Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg: Visionaries or Swindlers? Tech Titans Unmasked
Musk and Zuckerberg, not Trailblazers but Snake Oil Salesmen?
What do Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have in common?
Both are Billionaires, have been accused of appropriating or imitating ideas from others, booting their co-founders out of the company they founded, engaging in data sharing practices with third parties, and potentially compromising user privacy.
Musk and Zuckerberg are widely regarded as highly successful and influential tech entrepreneurs in today's world. Many people see them as brilliant visionaries who are making positive changes in society. However, there are also those who view them as power-hungry billionaires who exploit user data and manipulate public opinion. Close acquaintances of Musk and Zuckerberg often hold the perspective that they are fraudulent individuals. These varying opinions reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of their impact and reputation.
If you are following me on Twitter, you are familiar how i have been an outspoken critic of Elon Musk. While some of you may have only become acquainted with my views recently, I have been actively engaged since 1998 on Six Degrees to 2003 on platforms like LinkedIn/MySpace, Facebook in 2006 and since 2008 on Twitter. Social media platforms typically launch first in the United States (if they are US-based companies) before expanding to other countries, often with a delay of several months or even years. During that time, I was residing in the Emirates, where access to these platforms and their features was often delayed compared to their availability in the US.
Elon Musk is not the visionary savior of humanity
I first heard about Elon Musk when he was involved with PayPal. Although I didn't know him personally, I was very interested in internet companies during the late 90s and early 2000s. I learned about PayPal when it was acquired by eBay in 2002, and a couple years later I discovered Elon Musk's connection to the company.
Interestingly, when PayPal was established in 1998 by Peter Thiel, Luke Nosek and Max Levchin, the company did not bear that name. Its original name was Confinity, reflecting its founding principle of providing affordable and hassle-free digital payment solutions for both individuals and businesses.
In March 2000, Confinity merged with X.com, an online financial services company founded in March 1999 by Elon Musk, Harris Fricker, Christopher Payne, and Ed Ho. However, differences arose between Musk and Bill Harris, the then-president and CEO of X.com. As part of the restructuring, Peter Thiel replaced Elon Musk as CEO of X.com in the same month. Eventually, in June 2001, X.com was renamed PayPal, and in 2002, the company went public with an initial public offering (IPO) under the ticker PYPL, offering shares at $13 each and generating over $61 million. When eBay acquired PayPal, Musk was the largest shareholder (11.72%) and received $175.8 million, out of which he invested $100 million in SpaceX, $70 million in Tesla, and $10 million in SolarCity.
Musk booting Tesla Founders
There is a similar story at Tesla. Contrary to popular belief, Elon Musk is not the founder of Tesla, Inc. The company was co-founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. Elon Musk became involved with Tesla by providing investment and later played a significant role in the company's development. Eberhard and Tarpenning were seeking investors during that time and they reached out to quite a few investors from UAE, including the investors who funded Virgin Stores in UAE, and that's how I knew about Tesla during my days at Virgin.
SpaceX is not taking humanity to Mars
It's not rocket science. The US government and NASA were in need of a reliable provider for sending astronauts and satellites into space. Recognizing the opportunity, Elon Musk invested $100 million into SpaceX to conduct test flights and secure NASA contracts. According to US government records, SpaceX has primarily operated as a government contractor, accumulating $15.3 billion in awarded contracts since 2003. The company's key focus areas include launching astronauts and conducting scientific missions for NASA, as well as deploying satellites for the US military.
The notion propagated by Elon Musk that he established SpaceX with the intention of enabling human colonization of Mars is utterly baseless. The concept of venturing to Mars is dismissed as a mere marketing ploy aimed at promoting his companies. Those lacking a comprehensive understanding of science and physics may fall prey to this deceptive narrative.
Over the course of a decade, I gained deeper insights into the true nature of Elon Musk, and the negative press surrounding him was not contributing to his reputation. Initially, I attributed it to the typical challenges that accompany success, and I largely disregarded it. My focus was primarily on building my own empire and engaging in extensive touring for two decades, leaving me with little time to be preoccupied with the actions of others. I have several tweets that list some of the terrible things Elon Musk has said and done, but I will make it easier and give you a head start here.
Musk once told Rolling Stone in 2017 about his father Errol Musk:
“He was such a terrible human being,” Musk weeping. “My dad will have a carefully thought-out plan of evil. He will plan evil … You have no idea about how bad. Almost every crime you can possibly think of, he has done. Almost every evil thing you could possibly think of, he has done.”
