Source: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/04/09/making-the-most-of-crypto-mining-tax-breaks/

Cryptocurrency has become synonymous with terms like stock trading and investments. Although it is becoming more mainstream (you can buy it straight from your Venmo app), crypto is still a foreign concept to most. Unfortunately, since many people lack an understanding of it, the harms of cryptocurrency can go easily unnoticed. In the same vein as my civic issue blogs and issue brief, this blog will discuss one of cryptocurrency’s glaring issues: energy waste.

In case you don’t know how cryptocurrency works, here is some brief background information: cryptocurrency mining is the process of verifying and adding transactions to a network by solving complex mathematical problems using high-powered computers. “Miners” compete to solve these problems, and the first miner to solve the problem is rewarded with a certain amount of cryptocurrency. This process requires a significant amount of computational power and energy consumption, as the algorithms become more complex over time. In a sense, cryptocurrency is like a virtual diamond that tests the limits of what society will deem valuable.

As mentioned, cryptocurrency uses a lot of energy. Mining companies will line up computers in massive warehouses and let them churn out money. The most power-intensive Bitcoin mining operation, called Riot Platforms, uses the same amount of electricity as nearly 300,000 homes. These companies will purchase their electricity in advance which puts strain on the grid and costs far less than what an average homeowner would pay. Most of these operations were originally based in China, but after several recent government crackdowns on cryptocurrency, bitcoin mining companies began to pop up in the United States. With this new influx, power grids are starting to experience a unique slew of problems that these power monsters have caused.

When crises occur, these companies profit from others’ losses. For example, after a storm in Texas, Bitcoin mining company Bitdeer was ordered to shut off its power under an agreement that allowed it to do so if the system was about to fail. In return, it began paying the Bitcoin company, Bitdeer, an average of $175,000 an hour to keep the computers offline. Over the next four days, Bitdeer would make more than $18 million for not operating, from fees ultimately paid by Texans who had endured the storm. These companies are in a unique position where they can make more money by shutting off their services, as nothing bad happens to the company if they don’t mine and still get paid.

In addition to these issues, Bitcoin mining operations are causing serious damage to the environment. The New York Times discovered that 34 large Bitcoin operations in the United States were causing nearly 16.4 million tons of carbon pollution each year. These results are due to the fact that mining companies are creating an electricity demand that can only be satisfied with fossil fuels. Many power grids have a mix of renewable and fossil fuel sources, but when a constant supply of power is needed, these grids have no choice but to direct “dirty” electricity to these companies.

In conclusion, the energy consumption and environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining are serious concerns that need to be addressed. As the popularity of cryptocurrency continues to grow, so too does the demand for energy to power these operations. The massive amounts of electricity required for mining are putting a strain on power grids and causing environmental damage. It is crucial that steps are taken to reduce the energy waste of cryptocurrency mining, whether through the use of renewable energy sources or other means. It is important for individuals and companies involved in cryptocurrency to be aware of the harm they may be causing and take responsibility for their actions.

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html

Source: https://repository-images.githubusercontent.com/188660663/f7563980-8c7b-11e9-9035-bb7565431093

I was hoping to be done with my depressing Artificial Intelligence blogs, but I found another topic that was too good to pass up: scammers are using Artificial Intelligence powered voice cloning, and then extorting money from others in a variety of ways. For example, a few days ago a father received a phone call stating that his daughter was being held hostage and demanded a ransom be paid. To make matters worse, the scammer used a replica of the daughter’s voice to convince the father that she was in danger. Fortunately, her mother called the daughter’s cell phone and discovered that they had been duped. However, in many cases, the victims are not so lucky.

Another victim I found lost $15,449 when they sent a “lawyer” bitcoin in exchange for legal fees covering their son’s supposed car crash that killed a U.S. diplomat. The combination of the impossibilities of tracking cryptocurrency transactions and anonymous phone calls has left the police with little recourse of action, and the victim will probably never recover the money.

So who is in danger of this possible scam? Usually, I answer this question by citing some news article or paper, but I wanted to try to find out for myself how hard it would be to pull off such a scam. I figured out pretty quickly that anyone who can use the internet can achieve frightening results in a short matter of time.

A quick google search revealed several services that will do comprehensive voice cloning for only a few dollars. Check out https://www.resemble.ai/ if you want to try it yourself for free through the free trial. On the other hand, if someone is tech savvy and doesn’t need high-quality audio (especially if the planned method of delivery is through a phone) they can train an Artificial Intelligence model and get decent results within a couple of hours. As a computer science student, I chose this route, and I discovered that some projects can operate on as little as 5 seconds of clean audio to produce unlimited convincing speech. Here’s the project I was using: https://github.com/CorentinJ/Real-Time-Voice-Cloning, and here is a quick demo of the software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_hYhToKoA&ab_channel=CorentinJemine.

Anyways, after my research, I have concluded that anyone with more than 5 seconds of uninterrupted identifiable audio on the internet is at risk. A few years ago, voice cloning was only something accomplished in movies and research centers with hours of perfectly curated audio recordings, but now, millions of people with a digital footprint can have their likeness copied and used maliciously. The implications are horrifying, and as more Artificial Intelligence technology becomes available to the public, this is only one way that people are going to weaponize it. As Artificial Intelligence becomes more accessible, it is important for individuals to be aware of the risks and take precautions to protect themselves. Only through collaboration and awareness can we ensure that the benefits of Artificial Intelligence are maximized while minimizing the risks such as voice cloning.

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/ai-can-replicate-voices-in-high-tech-phone-call-scams-ftc-warns-167092293563

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/05/ai-voice-scam/

Source: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107216138-1680003265064-gettyimages-1225909164-20191205_1335_2.jpeg?v=1680012218&w=929&h=523&vtcrop=y

I’ve been trying to avoid writing a depressing Artificial Intelligence blog for a while, but I couldn’t resist the urge after several news outlets began to show off a new report from Goldman Sachs that focuses on the impact of AI in the workplace. In short, researchers at Goldman Sachs discovered that 300 million jobs around the world are vulnerable to some degree of AI takeover. Here is one analogy from an Oxford researcher that I thought helped explain the dangers of AI integration: “Consider the introduction of GPS technology and platforms like Uber. Suddenly, knowing all the streets in London had much less value – and so incumbent drivers experienced large wage cuts in response, of around 10% according to our research. The result was lower wages, not fewer drivers.” In my previous blog about images being generated with AI, it is easy to see how AI could swiftly destroy the careers of contracted artists, such as logo designers, by creating numerous unskilled artists who just use AI to generate products faster and better than their competitors.

Multiple reports, including the Goldman Sachs report, highlighted US legal workers and administrative staff as particularly at risk from generative Artificial Intelligence. Other office jobs such as consulting, insurance, and data entry are also likely to be impacted. At the lower end of the spectrum, maintenance, construction, and cleaning jobs are the least likely to be automated, as they fall into a manual labor sector that can be difficult to automate.

However, Goldman Sachs estimated that AI integrations could result in a gradual increase of over 7% in the United States GDP (Gross Domestic Product value). In addition, according to the BBC, the UK government is eager to promote investments in AI, as they believe advances in AI will increase productivity. These reports portray AI as a tool to increase productivity with the unfortunate side effect of making several jobs obsolete. I believe that Artificial Intelligence will be a transformative force. For example, ChatGPT (the controversial all-purpose online program many of us have used) has not made assigning homework ineffective because it takes a personal touch to understand what an instructor actually wants out of a question. As a computer science major, I use ChatGPT to explain concepts that my instructors have badly explained during lectures. ChatGPT is a useful tool that increases my productivity, but it can’t outright do my homework because it doesn’t understand the open-ended questions that I have been given (many times I don’t understand them either). Right now, Artificial Intelligence is only as powerful as the user behind it. Akin to how search engines evolved, I believe AI will become easier to use as it advances.

