It's impossible to prove intent. With the exception of the NHTSA, the following agencies were gutted, each whose jurisdiction covered his business interests. In the case of the NHTSA, about half of the team that oversees autonomous vehicle safely was let go [1].
Generously, two of those I would classify as "investigating" with only one actually using that word but the investigation started in 2023 and I've heard nothing of it.
He and his businesses have had several interactions with the federal government of varying antagonism but this is nothing like Trump firing Comey.
I think that it's pretty apparent that the pdf you linked is a pretty partisan document that makes a lot of tenuous links between Musk recommending firing the low level employees and his interactions with the heads of those agencies.
It is not unreasonable to expect that someone given this level of trust over the government should not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest. The mere fact that he himself is someone who is the beneficiary of billions of dollars of spending is an actual conflict.
I don't disagree with that at all but the appearance of a potential conflict of interest is a far cry from the assertion that the op made which is an exaggeration of the document linked which is an exaggeration of the appearance of conflict of interest.
It is upsetting to me that people have so much trouble sifting fact from opinion or narrative.
The fact is that DOGE made cuts to NHTSA. It is also a fact that DOGE made cuts to a bunch of agencies, not just ones related to something Elon was doing.
There isn’t even any evidence that DOGE was more aggressive about cutting things related to Elon vs other government waste.
Instead, all we have is an opinion by a reporter at an organization with a known bias for promoting the increase of government. The opinion is that the reason is to cut people specifically going after Elon.
And to be clear I gave no opinion on what Elon did or didn’t do. My problem is I’m tired of living in a world where everyone assumes that anyone not in 100% agreement with their policies must of course be doing something nefarious.
What if instead of repeating everyone know Elon is crazy and everyone knows Elon is corrupt and everyone knows this and that… what if we actually tried to analyze it rationally and sift through the news stories looking at the things that are definitely factually true vs. the authors opinions we happen to like because we want to imagine some people are awful and others are saints.
> What if instead of repeating everyone know Elon is crazy and everyone knows Elon is corrupt and everyone knows this and that… what if we actually tried to analyze it rationally and sift through the news stories looking at the things that are definitely factually true vs. the authors opinions we happen to like because we want to imagine some people are awful and others are saints.
How doge isn't a plain dictionary definition of corruption? A private citizen given a power to destroy organisations that overlook that citizens businesses?
It used to be that in such cases that private citizen then must give up their rights to their businesses (or some other way of avoiding conflict of interest).
The one they did the most damage to was probably USAID. They didnt have anything to do with Elons businesses. Meanwhile the FAA was still blocking starship flights.
Damaging USAID irreparably damages the US soft power around the globe. As Elon’s businesses are not limited to US borders, I wonder if there is perhaps a bigger picture here.
> A private citizen given a power to destroy organisations that overlook that citizens businesses?
Except he had no power to do this? In the end the executive branch had to authorize anything coming out of DOGE. Like it or not, elected officials (Trump) rubber stamped the cuts.
"Instead, all we have is an opinion by a reporter at an organization with a known bias for promoting the increase of government"
Then
"My problem is I’m tired of living in a world where everyone assumes that anyone not in 100% agreement with their policies must of course be doing something nefarious"
It doesn't matter if the person is bias or not, what matters is it they backed their opinion up with facts
What would a platform that incentivizes rational analysis look like? Social media as a whole definitely does not. Social media incentivizes immediacy, hot takes, and strong opinions. The nature of the medium produces that sort of content and getting deeper, more thoughtful content requires a different medium. I wonder what that might look like.
What’s more concerning to me is that my very cold take got downvoted into oblivion and that aside from yours, all the responses are irrational.
And this is not Facebook. There is no algorithm driving views and hot takes. This is ordinary, everyday people choosing to be irrational because self-righteousness is its own dopamine hit incentive, even in the absence of external incentives.
HN _is_ social media. It is the medium, not the algorithm that encourages the behaviour.
Like how a garbage can close to the door is more likely to be used than one on the other side of the room. The people who change their behaviour in those situations aren’t making a thoughtful, rational choice not to use a garbage can on the other side of the room. It is subtle, quick, and mostly unconscious.
“The medium is the message.” This is what that old quote was getting at.
> There isn’t even any evidence that DOGE was more aggressive about cutting things related to Elon vs other government waste.
I mean, they were scraping the signage off USAID offices on day one of DOGE, while Musk walked away with $0 of his own grants cut. There was no process at all for determining whether any of his billions were waste fraud or abuse. Surely all the money he's getting from the government is well-deserved and prudent.