Errol Musk shot and killed three people and had a baby with his own stepdaughter, if his own dad was evil, isn’t there a saying “Like father, like son”? Here are some weird and upsetting facts about Elon Musk.
However, since 2017, I made a conscious decision to step back from music, festivals, and touring. Instead, I directed my focus towards investments and startups, which provided me with the opportunity to connect with fascinating individuals and investors who had direct knowledge or involvement with Musk and Zuckerberg. Through these interactions, I became privy to firsthand accounts and stories that are not suitable for public disclosure due to potential legal ramifications. However, when news circulated that Musk expressed interest in acquiring Twitter, and considering the knowledge I possessed about the true nature of these individuals, I could no longer remain silent. It was at that moment that I made the choice to speak out and reveal as much as I possibly could that would not have major repercussions.
I openly expressed my critiques of Elon Musk on Twitter to such an extent that my tweets caught the attention of mainstream media. As a result, I received numerous emails from journalists seeking my input, which I chose to ignore. At the moment, I am fully engaged in significant investment projects and prefer not to draw unnecessary attention or engage in a public confrontation with Elon Musk, at least not at this particular time.
Musk didn’t buy Twitter for Freedom of Speech as he claims
Elon Musk initially made grand promises about Twitter being a platform for public discourse and upholding freedom of speech. However, in recent times, there has been a noticeable shift in his actions. He has been criticized for censoring tweets, suspending accounts of his critics, and even offering incentives, such as a creators fund, to his sycophants who speak positively about him and his companies. These individuals often participate as speakers in Elon's Twitter spaces, where he knows they will ask favorable questions and avoid embarrassing him publicly. This stands in contrast to a recent incident where a Twitter engineer publicly confronted Elon, questioning his coding knowledge and the quality of Twitter's old code. In response, Elon called the engineer a 'jackass' during a live session on Spaces.
Ever since Musk took over the social media network in October 2022, it seems to have been plagued by frequent technical issues and has become entangled in controversies due to his tendency to make divisive statements. Advertisers have reportedly started leaving the platform, and many users have been actively seeking alternative platforms to share their latest news and updates. He even announced recently that advertisers have abandoned the site and the company is in the red.
Frustrated by Elon Musk's actions and the negative impact on Twitter, myself and some friends and investor partners made an offer to buy the company from him. We initially offered $14.26 billion in January 2023, which was ignored. Later, when the value of the company declined, we made another offer of $1 billion in June 2023, which was also ignored. This raises questions about why Musk would intentionally drive the company into decline. Was his motivation solely to obtain the data of 1.5 billion users? Furthermore, he rebranded the company from Twitter Inc. to X.Com, which may indicate lingering resentment from his own ousting from X.com/PayPal.
The platform's reputation has suffered, leading many Twitter users, myself included, on a search for a potential replacement for Musk's slowly deteriorating Twitter. Mastodon was briefly considered as a contender, but other alternatives like Spoutible, CoHost, and Post failed to make a significant impact, causing people to remain on Twitter.
Substack introduced its Notes feature, which caused a minor meltdown for Elon Musk that lead to blocking links Substack shared on Twitter making them ‘unsafe’, but Substack didn’t really think that through carefully as it was impractical for users to subscribe to newsletters in order to follow individuals on Notes. Bluesky, funded by Jack Dorsey, created a brief wave of excitement but the slow pace of its rollout and ‘invite only’ onboarding has probably already killed the initial momentum.
Now, Twitter is potentially facing its most significant challenge, or at least the most well-resourced one during the Musk era, with the launch of Meta's Threads app. Threads aims to replicate the Twitter experience under the control of Mark Zuckerberg, adding to the competition in the microblogging space.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta sees an opportunity to capitalize on the situation and launched Threads. In their statement announcing the app, Meta expressed their vision to build upon Instagram's strengths and extend them to text-based communication, fostering a positive and creative environment for expressing ideas.
Mark Zuckerberg steals Facebook from Winklevoss brothers
It is a widely known fact that Mark Zuckerberg, while attending Harvard, got the idea for Facebook from the Winklevoss twins and their friend Divya Narendra. In 2003, the twins and Narendra sought Zuckerberg's assistance with their social networking site, HarvardConnection. However, Zuckerberg exploited the situation, stealing the source code and delaying the project while creating his own site. Zuckerberg launched Facebook in February 2004, prompting the Winklevoss twins and Narendra to sue him. They claimed Zuckerberg had misappropriated their idea. This legal battle concluded with a $65 million settlement in 2008. Further insights into this story can be found in the book "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich, and the movie "The Social Network," which vividly depicts these events.
From acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp and cloning TikTok with its REELS and Snapchat with the ‘Stories’ feature to now Threads, which is a direct clone of Twitter, Zuckerberg has shown a willingness to steal ideas from other platforms and incorporate them into his own.
Zuckerberg ousts facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin
Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, initially provided the company with $15,000 in seed funding and took on the roles of business manager and CFO.
Saverin, a close friend of Zuckerberg and early backer of Facebook, became the next target of Zuckerberg's actions. In a series of emails and IM’s from Zuckerberg, he believed that Saverin had not fulfilled his responsibilities adequately. However, it was evident that Mark had a different motive—to diminish Saverin’s influence within the company. To achieve this, Zuckerberg employed a strategic maneuver by issuing a substantial number of new shares, thereby diluting Saverin's ownership stake. This move effectively minimized Saverin's control and rendered his stake nearly worthless, stripping him of his partial control over Facebook. Saverin was required to relinquish all relevant intellectual property and surrender his voting rights to Zuckerberg.
To decrease Saverin’s ownership stake, Zuckerberg created a new company under Delaware law to acquire the original Florida LLC. This move effectively reduced Saverin's share to approximately 24%. Zuckerberg was aware of the potential lawsuit when he diluted Saverin's shares, as evidenced by an email to his lawyers. He viewed the lawsuit as a negotiation tactic rather than an unexpected legal action, understanding that it presented an opportunity for both parties to engage in discussions and seek a resolution.
Zuckerberg was well aware that diluting Saverin’s shares would likely result in a lawsuit against him. In fact, he explicitly acknowledged this possibility in an email to his lawyers, which has since become public. In the email, Zuckerberg mentioned that they would have to "eat the lawsuit," indicating his anticipation of legal action.
The lawsuit, therefore, can be seen as more of a negotiation tactic, a means to assert Saverin’s rights and seek a fair resolution to the situation. While Zuckerberg was prepared for the legal consequences, he recognized that the lawsuit presented an opportunity for both parties to negotiate their respective positions.
Copycat King
Mark Zuckerberg has a reputation for copying ideas from competitors. Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to eliminate competition. In 2013, Facebook attempted to buy Snapchat for $3 billion, but Snapchat's CEO Evan Spiegel declined the offer. In response, Facebook introduced Instagram Stories in 2016, a direct copy of Snapchat's core feature. Similarly, Facebook launched Reels to compete with TikTok.
On July 5, 2023, Meta launched Threads, a Twitter clone that amassed over 100 million users within days. This move raised antitrust concerns, given Meta's history of eliminating competition through acquisition or imitation.
Zuckerberg retaliates against TikTok after failed acquisition attempt
TikTok was the next threat to Facebook as it was killing Instagram TV, predecessor to REELS. Before Facebook got the American public against TikTok, he was quietly working on closing an acquisition deal with a tiny shanghai based startup Musical.ly in 2016. But this deal failed and Chinese conglomerate ByteDance acquired Musical.ly for around $800 Million and merged the app with the existing TikTok to form the popular video platform.
“Facebook is so pissed that TikTok is the one thing they can’t beat that they’ve turned to geopolitical arguments and lawmakers in Washington to fight their fight,” said a senior Facebook employee.
This pissed Zuckerberg to an extent that he then tried to get the American public against TikTok by paying a GOP firm to malign TikTok and paint a picture that it was using American public’s data and invading their privacy.
Twitter falls prey to Zuckerberg's ambitions
Zuckerberg made multiple attempts to acquire Twitter, but all ended in failure. Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter, revealed that Zuckerberg offered $500 million to buy the platform, but the deal didn't materialize because he and Zuckerberg didn't connect well. Prior to this, Zuckerberg had also approached Jack Dorsey, Twitter's co-founder, for a potential buyout, but the plans fell through when Dorsey was ousted as CEO. Dorsey supported the idea of a sale, understanding that Facebook could eventually develop a competing product that might pose a threat to Twitter, as it had done with other ventures.
Kill what you cant buy: Birth of Threads
Threads has made a grand entrance into the social media space, capturing the curiosity and attention of users. So far, it is released in 100+ countries on the 5th July 2023, Threads has been described as an “alternative Twitter”, where it aims to entice users away from its struggling competitor by offering a platform that closely mimics Twitter's features and functionalities, without all of Musk’s controversies.
Thanks to the Instagram integration, “that biggest problem, the chicken-egg problem, has been solved from the jump,” Reddit co-founder and venture investor Alexis Ohanian said in a video Thursday (posted, naturally, on Threads).