All in all, 300 million jobs lost is a frightening statistic, but I don’t expect to see a significant problem for a while. In my opinion, as Artificial Intelligence advances, humans will have to work smarter and leave the low-level tasks for the machines as has happened many times in the past.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65102150

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/28/ai-automation-could-impact-300-million-jobs-heres-which-ones.html

Source: https://i.insider.com/592d7378b74af41b008b4fd2?width=1136&format=jpeg

On March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank failed after a bank run, marking the second-largest bank failure in United States history and the largest since the 2008 financial crisis. This was a catastrophic event, and it sent the government into full panic mode. Almost immediately, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation closed the bank and took over its management and assets. However, I know very little about the inner workings of the U.S. financial system, so I will be focusing on the ripples (tidal waves would be a more accurate metaphor) this event has had in the tech industry, specifically the startup sector. Silicon Valley is a crazy place for tech startups, as it has become the destination of choice for establishing technology businesses. Companies like Apple, Google, HP, Intel, Adobe, and eBay have placed their headquarters and have no plans on leaving anytime soon. Before I chose Penn State, I was considering schools in the area, as the opportunities for computer science grads there are extensive. Everyone is hiring in the hopes of becoming the next big tech company.

Before its collapse, Silicon Valley Bank was the glue that held local startups together. SVB was well known for courting risky startups that no other sane bank would take on. In addition, SVB had a special connection with its customers. They were highly flexible on repayment schedules, provided a variety of free services catered towards startups, and were even known to support failing companies if executives liked a sales pitch. According to several past customers, SVB was startup heaven. However, every gambler loses, and SVB lost everything. A risky bet in U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities went south after the Federal Reserve hiked up interest rates causing their investments to rapidly depreciate. If SVB had held onto investments, they might have made a profit, but instead, they sold them at a noticeable loss as a precaution. In the end, their cherished customers depleted their cash reserves and caused a run on the bank due to sheer fear caused by this choice.

After the collapse, CEOs were scrambling to find new ways to pay their employees. Unfortunately, the FDIC only insures up to $250,000 per customer/organization, and for most companies, a meager quarter of a million wouldn’t last a week. To prevent this from destroying the tech industry and causing a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, the government announced that it would make an exception and refund every penny, regardless of the total amount, to customers. So far, this strategy has worked and only a couple more banks have failed (if that is considered a success).

However, SVB is gone, and even if it returns, I doubt that it will ever be the same. Startups are inherently risky, and without a bank that can acknowledge and accept this risk, innovative ideas like Snapchat and BeReal may never survive the startup phase. SVB was unique and as their name suggests, they were an integral part of the Silicon Valley craze that many customers already miss.

Sources:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061115/why-silicon-valley-startup-heaven.asp

https://www.wired.com/story/wine-skiing-and-loans-how-silicon-valley-bank-became-startups-best-friend/

https://www.wired.com/story/silicon-valley-bank-svb-the-weekend-silicon-valley-stared-into-the-abyss/

 

Source: https://cdn.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/tiktok-news-627a589cc98ff-sej-1280×720.png

The Chinese-owned company, TikTok by ByteDance, has created a controversy that is making its way back into Washington after several years since its inception. Donald Trump’s original tirade against TikTok made national news, so you might have heard about big scary terms like “data privacy crisis” or “algorithm manipulation”. These allegations were never successful in getting TikTok banned in the United States, but they did cause a new regulation to go into effect that stated TikTok must not be installed on government-provided mobile devices. Unfortunately, several lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are once again calling for the immediate ban of the most popular social media app.

So why are people worried about a simple app? The primary reason for their concern is that TikTok is owned by ByteDance which is a Chinese-based company. Due to the structure of the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has immense power over how Chinese companies operate. In this case, many U.S. lawmakers are concerned that the Chinese government has direct access to a gigantic database of information TikTok has gathered from Americans. However personal information such as email addresses, phone numbers, and contacts are only part of their data security concerns. Lawmakers are worried that TikTok’s algorithm is so powerful that it can collect ultra-personal information. For example, through analysis of widespread interests and behavioral analysis, hypothetically the Chinese government could learn about American psychology at an intimate level and weaponize this information. In addition, there are concerns that the Chinese government could manipulate swaths of citizens by subtly adding propaganda to a user’s watch queue.

In my own highly unqualified opinion, the latter seems to be straight out of a dystopian novel like 1984. However, ByteDance was caught spying on journalists by tracking their physical location via IP address. In a failed attempt to plug leaks exposing the company’s cryptic connections the CCP, a team led by ByteDance’s chief internal auditor tracked several Forbes journalists. If this sounds bad, that’s because it is. Although ByteDance swiftly fired everyone involved, this incident demonstrated that TikTok can and will use its power in an authoritarian-inspired fashion. Forbes has continued to thrash TikTok with investigative reporting, and several other similar incidents have occurred since the controversy began.

