Simba
The world’s first half-trillionaire has a problem. Not a small problem, like “my yacht’s helicopter pad is too small” or “I accidentally bought another social media platform.” No, Elon Musk’s problem is that 2.9 million Tesla vehicles—equipped with technology marketed as “Full Self-Driving”—are now under federal investigation for committing traffic violations that would get a 16-year-old’s license suspended. The cars are driving on the wrong side of the road, running red lights, and generally behaving like they learned to drive from a Grand Theft Auto speedrun. But here’s the beautiful part: if you own the town square, you don’t need to address the angry mob. You just need to make sure they’re looking somewhere else.
Welcome to the Musk Industrial Complex, where controlling both the product and the media platform creates a synergy so dystopian that even George Orwell would say “actually, maybe dial it back a bit.”
The Evidence: When “Self-Driving” Means “Self-Endangering”
Let’s start with the facts that won’t appear on Musk’s timeline. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system after receiving 58 reports of vehicles violating basic traffic laws—the kind of laws that exist because we’ve collectively agreed that driving into oncoming traffic is, medically speaking, bad for longevity. The investigation encompasses approximately 2.9 million vehicles, which is roughly the population of Chicago, except these Chicagoans are two-ton machines capable of 0-60 in 3 seconds while apparently believing that traffic signals are mere suggestions.
The violations aren’t minor infractions. We’re talking about cars crossing into opposing lanes, running red lights, and demonstrating a general contempt for the social contract that prevents our roads from becoming Mad Max: Fury Road cosplay events. This is the same technology that Tesla has marketed with the confidence of a snake oil salesman who’s discovered that modern snake oil can be sold for $15,000 as a software upgrade.
The timing is exquisite. Musk recently crossed the half-trillion-dollar wealth threshold—the first human to achieve this milestone—thanks largely to Tesla’s soaring stock price. Tesla’s market capitalization sits around $800 billion, built on the promise that it’s not just a car company, but a robotaxi company, an AI company, an energy company, and presumably a colonization company for when we inevitably ruin this planet. The FSD technology is central to this narrative. It’s the difference between Tesla being valued like Ford (practical, boring, makes cars) versus being valued like a tech company (visionary, disruptive, might make Skynet).
But here’s where the con becomes baroque: Musk also owns X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, which he purchased for $44 billion with the stated mission of protecting free speech and creating a “global town square.” This acquisition gave him something more valuable than another revenue stream—it gave him editorial control over his own press coverage.
The Absurdity: Curating Reality at Industrial Scale
Let’s examine Musk’s recent activity on X with the scrutiny of a forensic accountant reviewing a Ponzi scheme’s books. His pinned tweet? An advertisement for Grok Imagine, the AI image generator from his other company, xAI. Below that: retweets praising the Tesla Model 3, announcements about free service manuals (how generous for the cars that may need them after driving into oncoming traffic), recruitment ads, and breathless reports about the Model S being named one of the world’s greatest inventions.
Conspicuously absent: any mention of the federal investigation into his company’s flagship technology feature potentially turning public roads into Russian roulette chambers.
A keyword search for “Tesla” on his timeline yields promotional material, user testimonials, and corporate announcements. What it doesn’t yield is accountability, transparency, or anything resembling the journalistic duty that one might expect from someone who controls what he insists is the world’s most important platform for free speech.
This is gaslighting at an industrial scale, a digital Potemkin village where the richest man alive gets to decide which realities deserve attention. It’s the equivalent of Philip Morris buying every newspaper in America and then using that platform exclusively to discuss the health benefits of deep breathing exercises.
The strategy is simultaneously brilliant and horrifying. When you control both the product narrative (Tesla’s marketing) and the media platform (X’s algorithm and visibility), you don’t need to address criticism—you simply drown it in a flood of positive counter-narratives. It’s not censorship in the traditional sense; it’s more like weaponized distraction, the algorithmic equivalent of jingling keys in front of a crying baby.
Consider the tragic poetry: Musk positions himself as a free speech absolutist, the defender of the digital commons against censorious tech oligarchs. Yet when his own company faces legitimate regulatory scrutiny over public safety concerns, that “town square” becomes remarkably quiet about town square issues. The man who reinstated controversial accounts in the name of transparency has apparently decided that transparency doesn’t extend to acknowledging when your autonomous vehicles are autonomously violating traffic laws.
The Judgment: Billionaire Gaslighting as Business Model
Here’s what we’re witnessing: the convergence of media power and corporate power into a closed-loop system where accountability becomes optional. Frank Abagnale, the subject of “Catch Me If You Can,” impersonated pilots and doctors to commit fraud. Musk doesn’t need to impersonate anyone—he simply uses his actual roles as CEO, platform owner, and influencer to construct a reality where bad news doesn’t exist if he doesn’t amplify it.
The NHTSA investigation isn’t some fringe conspiracy theory or hit piece from legacy media skeptics. It’s a federal safety investigation into technology that could literally kill people. The appropriate response from someone who claims to champion transparency would be to address it directly, explain the safety measures being implemented, and demonstrate the kind of corporate responsibility that justifies a half-trillion-dollar valuation.
Instead, we get tweets about Grok teaching you Spanish and the Model 3’s latest accolades. It’s the business equivalent of a restaurant owner responding to health code violations by posting pictures of the clean silverware while the kitchen burns.
This isn’t just about Elon Musk or Tesla. It’s about what happens when one person accumulates enough power to control both the narrative and the platform for discussing that narrative. It’s about the fundamental corruption that occurs when the referee also owns one of the teams. It’s about how “free speech” becomes a cudgel to demand that others platform all perspectives while using your own platform as a highly curated PR department.
The federal government is investigating whether your cars can safely navigate basic traffic laws. That’s not negative press to be managed with clever social media strategy—it’s a fundamental question about whether your core technology works as advertised. The fact that this investigation is more visible on competitors’ platforms than on the one you own and describe as the world’s essential town square tells you everything you need to know about whose interests are being served.
What’s your experience with Tesla’s FSD? Have you noticed the conspicuous absence of negative Tesla news on X? Is controlling both the product and the platform the ultimate form of market manipulation, or just smart business?
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings