Main Edition
US
FR
December 31, 2024 - 2:00pm
How much is X the fiefdom of one man? The question has become increasingly prominent in the post-Christmas fug, thanks to an almighty row over the H-1B visa which has lit up the site for several days.
H-1B is a US visa category meant for “highly skilled” workers. While many claim that it has become a piece of human capital arbitrage — by which software companies import grunt-work developers from India to undercut American wages — Elon Musk disagrees. But in spite of the many levers he wields, the X owner appears to have lost the argument — torn down by the MAGA-inclined user base that had been cheering him on for months. Over the weekend, the sense was of the man who runs the world being bound up by millions of Lilliputians’ tiny ropes.
At the same time, theories arose about Musk manipulating the algorithm to silence his detractors. One user claimed: “I ratioed Elon twice yesterday. I had no affiliations and I’ve never been monetized. I paid for X premium. Elon canceled all of it.” Other prominent Right-wingers decided they too had been shadow-banned. Where, they cried, was this much-vaunted “free speech”? Was Musk jiggering the entire social network just to save himself from personal embarrassment?
These data points soon fed into some other comments Musk made last week about apparent changes to the X algorithm. That if “far more credible, verified subscriber accounts” mute or block your account compared to those which like your posts, “your reach will decline significantly”. The tech mogul has always used the site to optimise what he calls “unregretted user minutes”. This is something economists would recognise as a minimax function: a “satisfice” (satisfy/suffice) equation. It’s an attempt to maximise something within a constraint, in this case maximising happiness subject to minimising unhappiness.
One way to do this would be by dense logical flowcharting. But as a good engineer, Musk is instead treating the problem as a black box — remaining agnostic as to what constitutes a good time, and what constitutes regret — and focusing on its outputs.
X already does this to some extent. The algorithm pulls up a selection of tweets from your network based on the probability you will interact with them. Different types of engagement are then “scored” differently, and this is fed back into your personalised feed. “Probability the user opens the tweet author profile and likes or replies to a tweet” has a weighting of 12. A simple “like” is weighted at 0.5. And “Probability the user replies to the tweet and this reply is engaged by the tweet author” rates at 75. In the negative category, “Probability the user will react negatively (requesting ‘show less often’ on the tweet or author, block or mute the tweet)” scores -74.
Via many such variables, a score is built for each tweet, and the feed orders the highest-ranked scores first. In that sense, down-regulating users who are frequently blocked is in line with the general trend. But this comes with its own complications. “High block and mute rates from verified users” implies that there might be accounts a user likes which are also widely blocked and muted by others, and which would as a result increasingly be sidelined. This will naturally happen on both sides of the political aisle.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt is no mean feat to reconcile targeted content algorithms with free expression and open communication in a civil society. At least Elon is trying. What I think he’s trying to do, based on the author’s description is some digital approximation of what human society does naturally.
Consider the example of an isolated farming village with a small population where everyone knows everyone else. Even in a small homogeneous village there will be many differences of opinion about many things, such proper farming techniques, times to sow and to harvest the crop, which animals should be hunted, and so on all the way down to mundane things like fashion and gossip. If someone in the village, Mr. X, expresses a viewpoint that seems unusual, new, or controversial to another villager, Mrs. Y, it produces a series of social consequences. If Mrs. Y doesn’t like what she heard, Mrs. Y may no longer speak to Mr. X, the mundane equivalent of block/mute. Further, Mrs. Y is likely to remember the incident and tell her friends. Mrs. A, B, and C. Mr. X is well on his way to building a reputation as the village crank who nobody speaks to. If more people have similar negative interactions with Mr. X, he will build upon that reputation and further damage his own credibility in the eyes of other villagers. Conversely, Mr. X’s controversial new idea might instead be received positively by Mrs. Y, and Mr. X may rise in her esteem, and again, she is likely to tell her friends as well. In this scenario, Mr. X may become an important figure in the village as an innovator or a possible political leader.
Most opinions won’t be extreme. They’ll fall somewhere near the middle of the spectrum, and of course each person still has their own views on everyone else. Over time, people influence each other and a level of consensus is formed within the village. There will always be disagreements and debates, but in order to be taken seriously and listened to, people have to consider the sensibilities and opinions of other villagers, lest they be ostracized and excluded. This becomes the framing device for political issues and conflicts. If there is an election for village mayor, the candidates will likely confine themselves to policies which fall in line with the views of most villagers. They may take a particular side on one or more issues or they may propose their own compromises. This is, in essence, the political windows of possibility that we often discuss.