These incidents have given lawmakers the perfect leverage they need to continue their crusade against the tech giant. In response, TikTok has recently doubled down and increased its lobbying efforts (with almost no success). In addition, TikTok plans to give U.S.-based company Oracle complete control over any American data. With these new safeguards, TikTok is attempting to separate itself from the CCP and build trust in the United States. TikTok CEO even claims that if the CCP were to request American data, they have no obligation to provide it. There is skepticism about the validity of this claim, but it does indicate a change in TikTok’s company strategy. Overall, TikTok has a long fight ahead of them, and it may be a while until we stop seeing the headline “TikTok Ban” every other week.

Sources:

https://www.wired.com/story/us-congress-tiktok-ban-privacy-law/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/15/ceo-tiktok-exclusive-interview/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/03/tiktok-delete-advice/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/12/22/tiktok-tracks-forbes-journalists-bytedance/?sh=a477dce7da57

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-praise-successful-downing-suspected-chinese-spy-balloon/story?id=96897346

A few days ago, a strange ball appeared in the sky over Alaska. A couple of days later, the ball was hovering ominously over Montana, and you might have seen ridiculous videos of people trying to shoot it down despite being explicitly told by the government not to. So, what was this thing? This simple question has generated a diplomatic crisis and raised some interesting questions regarding the motivations of the Chinese government.

According to the Chinese government, the supposed manufacturer of this device, this object was an innocent weather balloon designed to record innocent weather balloon things. However, the United States military vehemently denies this, and they claim that it is a surveillance drone that has violated our sovereign airspace.

This slight disagreement has led to a cascade of diplomatic action, the first being U.S. Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, canceling his trip to Beijing. In response, the Chinese government has pushed its side of the story harder and is attempting to stabilize the tension. The event has proved to be embarrassing for China because even if the UFO is a weather balloon as claimed, they are to blame for it drifting off course, causing panic, and shutting down airports.

So why wasn’t the balloon shot down immediately? Why did the U.S. military wait until it drifted over the Atlantic Ocean to pop it? The official answer is that there would be too much dangerous debris crashing down on American civilians if the UFO was to be destroyed over land. If this is true, the surveillance drone must not have been as deadly a threat as the U.S. government claimed.

In fact, a surveillance drone like this does not pose a serious threat to national security because China’s large reconnaissance satellite network has far greater capabilities than a single surveillance balloon. In addition, the U.S. was jamming all communications from the balloon, so anything it did record is now in the hands of the U.S. government. All in all, thanks to a precision missile strike that left the electronics intact to “gently” splash into the Atlantic instead of a field in Montana, the U.S. government may gain valuable intel from this encounter.

So why did the Chinese government allow this to occur? In the last decade, a variety of Chinese surveillance drones have been showing up in odd places, and these UFOs have been the cause of many new conspiracy theories. Perhaps one of these just got lost and drifted into American airspace. However, this would imply that the spy balloon just happened to fly over top-secret airbases on accident: a theory that the Pentagon is skeptical to believe in. The alternative is puzzling as well: the Chinese government deliberately dispatched an unnecessary spy balloon to fly a mission that would violate international law, cause significant diplomatic damage, generate more anti-Chinese propaganda, be unable to transmit any gathered intel, and result in the inevitable capture of precious surveillance technologies by a rival foreign power. If this is all true, I have no idea what the goal of this mess was.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/us/politics/balloon-congress-surveillance-report.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/us/politics/ufo-military-reports.html

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/02/05/moment-china-spy-balloon-shot-vo-acostanr-vpx-sot.cnn

 

Stability AI, the creator of Stable Diffusion, is being sued for copyright violations. If you are a normal human and don’t know what Stable Diffusion is, here is a summary: Stable Diffusion is a powerful artificial intelligence that can create images in a variety of different styles ranging from hand-drawn to realism.

To do this, Stability AI has scraped massive amounts of data, including images, from all corners of the internet to train the model that powers this tool. A recent study discovered that a chunk of these collected images originated from Getty Images. Unfortunately, Getty Images is now suing Stability AI on the grounds of copy infringement. They claim that Stability AI is siphoning revenue from their artists, and they are trying to protect artists from this blatant copyright infringement scheme.

