Responding to a Musk Supporter

Why do we live in different political realities? I have been wondering about this for the last eight years. I am really feeling this right now since Musk violated the laws of our country by accessing information, he has no legal or ethical right to possess unless I decide to give it to him. In my world EVERYONE is outraged. In my world nobody would want this to happen. I was, surprise-surprise, wrong. It seems there is at least one person that thinks Musk is doing the right thing.

One of my cousin’s posted a message on Facebook:

Elon Musk is a Special Government Employee.” What does that mean?

One of her Facebook friends (male, white) commented that he trusts Elon Musk more than anyone else to do the job of auditing our government programs and finances and gave his reasons why. Obviously, I do not agree that Musk is trustworthy nor do I believe that any one person should be given the power to have access to citizens private information.

Here is my response to the points made by this individual. I first present the statement they used to justify Musk’s qualifications, followed by my rebuttal. I am sharing this for those who may find it helpful to counter arguments in support of Musk as he continues to violate the law and the Constitution.

1. "Elon has more money than he can spend, he doesn’t need your identity or your money."

Wealth does not equate to ethical behavior or disinterest in power and control. Historically, billionaires and large corporations have collected user data not for personal wealth but for influence, control, and monetization. Data is more valuable than money in the digital age.

Musk's ventures, including X (formerly Twitter), Tesla, and Neuralink, all benefit from data collection and public influence. His business model thrives on user engagement and trust, not just financial capital.

2. "He's saved free speech with Twitter by firing 80% of their workforce for censoring facts."

Firing employees en masse does not automatically equate to "saving free speech." Many of those employees were responsible for platform security, content moderation, and policy enforcement. Twitter has since faced increased misinformation, spam, and bot issues.

Free speech does not mean zero moderation. Even Musk himself has banned users and suppressed content he dislikes (e.g., journalists covering him critically).

3. "He's been given this job to find out where all our taxpayer money has been going and is actually doing his job!"

Who "gave" Musk this job? He is not an elected official nor appointed by any government oversight body.

Auditing government spending is the role of official institutions like the GAO (Government Accountability Office) and Inspectors General. A private billionaire acting as a self-appointed auditor raises questions of legitimacy, bias, and potential conflicts of interest.

4. "Banks get breached often, but with Elon, you may actually learn who stole your data and they may see justice."

X (Twitter) has already had security and privacy issues under Musk’s leadership, including insider leaks and the removal of key security staff.

There is no evidence Musk has a better track record of holding criminals accountable than established institutions. His own companies have faced lawsuits for data privacy violations.

5. "Turn off the news. It's told you Biden was a good president. Innocent people don’t pardon themselves."

News bias exists, but dismissing all media as untrustworthy is dangerous. Independent and investigative journalism plays a key role in accountability.

Self-pardoning is a complex legal issue, but using it as sole proof of guilt is misleading. Presidential pardons have been used by multiple administrations, including Trump’s.

6. "Trump and Elon are being 'transparent' and proving action rather than making promises."

Transparency means accountability. Musk has been criticized for opaque decision-making, firing employees who dissent, and suppressing information about X’s internal workings.

Trump has faced allegations of concealing financial records and refusing cooperation with government investigations. Transparency should be evaluated based on objective access to information, not just rhetoric.

7. "The last four years have been full of economic struggles, censorship, and corruption—now we can prove it!"

Economic struggles are real, but they are influenced by global factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical events (e.g., the war in Ukraine).

"Censorship" should be distinguished from content moderation. Every major platform, including X under Musk, still moderates content to some degree.

Proof of corruption should come through legal institutions and bipartisan investigations, not just social media claims.

8. "Musk was given the job to audit the government—it should be a two-way street."

There is no formal role that designates Musk as a government auditor. Private individuals can question government spending, but oversight should come from neutral, democratic institutions.

If Musk is auditing the government, who audits Musk? His businesses receive significant taxpayer subsidies and government contracts. Shouldn’t he be subject to the same scrutiny?

9. "Musk lost money to protect free speech, knowing people would use it against him."

Musk may have lost money, but his investment in X is also a strategic move to control a major communication platform. His financial losses are not necessarily a sign of altruism.

He also has restricted speech when it affects him directly, demonstrating selective enforcement rather than pure free speech advocacy.

10. "If not Musk, then who?"

No single individual should be responsible for government accountability. Democracies function through checks and balances, not reliance on one powerful figure.

Investigative journalists, government watchdogs, independent regulators, and bipartisan committees are better suited to oversee transparency and accountability than any one billionaire.

Conclusion:

While Musk has made significant contributions in technology and business, the argument that he alone is a defender of free speech, government accountability, and transparency is questionable. True oversight requires institutional checks, legal accountability, and democratic processes—not just the actions of a single wealthy individual.