저자: Sharon/출연자TedPark · 외국인
요약 보기
테슬라는 머스크의 관심 분산(SpaceX·AI·Grok)으로 실적이 부진하고 주가가 2026년 들어 20%+ 하락했다. 투자자들이 실망하고 있으며 1조 달러 보상안도 실효성이 낮다고 주장. 또한 X(트위터) 알고리즘은 댓글(분노·갈등) 반응을 과도하게 반영해 민주당 성향 사용자에게 자극적 콘텐츠를 더 노출시켰다는 연구를 소개. 진행자는 머스크의 경영 능력과 테슬라 미래를 강하게 부정적으로 평가.
다듬은 글
Elon Musk has become so inadequate that even some of his most loyal fans are starting to lose faith in him . In particular, due to the lack of attention to Tesla, which, let me remind you and him, is the company he runs. He doesn't seem to think much of her , even though he's technically their leader.
So, one of the fans we mentioned is Ted Park, and that's how much of a fan he really is. He believes in Tesla. He believes in the company so much that he once put his children in the path of a Tesla in full autopilot mode to prove that the technology was safe enough not to run them over. That's a pretty high level of devotion, and one that probably deserves to have his children taken away from him, right?
So, am I acting like a scumbag now? Well, you can't do that, right? In any case, putting children at risk aside, Park began to worry that the man he worshipped was too focused on SpaceX in particular. Not to mention the dozen other companies he allegedly runs. So he says, "We just really, really want Musk to focus more on Tesla." So I think it has become a sore point.
In any case, he loves Tesla so much that he borrowed money to invest more in it , which is quite possible for a rich person who gets cheap money . For an ordinary person, this is a rather risky step. And for some of them, the risk didn't pay off, as Tesla shares have fallen more than 20% since the start of 2026, a year when Musk really seems to be focused on SpaceX and , in particular, AI.
He has n't even been talking much about robots lately. But be that as it may , Tesla reported a year-over-year decline in profits, even despite a 26% increase in revenue . Profits are falling, and according to Bradford Ferguson, founder of investment group Rebellion Air, Tesla investors are confused and some feel betrayed.
He points to the company's approval last year of a pay package worth about a trillion dollars, designed to ensure Musk's focus on the automaker; but that didn't happen. It seems that Tesla has faded into the background. Let me be brief: Even if it had worked, was it worth promising him a trillion dollars to finally start doing his job?
Are there no executives who are willing to do the work for already huge money without a trillion dollars looming before their eyes? And the funniest thing is, he accepts this deal and then doesn't think about Tesla at all; he goes off to do a million other things, like Grok, image generation , digital girls, and all that.
A trillion dollars is n't even that much of a stimulus. And, by the way, pay attention to this in the near future. You know how they talk about Tesla merging with SpaceX, X AI and all that? Presumably, if he did, there are ways to get around some of the specific requirements for getting the trillion dollars.
So, as in other cases where he manipulated the system, he can actually steal this trillion without achieving the performance metrics that were set for him. So it will be a good joke at their expense . Anyway, back to Ted Park. He was quite blunt about what he wanted Musk to do, saying, "This is not a startup anymore.
If you're a trillion- dollar company, if you're almost a trillion-dollar company, you need to have some realistic goals. But they clearly don't have any. " They don't even seem to have any goals when it comes to cars. For example, what Teslas are expected in the future? What big updates to their bestsellers are they finally going to introduce?
They have n't updated these cars for years, much longer than other automakers. What about new models? What about a cheaper model? What about a truck that isn't a Cybertruck? Do they have anything in development? Oh, they have that jet- powered Roadster they've been talking about for ten years. When will it come out?
But it's not just me acting like a scumbag or something. I focus on this because they focus on jobs. Jobs, of which there are supposed to be millions on our streets by the end of this year. This is what Elon Musk said. Does anyone even believe this will happen? And look , I'm glad to see that some of his longtime supporters are starting to question him or something.
I would say: man, you're years behind the times . You have to wake up sometime. Sharon, what do you think? Yes, these people who followed him, this cult thing—it was a mistake from the beginning. Pursue greatness, but also question it, but don't end up where we are now, with a person who, ironically, is incredibly greedy, but there's not enough money in the world to make her do her job and focus on what she needs to do .
This is a farce. It's like that magic trick they show, I don't know, at some cheap fair or something, but that's exactly what he got himself into . You can take a trillion dollars, subtract a trillion, add 2,500, and I'll agree to this deal . This isn't... This might not be great, you know? But it would be better than nothing.
As you said, there are no new cars, there are no new... Not even that shine, that enthusiasm, none of that, because he doesn't care. He switched to what was inside him, in his brain, stimulating him. Yes. You know, is that true, and is he still obsessed with Grok? I think so, he's a big Grok fan. He's a big fan...It's...It's just weird that he and Trump are so similar.
These are the guys everyone considers competent, considers geniuses. This is all just hype. They are scammers. They were calling out to the fair. And they both get bored so quickly. Yes. And yet there are people whose financial well-being depends on them doing their job, and they say, "I'll trust this person to manage." when they can't even stand a week of consistent work and thinking about that company.
I don't...I don't know why they don't wake up. Tesla could exist without Elon Musk. Let me remind everyone, he doesn't build cars. The only thing that seems to have been his direct idea was the Cybertruck, and we all know how that ended. He is not an engineer. He is not an inventor. He is not a programmer.