Meta has faced ongoing criticism for its significant market dominance and accusations of engaging in practices that stifle competition by replicating and eliminating rival apps. This pattern has raised concerns among competition experts and even some Threads users. There is apprehension that if Threads continues to gain traction, it could potentially contribute to further consolidation of power and increased dominance for Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
Mark Zuckerberg exploited your data to make billions
Mark Zuckerberg knows where you live, who your friends are, what your favorite album is, where you go on holidays, has access to your messages, access to your phone, photos, videos, contacts and pretty much everything that is on your smart phone—he even knows about last weekend's one-night stand. Those are some of your privacy rights you just gave away to Meta if you signed up on Threads.
Meta has a history of mishandling user data. In 2018, the company was fined $5 billion by the FTC for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). More recently, Meta was fined $1.2 Billion by EU and for this reason Threads launch in EU is delayed for many months due to the implementation of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which contains provisions on sharing user data across different platforms.
Calli Schroeder, senior counsel and global privacy counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to digital privacy, has expressed concerns regarding Meta's Threads app. Schroeder highlights that several privacy issues with Threads are linked to Meta's past questionable privacy practices. She notes that there is no apparent transparency from Meta regarding the handling of sensitive personal data, nor a clear explanation as to why such data is being collected, beyond a vague desire to do so. Alongside users' Threads activity, Meta's privacy policy reveals access to additional user data such as GPS location, cameras, photos, IP information, device type, and signals from Bluetooth, nearby Wi-Fi access points, beacons, and cell towers.
At present, the Threads app does not request permission to access your camera, microphone, contacts, or location. These permissions typically require user approval on iOS devices. However, if you wish to attach an image or video to a post, the app will ask for access to your photos. You have the option to limit the app's access to only selected photos. The Privacy section in the Threads app does not offer extensive settings. It allows you to manage the profiles you follow, view and manage blocked profiles (applicable to both Instagram and Threads), choose whether to hide the number of 'Likes' on others' posts, and adjust other privacy settings.
Similarly, Elon Musk's companies, including Tesla, have faced scrutiny over data privacy concerns. Tesla's vehicles collect vast amounts of data, including location information and camera footage. In 2021, reports surfaced that Tesla employees had accessed and shared sensitive footage captured by the vehicles' cameras without the knowledge or consent of the owners. These incidents raise serious questions about the protection of user data.
What can you do to protect your privacy
Apps can access the data you choose to provide. If this is a concern for you, I would suggest using a phone that doesn't contain any of your personal or private information. I understand that not everyone can afford to have two phones, but if you have the means, consider obtaining a separate phone dedicated solely to your personal matters.
To ensure your privacy when using apps like Threads, there are specific measures you can take. It's essential to understand that using any app requires certain privacy considerations, as outlined in their lengthy terms and conditions. Companies, including Meta, create these apps with the goal of generating revenue, often by collecting user data and selling it to advertisers. As users, it is crucial to evaluate the privacy risks involved, compare the extent of data collection with other apps you use, and gauge your comfort level with regards to potential risks. By being informed and mindful of your privacy choices, you can make more conscious decisions about the apps you use and the data you share.
Maintaining digital vigilance is crucial. Your online actions, such as liking posts, commenting, and sharing, contribute to a digital footprint that can potentially reveal sensitive information about us. It is vital to be mindful of your digital behavior and exercise caution in order to protect your privacy. Remember that the data you generate may persist indefinitely in the digital realm, underscoring the importance of conscious and thoughtful engagement online.
Monopolistic Power Play: A Dangerous Game
There is a coup that no one is talking about. There are a handful tech giants who control the internet. There is Google and there is Meta. Meta owns some of the largest social media platforms and with the launch of Threads, it is only growing into a monster. Meta’s goal is clearly to have a stronghold in this industry by either buying or killing their competition. Another billionaire, Elon Musk, who has access to a billion users data comes into play and we all have seen his behavior.
Agustin Reyna, the director of legal and economic affairs at the consumer advocacy organization BEUC in Brussels, raises concerns from a competition standpoint. Reyna highlights that Meta's utilization of Threads can potentially enable them to exploit their market power and create barriers for competitors who lack the extensive customer base that Meta possesses through Instagram. This can pose challenges for fair competition and market entry for other players in the industry.
Jeff Blattner, a former official at the Department of Justice focused on antitrust matters, expressed the view that having Threads as a competitor to Twitter can ultimately benefit consumers. He remarked on Threads, stating that it is preferable to have two platforms operated by eccentric billionaires rather than just one. However, if Threads becomes so successful that it effectively displaces Twitter entirely, it would raise new questions about Meta's continued dominance in the social media landscape.