I find considerable merit with Musk’s approach, with the caveat that human social behavior patterns are not universally positive forces. On the contrary, they produce all sorts of problematic things like racism, political conflict, peer pressure, bullying, and so on. Nevertheless, attempting to intentionally steer the views in a society towards particular desired outcomes is both a tall task, and fraught with problems for any society that prides itself as being free and open. Before Musk, the approach had been one of using the algorithm to attempt to steer human social behavior away from certain perceived negative views like racism, antisemitism, etc., which predictably led to the people in charge taking it too far and adding, consciously or subconsciously, their own ideological bias to the equation. Social engineers gotta engineer I suppose. Regardless of their good, bad, political, or self-interested intentions, the practical effect was a mild form of censorship that ultimately undermined the credibility of the platform with a large number of users and led to acrimony and conflict. It also led to competition from other companies who picked up users who were dissatisfied with the censorship. To a for-profit company that depends upon reach and user base, this is critically relevant. Had Twitter’s old policies remained in place, it likely would have resulted in competing, politically aligned versions of Twitter. This is acceptable for society as a whole, given it would be replicating what’s already happened with traditional media, but maybe not ideal. It’s not ideal for the company, which would be creating its own competition and ceding its monopoly status for reasons of ideology. Not something stockholders probably got behind.
By using the mechanism of social approval, Musk avoids this. The users themselves can either like or dislike the tweet according to their views. If a tweet gets disapproval from a right leaning user, it might get approval from a left leaning user. These opinions cancel each other out. Most opinions will have a mixture of these that will mostly cancel out. Quality tweeters who express themselves well and avoid offending may have an advantage. Fringe ideas that have limited appeal and generate negative reactions and feelings are quickly relegated to the sidelines, just as nobody listens to the village crank. In this way, the tweets and the users get curated over time. I’m less than thrilled with the pointed overvaluing of paid premium users, but they have to generate revenue somehow, and over the long term, this will build a steady revenue stream of premium users.
Beyond just making money, Musk is trying to build his platform such that it can elevate individuals who are good communicators and who express views in a way that’s agreeable to most people. Centrists who hit on broadly popular viewpoints and who use acceptable, non-offensive language are elevated by their popularity. In essence he’s trying to make X better by selecting for the best users, and defining “best” in a non-ideological way by using the mechanism of approval/disapproval. He’s attempting to ameliorate some of the toxicity of Internet discourse through this mechanism of ideologically blind approval and disapproval. Universal negatives that neither side much appreciates will get filtered out.
All in all, assuming I’ve read Musk’s intent correctly, I consider this one of the best attempts yet made to civilize the Internet to some degree. Previous attempts have been basically ham handed attempts by the government or the companies themselves to censor particular undesirable elements, people, or viewpoints or some attempt to objectively ascertain the ‘truth’ of whatever claim was being made. The former amounts to political/ideological censorship, which is not OK for a free society, and the latter is basically impossible to accomplish without resorting to similar blanket bans on individuals who post/share “fake news” and/or by banning certain topics as taboo for discussion. It remains to be seen if he will be successful. There will certainly be challenges to overcome and adjustments to be made. The author’s concluding line about the constant gardener rings true.
Good summary. It’s probable this won’t be the final iteration (maybe there’s no such thing?) but it strikes me as an attempt to acheive a balance that users can understand.
One of the most annoying features of Unherd is how comments fail to appear, or disappear then reappear, with little apparent pattern. I’ve tried to detect some patterns and whilst i have suspicions, i just feel it’d be better to be open about it. I honestly think it’d be an advantage commercially to be open, and it’ll be interesting to see how this works out commercially for Musk.
Perhaps Laura Loomer should be asked for a view?
18 November 2022 posted by Musk: “Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach. Negative/hate tweets will be deboosted & demonitized.…”
As they should be, and because it’s driven by user ratings, it’s everyone collectively judging what constitutes hate and deserves such treatment, not a censorship board or some stilted ideologues pulled from academia, thus preempting most populist/libertarian objections. It’s brilliant, really. Musk deserves his reputation for intelligence. With this scheme, he may have already checkmated the lefties trying to use internet censorship to push their ideology.
