent successes, SpaceX and Tesla. We won't know for a long time, as a lot of the people in the know have a strong incentive to keep quiet. But one possible explanation is that he is good at PR and using hype to raise money, but is not a competent manager without help. Consider, for example, this bit from someone who says they were a SpaceX intern: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34042958
Musk is a celebrity. Celebrities start successful companies all the time. Is Rihanna a brilliant business woman for starting a successful beauty line? Is she a business genius, which is what Musk gets labeled so often? Maybe she really is, but I don't see her get that label, I think her value add is very clearly "she is famous, people will buy shit that she puts her name on".
What they have in common is that they have fame and money, and it turns out you can do a lot with that.
Many celebrities end up burning out or spending all their money, start failed businesses, etc.
Rihanna imo is very savvy and the Fenty brand was a very successful business, involving a couple pivots from fashion to more lingerie and beauty. The big Savage x Fenty musical production event every year is a smart move that leverages her music industry connections and draws lots of interest and new customers.
Arguably she is doing better than Musk atm, given that he started life with a huge capital advantage and is likely losing big on Twitter right now (as well as tanking his public image).
Fame is like a flywheel with a feedback loop. Once famous everything you do makes you more famous, even bad stuff.
Hence celebrities getting married and divorced every three weeks, it keeps them in the news.
Musk simply does a lot of the basics right and knows how to talk bullshit, had the assets to start at all, is apathetic to social perception (his narcissistic sociopathic tendency) which makes it easier to go against the flow both in a good and bad way, and has the mental ability to work long hours.
His successes just delivered what the market demanded but established powers did not want to pursue for one reason or another. He knows to outsource actual work to experts and offers them attention which is easier due to his interest in tech/science. Of course, he sees them as tools and he doesn't need to care about labor laws but that's a part of the longer list of his flaws and mistakes.
After Tesla/SpaceX took off, it has been as you described.
> I think her value add is very clearly "she is famous, people will buy shit that she puts her name on".
Musk example[1] of this, he sold 1 million USD worth of perfume with smell of burnt hair in a few hours.
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/oddly-enough/elon-musk-sel...
They also start moderately but not wildly successful companies and then leak fake tax returns to look more successful, like Kylie Jenner.
This feels disingenuous.
Elon Musk was barely more than a nobody when he got involved with Tesla and started SpaceX.
Fenty was founded after Rihanna had scored countless hits and was basically a household name.
14 replies →
Is her beauty line worth more than (top three classic beauty supply companies)?
8 replies →
SpaceX worked because they hired experienced people from ULA and other launch services companies who weren't held back by the fear of risk taking that is endemic in the MIC. They wouldn't have succeed if they just tried to play rocket engineer like Carmack did.
Musk is a victim of his own success. Even if he isn't solely responsible for the success of Tesla and Space X in his mind enough of it is him.
The problem here is overconfidence / blind spots. Twitter is a different type of business. Musk looks to be doing a Mike Jordan or a Shaq. Basketball isn't baseball, nor is it rapping. Both of them recovered from those bad decisions. Will Musk? Time will tell.
Yeah, there's a phenomenon called "Acquired Situational Narcissism", where if somebody spends enough time in an environment that's all about them, they start thinking it's all about them.
There's some evidence Musk was like this all along, but it is a lot harder to learn humility when you're doing well.
All we can really compare Musk to is to Bezos. Bezos basically destroyed Blue Origin in 2017 after they blew up a test stand. This is the sort of thing that happens when you're developing rockets. You just have to accept it and move on. It'll cost you millions and many months, but if you want to develop rockets... After the test stand incident Bezos fired the CEO, brought in an incompetent one and brought in a "no mistakes" type of culture that doesn't get anything done.
In contrast, check out the Tom Mueller interview about Elon Musk and "face shut off". This feature is one of the top reasons why the SpaceX Merlin rocket engine is such a great engine. Mueller thought it would be very hard to get it to work in a large engine and he was right. They blew up hundreds of engines and a bunch of test stands. But Musk was supportive the whole time. That's a big deal, and what you want from a CEO during development.
But "better than Bezos running a rocket company" is a pretty low bar to hurdle.
