Summary

Elon Musk, the wealthiest person on Earth, faces significant conflicts of interest with the federal government across six areas tied to his business empire:

  • Tesla is under investigation for autopilot safety issues and labor violations.
  • SpaceX relies on billions in federal contracts while facing environmental scrutiny.
  • X (formerly Twitter) is under SEC investigation for stock manipulation and data privacy concerns.
  • xAI faces accusations of environmental racism and lacks AI regulation.
  • Neuralink is scrutinized for unethical animal testing by the FDA.
  • Musk’s cryptocurrency holdings are subject to financial oversight, including fraud and tax regulations.

Critics warn Musk’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency” could weaken accountability and benefit his ventures by reducing regulatory oversight.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    When you can buy yourself a government for a tiny fraction of your wealth, you have no conflicts of interest. You are the only interested party.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      14 days ago

      What’s worse, is he made it back and then some. His net worth increased by $104B within 30 days of the election.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      Truly anyone who frames this as a hard problem to solve must be self-limiting.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      No, you don’t understand, he is now parading his youngest kid everywhere (while neglecting all his other children), so he’s totally relatable and also totally not using a human being as a prop!

  • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    Conflicts of interest are not something that matter anymore. I think they should matter, but American voters have decided that they don’t. Not much point in discussing it.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Getting sick of this defeatist attitude on Lemmy.

      There is absolutely still a point in discussing. For fucks sake.

      Edit: sorry to single homie out, it’s not them, it’s an air on the platform. Just hijacking this comment for visibility. Sorry Holmes.

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yeah this assumes some sort of constitutional rule of law universally applied and social contract, neither exist anymore when anyone is above the law