Tesla could do much better without Elon Musk . And someday it will be so. But for now, let's talk about what he did with his other product. A new study shows that Elon Musk has turned Twitter into even more chaos than we previously thought, and it appears to have been done quite deliberately. So, this study found that the site's algorithm prioritized a certain type of engagement over everything else when shaping a user's recommendation feed.
This is not a page with who you are following, which is what , in my opinion, should be on social networks. No, this is a page with algorithmically generated suggestions made by Twitter. If you've been using Twitter for the past few years, you probably know that no matter who you follow or what interests you express, you'll still be pushed tweets from Matt Walsh.
You will be shown Donald Trump, Republican politicians, and, above all, Elon Musk. So, he is biased in a lot of different obvious ways. But one manifestation of this bias is that it apparently shows more provocative content to people who identify as Democrats than to Republicans. It's not entirely clear why, but here's how it works roughly.
Therefore, the aim of the study was to understand how a user's declared value system can shape what they see on Twitter. They say: “We recruited a nationally representative sample of 715 Americans who were active Twitter users in September and October 2024, matched by ethnicity , gender, and party affiliation, to install a browser extension to collect data from their For You and Following feeds.” This way, they have complete data about exactly what users saw.
They compiled what they call a volunteer values inventory , using a research tool called Schwartz's Core Values Theory . Essentially, it is a set of different values, represented as a circle with 19 points, corresponding to traits such as tolerance, dominance, hedonism, and openness to change. This is somewhat similar to the academic work I did when I worked at the university.
We used a different value system, but essentially we were trying to outline what's important to a person, how they prioritize, and all that. They also reported, independently indicating their own political views. So, when a Twitter user sees a post that makes them angry, such as a press release from a politician from a party they do n't like, they sometimes start arguing under that post in replies.
It doesn't matter who you follow or what your stated values are: Twitter reads replies as engagement and feeds you more of these infuriating posts. Of course, other emotional reactions can also prompt you to respond, but it has long been established that anger, disagreement, and conflict are the most likely to compel you to write a response.
Most participants liked and reposted the content on Twitter and received more of the same type of content. Responses were a relatively rare occurrence. This was only 6.8% of all interactions they had, but it had a much larger impact on the algorithm. The things you liked, the things you shared – although it would seem that this is what should drive the algorithm – actually it doesn't.
It is the answers that drive him. So, the fact that you liked the content, enjoyed it, wanted to show it to others – it would seem that this is what should guide your algorithm and shape social networks. No, instead, it happens when you get into arguments. This is exactly what he draws the most conclusions from.
And while this is only a tiny fraction of the interaction, there is a lot of evidence that this is what determines what your algorithm becomes. This is happening across the political spectrum now, but for some reason the provocative content he pushes at you has been much more prevalent for those who identify as Democrats.
They don't have a clear answer why, they're scientists, so they won't say that Twitter or Elon Musk have a political or ideological goal in creating these algorithms, but I'm not a scientist anymore. I can argue that this is what they do. They already pay the rights holders more for their content. They are more likely to impose the right content on people.
They are pushing Elon Musk's content even more in front of everyone's eyes. So, obviously there is bias. Why this is happening, we don't know. And according to Twitter, you do n't even need to worry about it. So, Nikita Bir is their former head of product. He confirmed on Twitter that the site's algorithm did exactly that.
However, they say, this is no longer true. The biggest driver of provocative content was the response predictor, and we knew that angry responses led people to see more of that content. So last month we increased the weight of the response predictor by 15 times for friends' posts, and that reduced the number of provocations by an order of magnitude.
Well, that sounds logical to me. Replies to friends' posts should have a stronger influence on the algorithm. Perhaps social media should be more about this. I really wish we could go back to social media being about people you know in real life. And I say this as a content creator, I don't care. I think it was better before.
But just keep in mind: they said in that post, "We did this last month." The study was based on data for 2024. They've been doing this for years. Driving Democrats crazy for years with this provocative content. And we may not know exactly why, Sharon, but I think we've all felt how annoying Twitter is, and how much of a waste of time it seems to me.
I don't know. What What do you think? Yes, I haven't been there in forever. I still have an account and probably some followers, but not enough, you know, to make it worth it or to put up with this nonsense. Um, when you look at it, and I'm not a technologist, so I'm not even sure if I understand this correctly , but when you look at what I think is happening on these platforms, where Twitter is leading the way, you can literally understand who is creating a herd instinct in society and a certain anger in society.
If it doesn't create it, it at least enhances it, okay? In high school too, okay? I just think that's a problem. And as for scientists, I understand. They, you know, look at the diagrams and keep everything within the bounds of theory. But you have to voice it. Someone is behind this, they are making money from it, and in my opinion, they are doing it intentionally.
So, Yes. I don't know, but it just isn't. If it seems wrong, it probably is. If it doesn't make us better, I don't know why we waste our time on it. Yes, and by the way, about investments, I'll just say briefly: he bought Twitter for a lot of money. It was a colossal sum, and everyone thought: well, he paid too much, and now they will earn even less.
This couldn't have been a good deal. You know, we don't really know what happened to all of this because of all the mergers he's doing. So, Twitter merged with Grok, merged with SpaceX, and everything else. Does anyone have any idea how much money Twitter is losing? He didn't He could He could just bring it to a pen for literally years because all of that has now sunk into SpaceX.
Does anyone else think this is just plain unfair , or shouldn't investors be concerned about this? That there is no hope that he will ever fix Twitter and make it a place that truly thrives, where people actually want to be. Very disappointing from my point of view.
Comments 0