Tory Bruno at ULA and Peter Beck at Rocket Lab from the outside appear to be outstanding CEO's. But they've been starved for resources for different reasons. What could they have done with the resources that Musk & Bezos brought to their companies?
Rocket Lab in particular is one of the companies that could challenge SpaceX's dominance.
"Bezos basically destroyed Blue Origin in 2017"
This sort-of implies that BO was functional prior to that incident.
BO was founded in 2000. By 2017, they had existed for 17 years without reaching the orbit. (Which SpaceX managed in 6 years, Astra managed in 17 years, RocketLab in 12 years).
It seems to me that BO is just continuing to be an expensive failure, which, unlike all the other failed space startups, keeps dragging itself on, because it can rely on basically unlimited funding.
3 replies →
To be absolutely fair… do you have a reference for Zip2? I was at AltaVista for the acquisition and while I wasn’t close enough to it to be sure, I know he walked away with a bunch of money.
I worked at Zip2, and am pretty sure Elon was not fired.
Thanks for the correction! That's my mistake. I remembered it as the board firing him from CEO, as happened at PayPal, but according to Wikipedia, at Zip2 the board only refused to make him CEO.
1 reply →
In the bigger picture, Elon in SF twittering around while Gwynne runs Boca Chica may be a good thing.
No later than Friday, I was discussing with an acquaintance working for Tesla who compared Musk's leadership here to Trump at the white house: there is an entire team responsible for doing internal damage control after Musk announcements on Twitter. It's a lot of work, and sometimes the entire company just need to cope with the boss's whims (“ok next year there's going to be the Cybertruck thing [which he basically compared to the “not a flamethrower”] but fortunately for 2024 we're working on real cars”).
Musk is a fraudster. Someone must compile a timeline of his claims. Just the content that pops up from Thunderf00t on Youtube calling it out is enough for investigations. The only way I see investors going along with it is embarassment, riding the tide and not knowing when it will change. SoftBank style. It's changing now, economic corrections, just a time he's leveraged more than a sane person would value his companies at. lol
Then there's China. Tesla's 25% yearly revenue after being the first US company to launch without being 50% hand-in-hand with a local business. He agreed to teach the locals his methods, and they now sell straight-up copies at half the price. lol
I'm sorry but this whole thing is one big joke.
Where did you find that Elon was fired from Zip2 and PayPal?
As I mentioned elsewhere, I was wrong about Zip2; the board just refused to let him become CEO. But at PayPal, the board fired him after 6 months as CEO. That's documented in many places, including here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#X.com_and_PayPal
When I disagree with someone, I do not necessarily think they're stupid. That's a needlessly polarizing mindset.
When I think someone is stupid, I don't necessarily disagree with them. That's a needlessly polarizing mindset.
Also true! Stopped clocks, etc.
You're a rare person, in 2022.
Maybe you could be come one too
https://www.amazon.com/Never-Thought-That-Way-Conversations/...
stupid doesn't end a conversation. It starts it. Ok, someone thinking is different (stupid). But how exactly do they think? Why? What drives? Where does the break or wrong start?
correct - I've learnt different perspectives and expanded my way of thinking
and also learnt many many people do not bother with thinking, and just throw crap out - due to their immediate emotions
What sort of decisions or behavior would lead you to believe that somebody is stupid?
I'll bite
- the ability to explain why you think a certain way or did something (i.e. when you ask a child why they threw a glass they'll say "I don't know"
- the speed at which you learn/process new information
- the ability to understand your emotions and the level of control you have over them
- your willing to engage in debate
- how inquisitive you are
2 replies →
Someone who claims to hold a basic concept of something as straight forward as "free speech absolutist" and doesn't see the logical incoherence of proceeding to ban reporters and others who publish and aggregate publicly available information (@elonjet).
1 reply →
Just because somebody does something different than us doesn’t mean they are stupid, how ridiculous and reductive is that?
They might just be evil.
1 reply →
Is it necessary to believe anyone is "stupid" as a personality?
I just disagree with people's opinions on certain things. And if I frequently disagree with someone enough, then I just quietly stop paying any attention to what they say.
1 reply →
I don't think people are calling Elon Musk stupid because they disagree with him.
If you don't hate stupid people, how do you know that you're smart?
Perhaps not your intent, but you have hit on the entire social media mindset, distilled.
TV debate long ago decided that every complex human concern can be profitably reduced to a crass binary which can be argued about in front of a camera for the audience's thumbs up or down.
Social media democratised this decerebrate approach. A thumbs up or down from your tribe. Mastodon, Post.news et al only replicate the Twitter model.
It doesn't matter which platform PG, or anyone else, is on. They're all worthless distraction. Fiddling while Rome burns etc.
1 reply →
Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better. Not everybody believed that he will succeeded but it seems like majority belived that he will at least try hard. Like improve app to purchase things (one click checkout), integrate with real time news, some free speech, sports, … so many ideas
The thing is that Twitter 1.0 had the exact same ideas. Every one of them that Musk has thought of to date.
They simply were too slow in implementing them. Some of them eg. payments are due to all of the regulatory challenges that Twitter faces as a top tier social network. Others are just incompetence eg. not doing more with Vine.
They needed a better executor. Problem is Musk immediately fired everyone. And has constantly underestimated the complexity of the system. So bit hard to see how they were ever going to do better as Twitter 2.0.
> Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better.
Speaking only for myself, but I'd honestly contest that.
Personally, I assumed he had multiple overlapping motivations. Prove that he knew tech products better than SV insiders, own a major media platform to push his viewpoint, save a media platform from "woke" people and let people like Trump back on, silence his critics, make money, pretend he really intended to purchase something he didn't actually want to. I'm not sure that even he knows why he does what he does, because so much of it is impulsive and can't be attributed to a coherent plan with specific goals.
The only thing that will definitely hold true is that there is an audience of tens of millions of Americans who feel mocked by "the Elites." They will shower adoration on anyone with Elite creds - be it academic, media, or business - who tells them there really is a conspiracy to oppress them and that they're the straight shooter who will go to battle for them. That is a very seductive amount of positive feedback when the other things you're doing aren't home runs.
I confess, I was one of those people who believed that he’d try hard to make a positive change. The reality seems to be exactly what the most cynical takes were; it’s all about money and petty personal things. It’s a shame. The wasted potential is enormous.
> Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better.
I mean. I still think he is trying to do that. Is he succeeding? I don’t think so.
If it all hits the ground and twitter is no more a going concern will he claim that was his plan all along? Probably. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Even on the day he offered to buy twitter he was offering more money than the stock was worth. That is only rational if you believe you have a plan to run it better.
According to reports he is spending a lot of his time managing twitter in quite a hands-on way. Do you think he is not trying to make it better in his own mind?
> Even on the day he offered to buy twitter he was offering more money than the stock was worth. That is only rational if you believe you have a plan to run it better. > According to reports he is spending a lot of his time managing twitter in quite a hands-on way. Do you think he is not trying to make it better in his own mind?
I think it's a case of the gambler having enough money to buy the casino.
But this sounds incredibly like “buy the dip!” The situation with twitter is dire. Nothing indicates that any of the things listed are remotely achievable.
How can they brag about freedom of expression and then forbid promoting their competitors through their site? [1]
They are well within their rights to do so, but that's the exact opposite of competing purely in the market of ideas.
1. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
...except they don't do that. This is no different than Reddit's own policies on spam and self-promotion. You're expected to use the site for discussion and building community, not directing people elsewhere. If the latter is your goal then you can pay for advertising. What's changed here is that people who previously were given free reign to promote themselves without paying a dime are now being told they need to pay up. I'm finding it hard to sympathize with them.
3 replies →
People believed he could make Twitter better based on the assumption that he will implement these changes. I personally thought it'd be great if we could tailor our own recommendation algorithms. Turns out none of those happened and this has been a dumpster fire all along.
> Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better.
I was one of them. But slowly we saw him fuck it up, and then double down. Twitter is toast unless Elon is dumped by his investors
See also Donald Trump, 2016.
Some of those people especially the YC alumni need to be upfront about whether they’ve invested in Musk’s Twitter. Because direct questions have been asked without answer.
Because otherwise I can not understand the logic behind defending Musk’s reign as CEO. Ignoring the chaotic policy changes what bothers me is the treatment of Twitter’s employees. Nobody should ever have to leave their house because of death threats. And surely Parag/Jack should be ultimately held accountable for what happened at the company under their reign.
The hubris is what gets me. The sheer audacity that the peons had in suggesting Musk didn't know what he was doing!
Yet, he has the courage of expressing those opinions without sarcasm, on his own public account, and later own admit to change his mind, while being a very exposed figure.
And you use a throwaway.
Without sarcasm?
It’s hubris to question the authority? I thought it was a fundamental American pastime.
He waited for evidence. I think PG made a good call. Based on the weight of Elon's past achievements PG gave him the benefit of the doubt. Then when Elon overstepped he reacted appropriately.
The evidence was in plain sight before Musk took over. He's not the kind of person that should run something like Twitter, it was going to be a disaster.
OK, but to be fair[1], that's what we want, right? Our thought leaders should change their minds when they turn out to have been wrong, and correct. pg is doing good here, and that needs to be celebrated and not mocked. We all get stuff mixed up.
[1] And for the record I think pg indeed ignored WAY too many red flags for WAY too long in this particular case.
Absolutely. I'm glad to see this.
If I was a friend of his, I'd suggest that it's a good chance to think about why he was convinced Elon would do well and adjust as necessary, but it's also quite possible that he doesn't feel like he's obliged to do that self-examination in public. And he's not.
It looks to me like he might still be ignoring those red flags. Like I said elsewhere, PG can be an inspiration and still be wrong about a whole bunch of things.
> Amazing that just a month ago he tweeted[1]: "It's remarkable how many people who've never run any kind of company think they know how to run a tech company better than someone who's run Tesla and SpaceX.".
That is still a valid point tho. The thing is, we're not going to know who is right or wrong until it all plays out. And considering there are billions on the lines and Musk plays fast and loose with the rules, he's probably going to come out of the otherside better for it.
> It's been fascinating watching so many VC types ignore so many red flags just because some of Elon's early actions validated their priors (e.g. tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff).
Again it's still a valid point. Tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff, that's why they're ALL doing it.
People can be right and still do dumb jackass moves.
Paul's first comment [1] in the referenced tweet says: "Do you think Elon will fail and Twitter will go out of business?" and finished it with: "Bet your reputation on a prediction now".. it's a heavy prediction and a bold statement to bet your reputation on!!
1. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1593199305384685573
And then immediately blocks anyone criticizing his asinine take: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33659020
"The emperors have no clothes"
Another well-known notable over-eager divergent opinion blocker is Garry Tan [0].
This is the first time I've seen the finger of accusation point to Paul Graham for excessively blocking. Is it possible the @fennecsound account participated in previous harassment and the target doesn't wish to endure more low-quality interactions?
My expectation is: HN folks, being generally sensitive souls, would have spoken up vocally on this site if it were a common ocurrence. I couldn't find any such prior accusations on algolia or web search.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32639125
Edit: Thanks for the reality check replies! Perhaps story submissions and discussions on this matter get flagged and die at a high rate.
Paul Graham bans people left and right. He's not nearly notable enough for it to become a phenomenon.
He banned me, and I think I've never had an interaction with him.
I've seen people I follow mentioning these bans, but most just shrug.
1 reply →
Typical Hot Hand Fallacy [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand
he also had a similar take that I've seen from technologists more than a few times "the man runs a rocket company, how hard can running a social media site be?"
A lot of tech folks seem to have a mindset of a 60s Soviet technocrat. "We shot a dog into space comrades, let's apply our engineering genius to all the social problems the stupid managers can't solve". Spoiler alert, it is pretty hard to govern hundreds of millions of people
Still nothing compared to the billions so many VCs have lost on crypto this year ignoring those far more obvious red flags. No matter how bad Elon damages Twitter at the very least its actually still generating revenue. I cannot tell what crypto generated.
Several hundred terawatt hours of electricity consumption.
VCs made plenty of money, they receive pre-mined amounts of whatever token they're investing in, and then dump it on retail once the coin lists on the exchanges.
Obsession with politics is a cancer that infects even the brightest
Obsession with weird/extremist polarizing politics is a cancer. I don't think you're necessarily going to become incompetent just because you decided to get involved in city government. The critical thinking capability that keeps you from wasting time on QAnon and conspiracy theories is the same stuff that lets you accomplish useful things in the world.
Right? Mass random firings of employees in multiple incompetent waves, blocking and expelling journalists and activists, re-enabling known hate-speech accounts, walking out of press conferences when questioned, spreading QAnon adjacent conspiracy theories... none of this annoyed Paul Graham enough to leave.. and in fact he defended the guy...
But blocking links to Mastodon? That makes him leave? Like, uh, fine, but... maybe he could have not mocked us for pointing out the dysfunction weeks and weeks ago?
Between all the crypto implosions happening and this, wealthy Silicon Valley investor types and their hanger-ons are really having a "moment" these past few months. Sheesh.
This was the straw that broke the camel's back. that doesn't mean he adores the other changes.
None of those things incurred opportunity cost. I don't know who invests in what, but a cynical, logical explanation is on the table.
In a free country there's this thing called the first amendment and freedom of speech; because someone doesn't like a certain opinion doesn't make it hate speech.
However, blocking links to a competitor is pretty clear-cut anticompetitive behavior. Imagine AT&T refusing to serve Verizon's websites.
> re-enabling known hate-speech accounts
“Hate speech” is left-wing code for “someone with an opposing point of view”.
Having those accounts unbanned, if nothing else, is a healthy sign.
What this thread is about though (banning outbound links to other platforms), not so much. That plain reeks of desperation.
"Deathcon 3 on jews" is more valuable speech than links to facebook profiles, gotcha.
6 replies →
That seems to be a real boon for advertising revenue there at twitter. Just what advertisers dream of, their ad next to a post by some antisemitism/racism/lgbt hate.
You just lost a large group of potential customers. Brilliant marketing strategy.
Maybe if you sell flags that go on oversized pickups. About everyone else is a miss in that sort of stupidity.
No, it's not code in this case. Many of the accounts he re-enabled were full-on white supremacists. That's not an "opposing point of view" it's beyond the pale of civilized society and we literally fought wars to defeat it last century.
And the list of accounts he banned were from a list left-wing/anarchist accounts given to him by known self-proclaimed fascists.
If you think that's healthy, you have problems.
Conversely, "an opposing point of view" is right-wing code used to mask hate speech, when it occurs.
Does hate speech exist? Yes. Are we in danger of overusing the term? Yes.
Social media promotes a vicious callout culture where everything you say in the past is permanently used against you in the court of public opinion whenever you change your mind. While I did not share PG's opinion at the time I also don't think it was completely unreasonable to think that someone like Musk would be capable of running Twitter judiciously after the acquisition. I appreciate that instead of digging in his heels PG seems to have evolved his judgement after recent developments.
> just because some of Elon's early actions validated their priors (e.g. tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff).
You're right that assuming success at Tesla/SpaceX indicated success at Twitter ended up being wrong.
But these "priors" are still very true. Tech companies are bloated, Elon sucking at running a social network doesn't change that fact
Strong Opinions, Weakly Held comes to mind.
It's interesting how VCs suddenly seem to believe "tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff", now that they can't just show up at a bank and get literal buckloads of other people's money with no justification or due diligence, but were all in on "tech startups must continually grow at any cost" just a few months ago.
Once again, society will be left holding the rich sociopaths' bags and dealing with the externalities of their uncontrolled gambling.
I think we can be honest and admit many large tech companies are bloated and can lay off staff - with the proper planning and care. Taking an axe to an org you just took over is typically not associated with proper planning and care.
Of course some tech companies are bloated, and of course some other tech companies must grow further. But the tune about what the tech industry as a whole must do seems to suddenly shift, depending on whether it's pump season or dump season.
I think the way Twitter is faring is actually proof to the contrary, you can't lay off half your staff and expect the machine to just keep chugging along. You either design it from day #1 to be run with a very tight crew or it becomes a much larger machine with a different kind of profile.
Compare Instagram with Twitter.
Counterpoint: Netflix, which did a lot of layoffs in the 2000s and as the story goes, redesigned their entire HR process around 'lean'.
3 replies →
Why is that amazing? When people do what you think is right, or what you think might be right, you agree with them or willing to see where things go. When people do what you think is wrong you disagree or break with them. That seems perfectly reasonable.
> Why is that amazing?
PG mocked those who thought we would end up here.
PG confuses me. Sometimes he seems extremely rational but other times he tweets obvious fallacies.
2 replies →
Where is "here" exactly?
9 replies →
He could have seen it earlier but I appreciate that he is able and willing to change his angle.
Did he change his angle, or is all of it (the initial statement, the leaving, the clarification) just a rich man's self-interest, and no real semantic content?
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1604557444247539712
On the positive side - you have to give it him for realizing his error and facing up to it
Quite the opposite, I think it shows that what you call a red flag, they analyzed seriously before making a judgment. And now that they have more data, they change their mind about their conclusion.
It's the sane thing to do.
Then today, he said
> I don't think [Musk] realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media
I mean, it's a flawed system to begin with.
When someone is incapable of building stuff or running a company, we (as a society, collectively) hand them shittons of money to be a VC.
I don't think the investments of what, the 0.1% wealthiest of society is the same as "society collectively" doing anything!
It is society collectively, by allowing those .1% of people have enough money to be able to fund such things on a whim.
2 replies →
considering how many YC-funded ventures have failed, it's hard to believe he'd be wrong about this, too.
And in the replies to this tweet he insists[1] "Elon is a smart guy" in spite of all the evidence to the contrary
[1] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1604557444247539712
Elon could both be smart and making huge mistakes. It happens all the time.
This is absolutely true. But I think “smart” leadership avoids repeatedly doubling down on their mistakes. You can, very rarely, double down on what looks like a bad bet and come out ahead. I’m not even sure I’d call that smart but it does happen. But it takes a not-smart person to see the losses stacking up over and over and decide to dig in their heels.
Even if you’re absolutely certain your goals and overall strategy are right a smart person would understand that something needs to change in the messaging and/or execution given the overwhelmingly negative feedback.
2 replies →
Elon's behavior, opinions, and points of view suggest otherwise. His only notable quality is his wealth.
For a classic example see former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. By any conventional measure he was very smart, and yet he made a series of catastrophically bad decisions which are still impacting US national security today.
Intelligence is overrated in leaders. Character, humility, principles, and discipline are far more valuable in avoiding huge mistakes.
1 reply →
I think they are laying the groundwork to allow creators to monetize their tweets and additional content. As it stands a lot of creators are monetizing their content off platform (patreon, substack, youtube, onlyfans, etc.) and the goal is to lock them and their content into twitter.
I think it's a good idea as content is king, but they should have rolled this out after they had established an ability to monetize. Once people leave the platform it will be tough to get them back unless they offer a very lucrative comission split with creators.
6 replies →
Also, people can be both smart and stupid at different times and sometimes even at the same time. It's not a binary thing.
Elon is definitely not a smart human. Maybe 25 years ago he did a thing. Ok.
6 replies →
He could be a dumb guy make much right. It happens all the time.
Elon is undoubtedly smart. It also seems like maybe he's on a mental health episode or just got so rich he decided he's done with building companies and just wants to be an asshole out of spite. Who knows? But he's accomplished plenty of things that suggest he's not an idiot.
11 replies →
He can't alienate a big potential investor to future funds.
I think that, by leaving Twitter alone, he already has. If we've learned something about Elon so far, from previous episodes of the cursed news cycle we all inhabit, is that he's vindictive and petty to an irrational extent (calling rescue officers who don't agree with him pedophiles, banning journalists who report on the jet account, ...)
That relies on Elon still having a lot of funds to invest, not a foregone conclusion at this rate.
TikTok isn't on the list of banned social media links.
He's smart. He's also the last person on the planet that should be in charge of a social media platform.
Smart + deficient in the ethics department is a recipe for disaster.
I am not an Elon fan, but I agree Musk is a smart guy. I just don't think smartness on its own is very valuable. Indeed, it can be very dangerous when it lets you think that you know better than everybody else despite them having way more experience in their fields. A classic example is the XKCD cartoon "Physicists": https://xkcd.com/793/
I've met some incredibly smart narcissists, and you know what they use their smarts for? The same sort of continuous ego inflation that less smart narcissists do. Their smartness just makes things worse, because they're less likely to have the sort of comeuppance that leads to a moment of clarity.
Intelligence is neither a binary nor a one-dimentional concept. Within certain contexts Musk is certainly a smart entrepreneur but I would not call him that without a lot of such qualifiers.