However, Stability AI countered by stating, “Anyone that believes that this isn’t fair use does not understand the technology and misunderstands the law.” Since Stable Diffusion is purely generative, I would understand how their process could be considered transformative. On the other hand, I also recognize why Getty Images feels slighted, as raw data was copied straight from their site.

One abnormality, in this case, is the fact that Getty Images released a press statement about the issue before contacting the company about the ensuing legal action. Effectively, Stability AI found out about the lawsuit through tweets and news stations long before receiving formal documentation.

In my opinion, this conveys an obvious goal: Getty Images wants to set a precedent by turning this into a public fiasco instead of pursuing monetary damages as expected. Considering recent developments, such as ChatGPT which can write original essays in seconds, I understand why creative platforms would be worried about the rise of “creative” artificial intelligence models. Therefore, sites like Getty Images could secure their future by squashing anything that challenges their business strategy.

On the other hand, what distinguishes a computer model from a trained artist in this case? Both have built their skillset from a vast variety of images, and both have been tailored to output specific products: one customized digitally and one customized biologically. Artists use inspiration to start projects all the time, and some even outright copy in the music world. Stable Diffusion never copies, and no two produced images are the same.

Even stranger, Stability AI did not acquire the data themselves, so I’m not sure how Getty Images can accuse the company of their policy of web scraping. Common Crawl, the company responsible, is a nonprofit organization that releases massive data sets from the internet periodically for free. If Getty Images was truly concerned about their artists using money, they would target the organization responsible for “violating” the law.

All in all, I think this lawsuit is a façade, and I doubt Getty Images is interested in winning the lawsuit at all. They just want to create panic among artists and create support for laws banning generative artificial intelligence. So before you believe any news about half-researched accusations regarding AI copyright infringements, consider what the attacker’s goal is and what that says about the future.

Sources:

https://waxy.org/2022/08/exploring-12-million-of-the-images-used-to-train-stable-diffusions-image-generator/

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64285227

https://commoncrawl.org/

 

source: https://i.insider.com/61e8b0b27c6a20001842ac8e?width=2000&format=jpeg&auto=webp

As a computer science major, this is a topic that hits close to home: over the past couple of weeks,

the tech giants, and small companies alike, have been laying off massive swaths of their workforce.

Thousands of software engineers and other tech workers have been fired as tech companies finally

realize that the massive tech bubble the pandemic created is finally bursting.

 

The reason for these layoffs is simple: tech companies simply overhired and increased investments

in a rocky but promising economic period. At the start of the pandemic, the economy dropped to

recession-level lows, but technology stocks surged at an impressive pace. Everyone had transitioned

to online life, and tech companies naturally scaled to accommodate this rapid growth. Interest

rates were low, so startups could easily borrow money and operate at a no-profit model for long

periods of time. This frenzy led top tech executives to accept several fallacies: they believed that the

world was changed forever, society’s online presence would only continue to grow, and the tech

industry was at the beginning of exponential growth. As tech giants expanded, everyone else

followed suit and pushed the bubble to its breaking point.

 

Personally, I hate existing in a solely digital environment. I hate zoom classes. I hate only texting my

friends all the time, and most of all, I hate the lack of in-person social interaction. I know many

other people agree with me because after the pandemic calmed down a bit, we mostly went straight

back to normalcy and distanced ourselves from the digital world. Then inflation hit hard, and the

federal government increased interest rates to combat record-level inflation. This was a recipe

for disaster as startups could no longer borrow large amounts of money without a solid plan for

paying the money back in a timely fashion. As startups and smaller businesses ground to a halt, the

larger tech companies also faced serious problems due to a decreasing number of users and poor

returns on investments. The surge had ended, and now tech companies were forced to stop

expanding and cut the extra employees that they had onboarded during the pandemic.