Meta's extensive data collection practices are primarily geared towards the objective of selling advertisements. Although Threads currently does not display ads, experts believe it will likely introduce them in the future. In the meantime, the information gathered on Threads may be integrated into Meta's broader data ecosystem, which is utilized to serve targeted ads across its other platforms.
Despite scandals, public backlash, regulatory warnings, and fines, Meta appears to be persisting in its data-centric approach, striving to accumulate as much data as possible. This raises concerns about the sensitivity of the collected data, which can encompass personal details such as sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, biometric data, trade union membership, pregnancy status, political affiliations, and religious beliefs. There is a possibility that this data may be shared with third parties, including marketers and law enforcement agencies.
In a blog post preceding the launch of Threads, Eugen Rochko, the CEO of Mastodon, emphasized that the adoption of ActivityPub by major platforms signifies not only validation of the decentralized social media movement but also offers an opportunity for users locked into these platforms to transition to better service providers. This transition, in turn, exerts pressure on existing platforms to offer improved and less exploitative services. Rochko's remarks highlight the potential for a shift towards a more user-centric and ethical social media landscape.
Two familiar examples of decentralized services that are easy to understand are phones and email. With phones, you can call anyone regardless of whether you and the person you're calling have phone service from different companies. Similarly, with email, you can communicate with people using different email providers such as Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail without any significant differences in functionality.
This concept of decentralization is gaining popularity, as seen in the increasing number of people opting for iPhones and utilizing Apple's privacy features. The shift towards decentralized services empowers individuals to have more control over their personal data and enjoy enhanced privacy protections.
In my perspective, Mark Zuckerberg's and Elon Musk’s remarkable success with Meta/Paypal was not solely attributable to their inherent business acumen or visionary talent in the tech industry. Rather, it was a combination of fortuitous timing, being in the right place at the right time, and for Zuckerberg it was heeding the advice of influential figures such as Eduardo Saverin, Sean Parker, and Peter Thiel and for Musk, he didn’t have to do much to get his share of PayPal sale as he was in his death bed after contracting a deadly form of malaria from his honeymoon trip in South Africa.
However, now that Zuckerberg possesses the resources to pursue his next "big idea" under the Meta transformation, it becomes evident that replicating his initial success has proven challenging. In some cases, he has fallen into the trap of believing that because his first endeavor was enormously successful, his subsequent ideas will inevitably follow suit. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that he has also faced failures along the way. While Threads may not pose a significant threat to Twitter, it has already accomplished its purpose by amassing over 100 million users within a mere five days.
This is just a glimpse of the larger issue, highlighting the potential dangers and threats that social media presents to society. When billionaires with their own agendas have significant control over these platforms, it exacerbates the situation and raises concerns about the impact on society as a whole.
Conclusion: Visionaries or Swindlers?
The narratives of Musk and Zuckerberg are complex. They have undeniably achieved significant success and have contributed to technological advancements. Musk has driven the adoption of electric vehicles, making Tesla a leader in the automotive industry. His ventures into space with SpaceX have reduced launch costs and reignited interest in space exploration. Similarly, Zuckerberg's Facebook has connected billions of people worldwide, creating a global social network.
However, their careers are also marked by controversial practices, ruthless business tactics, and significant privacy concerns. Musk's handling of Tesla and SpaceX, as well as his controversial acquisition of Twitter, raises questions about his true intentions. Zuckerberg's history of acquiring or copying competitors, along with Facebook's data privacy scandals, highlights the darker side of his business practices.
As they continue to shape the tech landscape, it is crucial to scrutinize their actions and hold them accountable for their impact on society and the digital ecosystem. This article aims to shed light on the complex legacies of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, inviting readers to critically evaluate their contributions and the consequences of their actions.
Share this story to a friend
If you enjoyed this story, share it with a friend and share your thoughts and questions in the Chat and ill be happy to answer.
See you next week,
RAISINI
👉🏻 Connect on LinkedIn - LEONIDAS RAISINI
👉🏻 Listen to my music - RAISINI
👉🏻 New Website - www.LeonidasRaisini.com
Founding Member
You can also become a founding member, where you will get a 15 Minutes consultation call with me, have access to super exclusive stories including access to my new Music before others, meet in person (if we are in the same city), invite to our events. All for $150 per year. [This is also a great option if you happen to have, say, an employer-sponsored reading or education budget.]
Copyright RAISINI 2024. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
And how will the entire concept exposed above be policed from the moment technological singularity emerges? Is it a cause for concern that all information serves as a "game weapon" between technology and biology?