I still can’t figure out why it’s not racism when an Indian manager prefers an Indian to other foreigners when hiring someone on a H-1B visa, but when a white American complains about the over-representation of Indians in high-tech, it’s definitely racism.
I think Musk lost the argument not because of the “Lilliputians”, but because he was wrong, just like any normal man can sometimes be wrong.
I also think the author of the article should be more careful in his choice of words when describing Musk’s opponents in this debate, since his own height is hardly noticeably above average.
Did Elon lose the argument? Didn’t Trumpster come down on his side and isn’t that all that matters? You see money counts in Trump world first and foremost.
Give me a favor, shut up, please
Facts are awkward sometimes aren’t they EU. The paucity of your position further unravelled with your additional response if you don’t mind me saying.
Even if Trump has appeared to support Musk so far, that doesn’t count for much, or did you forget his advisor of the week first administration. If this blows up badly enough, Trump will just do what he has done in the past, change his position without any acknowledgement of the change or that his past position ever existed. He’s probably just waiting to gauge the reaction from regular users on his various social media platforms rather than judge by the first few days of sharp reactions of people trying to drive a wedge into his coalition.
Further, the election is over. He won’t need any more campaign donations, so I doubt he’ll risk much of his core support for the opinions of tech bro billionaires. I think you’re wrong about Trump’s motivation. The reason he’s been so incorruptible and committed to his populist base in the face of near universal elite condemnation is because he doesn’t primarily care about money. He does care about his money, but it isn’t his first and foremost concern. His first and foremost concern is himself, his ego, his self-image. His wealth is a part of that but not the only part, and at this stage, it isn’t the most important part, because he’s reached a level even the very wealthy rarely achieve. His ego has grown beyond just being a wealthy man and a successful politician. He now wants to be remembered by history for his greatness, to be revered by future generations as the people’s champion long after he’s gone. He wants the image of him shaking his fist while still bleeding from an assassin’s bullet to be recorded in every history book and to inspire future generations of Americans to come. Narcissism is a common feature in history’s great leaders, especially those known for being bringers of great change and champions of the people, because they aren’t as easily swayed by the ordinary levers of money and power. They’re willing to pursue policies that are anathema to oligarchs and powerful interests because there’s no amount of money that will satisfy their primary psychological urge, to have everybody love them.
I totally agree
You won’t be surprised SJ I don’t agree with much of that, although the narcissism bit we’re close.
Trump needs money. He’s a £500m civil lawsuit to settle and can’t pay without selling assets he doesn’t want to. His boys need money too. Who has the most? Who’s he selling Truth Social to in due course? Some of his Republicans need it to bankroll 2026 midterms too. They’ll be loath to jeopardise the cash Elon brings. Why did they fold and embarrass Johnson last week?
And Trump’s an avid Wall St watcher. His ego associates with what that’s signifying. Tilting to Tech Bros and Billionaires helps that. We all know what stocks and shares doing often of little benefit to the ‘left behinds’ and not conducive to getting too worried about the ‘little guy’.
Immigration law though is complex and one can be pretty certain Trump won’t be all over the detail when proposed changes get to Congress. So quite what happens to H-1B we’ll see. Elon may get flicked a bit as he doesn’t yet grasp the intricacies of Congress and the trade offs that will be essential to get legislation passed – esp in the House with a tiny majority. Tax law might though be the bigger fault line. Trump, and Elon of course, keen to reduce taxes on the v rich. Bannon and MAGA much less with that and the spat that’s occurred is raw and will stay raw.
They needed each other to win the Election. Now we’ll see if amounts to more than a hill of beans. Trump is 78 and his powers will wane now as he closes on 80 and folks grasp he’s a lame duck as time proceeds. Watch for the inevitable health scare and then how the coalition starts to divide off into potential successor camps.
The tech bros may have money but if you haven’t been keeping score lately, money has been losing, not winning, elections. Not all of them, for certain, but more than enough to drastically change the political landscape. There are now numerous situations going all the way back to 2012 of candidates with the full backing of party elites getting defeated in primaries or by more populist/reform oriented candidates in the general election. This is a large and diverse movement driving from a lot of different directions with a lot of momentum behind it now. I think, ultimately, the tech bros, Musk especially, recognize this, and will ultimately find ways to mend fences and hold the coalition together. I believe that most of the reason they joined it in the first place is that they can see the historical momentum is unstoppable now. They’re getting on the right side of history.