 

This hits close to home because many companies have now implemented hiring freezes, and as I

look for internships and entry-level jobs, the competition is only going to get harder. Of course tech

giants still have immense amounts of capital (some earn more than small countries), but the tech

industry may be in for a slow recovery.

sources: https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-layoffs-tech-ceo-pandemic-boom-last-forever-dumb-mistake-2022-11

source: https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/sites/default/files/img/articles/issue_-_spring_2021_-_pinkusb.png

 

The first amendment is one of the most treasured pieces of legislation ever created. I would

argue, it makes America the free nation it is today. However, we’ve all seen the effects of

widespread disinformation across social media platforms. Recently, disinformation about the

pandemic arguably caused serious health problems for those who believed it. However, there is a

big difference between disinformation and misinformation. For example, during the pandemic,

there were several Tweets and public announcements containing coronavirus precautions that were

later found to be incorrect. Public health officials were striving for accuracy, but the situation was

evolving too rapidly for 100% factual information. Are people always right? Of course not, and we

shouldn’t exempt experts from this rule.

 

All this to say, free speech is messy from the very start, as an evaluation of the motive behind the

communication is necessary to label something as misinformation or disinformation. Turning to

what we consider to be disinformation, what even makes it illegal? This is a tricky answer, and as a

student with a very limited background in first amendment protections, the simple answer is that

people disagree a lot on this.

 

The worst part about the free speech discussion is that now individuals test the line between illegal

and legal free speech every second. For example, the platform Twitter, whose new owner now

champions it as a free speech tool, is filled with unprecedented levels of communication. Due to

this, Twitter is filled with cases of people pushing the limit of what is covered by the first

amendment. Many times, people blatantly cross the line, but there is no possible way for the

platform to monitor every tweet or comment.

 

The bigger question is how are our governments supposed to monitor what is considered free

speech when the companies themselves can’t do it? Lawmakers are trying to force companies to

crack down on platform regulation by threatening to remove their special protection that grants

them immunity from any consequences a user’s posts may face. This only doubles the problem, as

companies can’t keep up with the number of users on their site.

 

Overall, free speech is great. What’s not great is when people spew legal but borderline illegal

messages across social media. There needs to be a change in how we view free speech. We’re not in

the era of our biggest concern being the freedom of the press. We live in the information era, and

now harmful messages protected under “free speech” are harming the gullible.

Sources: https://www.theverge.com/23435358/first-amendment-free-speech-midterm-elections-courts-hypocrisy

Elon Musk is finally inching towards a deal to complete his bid to purchase the entirety of Twitter.

After months of legal chess games and manipulation, the cash is finally starting to roll out, and if all

goes according to plan, Elon Musk will own one of the largest social media platforms in a completely

private capacity. If you know anything about Twitter, it is an enigmatic environment to say the least.

Official accounts mingle with “commoners”, and significant conversations between billionaires and

governments occur in public for all to see. Personally, I avoid Twitter, as the onslaught of opposing

ideologies can be overwhelming and depressing. For others, Twitter is the platform of choice to

express themselves and share their opinions. Twitter is also the primary method of communication

for many individuals and businesses, and as such, it has found an influential spot as a professional

tool.

 

Now the richest man in the world is buying it. All of it. This concerns me for several reasons: there

are already too many sectors of the world controlled by small entities with too much power, Musk is

eccentric, and the consequences of this becoming a larger trend would be devastating. Mark

Zuckerberg controls a majority of Facebook’s shares, Jeff Bezos recently stepped down as CEO of

Amazon but still controls the majority of shares, and many more aspects of life are being controlled

by small groups of elites. Consolidation like this exacerbates the already extreme wealth inequality

in the United States and alienates ordinary people from the opportunities to flourish were was part

of the American dream. In summary, this is horrendous for the American spirit. Our government’s

inaction to promote healthy competition is destroying the ideologies that motivate individuals to

pursue success.

 

In addition, contingent upon the purchase, Elon Musk will have enormous power over domestic and

international affairs. Elon Musk is not known for being a good Samaritan, nor is he unambitious

enough not to use his new weapon in conquests. With authority over Twitter, Musk could potentially

censor dissenting messages, although he has repeatedly declared he is a proponent of free speech

and hopes his rivals will remain active on the platform. One does not become the wealthiest person

in the world by practicing pure altruism, and as such, I am highly skeptical that Twitter as a

company will remain neutral in the near future.

 

No one knows what the outcome of this transaction will be, but there are a few possible positive

outcomes even if Elon Musk has no malicious intent.

Sources: https://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-begin-to-fund-13-billion-in-debt-backing-elon-musks-twitter-takeover-11666824554