For whatever it’s worth, I am with Musk and company when it comes to recruiting skilled foreign talent. I’m not worried about depressing wages for high skill work like computer coders, engineers, doctors, etc. I am worried about the millions of unskilled workers forcing overall wages lower, but then I’d be in favor of raising the minimum wage significantly and partially removing the incentive to keep importing workers. Recruiting talent, though, makes the country stronger. Knee jerk reactions aside, I think it’s too soon to judge whether there will really be that much grassroots momentum behind it. There aren’t a lot of computer coders, doctors, or electrical engineers in the MAGA movement. If it does, that’s unfortunate, and Elon and Trump will both have to adjust accordingly.
As hard as it is for neoliberals to grasp, money does not make the world go round. It’s about power. Money serves as a proxy for power in most situations, but not all, and the logic of people who assume such will fail in those situations. Don’t know if you’re familiar with the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy, but there’s a scene in the third movie where the rich executive who’s been working with and paying the criminal mastermind discovers that despite his money, he’s not in charge at all. All the MNC’s, all the elites, all the davos men, they have all lined up against Trump and thrown millions of dollars against him in advertising and backing traditional candidates. What do they have to show for all of that? Bupkis. Trump won this election more easily than the first and there are populist movements all over Europe and none of the centrist neoliberals have an answer. It’s really about time to move on and start making some concessions, either in the form of tariffs and trade restrictions or some of the redistribution/wealth tax schemes that have been proposed by Sanders and others, or some combination of both. Clinging to some version of the neoliberal global order at this point is getting close to delustional thinking.
That’s the endgame, IMHO. There will be no return to the neoliberal mentality of 1992-2015, just a series of attempts at reform until someone hits on something that satisfies the people and moves us forward. Trump may well fail and you’ve given a plausible scenario of one way he definitely could fail, and then who could fight over the proper successor to his movement I can think of a number of others, some entirely his fault and some less so. The other possibility is that some crisis intervenes and basically hijacks events for a while, something like a worse version of COVID, or a breakup of the US, or WWIII. Such scenarios could alter the possibilities in significant ways. None of us know the future, but it can be fun to guess.
I think you downplay what was said between MAGA leads and Tech Bros way too much. That will be raw and stay raw. Bannon et al won’t forget it, especially the criticism of US culture and Musk’s threats, and neither will Vivek & Elon forget the blizzard of anti-Indian rhetoric and tweets that showed who they’ve really got into bed with.
Remember Trump becomes a lamer duck with every passing week. He’ll have an initial tailwind but even with that his position in the House means getting tough stuff done going to involve real difficulties and compromises. The fight for successor won’t take long to start, and then we see how long the coalition holds.
MAGA don’t have enough to win alone or without the personality Trump brought to things. Tax changes are up shortly and you can be sure Trump, Tech Bros and most Republicans won’t be leaning the way of the ‘little guy’. That’ll be schism opponents can work. Elon will find himself painted as the ‘supporter of China’ in the subsequent battle for Trump’s successor.
It’s going to be chaotic and that means delivery of promises will be massively compromised.
I’m not sure if you’re 100% right there Steve but you make a very convincing case. It may be that as things play out this year they support your argument. I shall watch with interest armed with your insight. Thank you.
Thank you! This is a very thoughtful comment.
I think there has been some misunderstanding about Elon’s commitment to free speech. He is certainly in favor of it when he is the one speaking. Otherwise, not so much.
I don’t and never have used Twitter or X, but found that article informative. I would guess same principles apply for all or most social media?
Just shows how much we are all being ‘played’. Fine if you aware and cognisant but is everyone?
And Elon beginning to learn things are a little more complicated and not just in how Congress works? Or how MAGA works even? Is one sensing the fella’s hubris is inexorably leading him to a fall? (Of course if you give someone £250m for their campaign and can repeat the offering your Master will put up with alot)
Downvoted you for not meeting your own standards.
While you did adhere to your values of orchestrating a conspiratorial narrative about Trump and/or Trump-adjacent figures, you didn’t use any of your standard phrases: Kleptocracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy or Neoliberalism.
Please do better next post.
Oh boo-hoo, a downvote and in the Festive season too.
Actually don’t think I’ve used Plutocracy, but it must have been in your mind, and for good reason. Nail and Head there TB.