Remember how Elon Musk destroyed Twitter by ripping apart its infrastructure without understanding it? Now imagine that same playbook applied to the federal government. It’s happening, and the stakes are exponentially higher. When reviewing Kate Conger and Ryan Mac’s book “Character Limit” last fall, I highlighted two devastating patterns in Musk’s management: his authoritarian impulse to (sometimes literally) demolish systems without understanding them, and his tendency to replace existing, nuanced solutions with far worse alternatives (even when those older systems probably did require some level of reform). Those same patterns are now threatening the federal government’s basic functions.

Let’s be crystal clear about what’s happening: A private citizen with zero Constitutional authority is effectively seizing control of critical government functions. The Constitution explicitly requires Senate confirmation for anyone wielding significant federal power — a requirement Musk has simply ignored as he installs his loyalists throughout the government while demanding access to basically all of the levers of power, and pushing out anyone who stands in his way.

The parallel to Twitter is striking and terrifying. At Twitter, Musk’s “reform” strategy transformed a platform used by hundreds of millions for vital communication into his personal megaphone, hemorrhaging somewhere between 60-85% of its revenue in the process. But Twitter was just a private company. Now he’s applying the same destructive playbook to the federal government, where the stakes involve not just user experience or advertising dollars, but the basic functioning of American democracy.

The constitutional violations here dwarf the Twitter debacle. Where Musk merely broke a social media platform through incompetence last time, he’s now breaking the actual mechanisms of governance —  and doing it with the same reckless playbook that turned Twitter into a ghost town. As Conger and Mac, who documented the Twitter disaster, point out, even the specific tactics are being recycled:

The email landed in employees’ inboxes with the subject line: “Fork in the Road.” The message in the email was stark: Accept a sweeping set of workplace changes or resign.

That was the note that millions of federal employees received around 5 p.m. on Tuesday. It echoed a similar message that thousands of workers at Twitter got from Elon Musk in late 2022 after he bought the company.

[….]

Mr. Musk, who also leads Tesla and SpaceX, has enlisted the help of a team of loyalists to assess agencies and make cuts, the same thing he did during the Twitter takeover.

Steve Davis, the head of Mr. Musk’s tunneling startup, The Boring Company, helped oversee cost-cutting at Twitter and now leads DOGE. Brian Bjelde, a longtime human resources executive at SpaceX who also helped during the Twitter takeover, is now an adviser to the Office of Personnel Management.

Michael Grimes, a top banker at Morgan Stanley who helped lead Mr. Musk’s Twitter acquisition, is expected to take a senior job at the Commerce Department.

One of Mr. Musk’s software engineers at Tesla, Thomas Shedd, was named the head of “Technology Transformation Services” at the General Services Administration, which helps manage federal agencies. Mr. Shedd promptly employed a Musk tactic: asking for proof of engineers’ technical chops.

Mr. Shedd asked for engineers to sign up for sessions in which they could share “a recent individual technical win,” according to an email sent to more than 700 employees on Tuesday night and viewed by The Times.

Wired, which has also noted the obvious parallels between Musk’s takeover of Twitter and the federal government (written by Zoe Schiffer, who also wrote an insightful book about the Twitter disaster) has an even more terrifying article about just how unqualified Musk’s goons are:

Sources say that Riccardo Biasini, formerly an engineer at Tesla and most recently director of operations for the Las Vegas Loop at the Boring Company, Musk’s tunnel-building operation, is also at OPM as a senior advisor to the director. (Steve Davis, the CEO of the Boring Company, is rumored to be advising Musk on cuts to be made via DOGE, and was integral in Musk’s gutting of Twitter, now X, after his takeover of the company in 2022.)

According to the same sources, other people at the top of the new OPM foodchain include two people with apparent software engineering backgrounds, whom WIRED is not naming because of their ages. One, a senior advisor to the director, is a 21-year-old whose online resume touts his work for Palantir, the government contractor and analytics firm cofounded by billionaire Peter Thiel, who is its chairman. (The former CEO of PayPal and a long-time Musk associate, Thiel is a Trump supporter who helped bankroll the 2022 Senate campaign of his protege, Vice President JD Vance.) The other, who reports directly to Scales, graduated high school in 2024, according to a mirrored copy of an online resume and his high school’s student magazine; he lists jobs as a camp counselor and a bicycle mechanic among his professional experiences, as well as a summer role at Neuralink, Musk’s brain-computer interface company.

Among the new highers-up at OPM is Noah Peters, an attorney whose LinkedIn boasts of his work in litigation representing the National Rifle Association and who has written for right-wing outlets like the Daily Caller and the Federalist; he is also now a senior advisor to the director. According to metadata associated with a file on the OPM website, Peters authored a January 27 memo that went out under acting OPM director Charles Ezell’s name describing how the department would be implementing one of Trump’s executive orders, “Restoring Accountability To Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce.” This has to do with what’s sometimes known as Schedule F—a plan to recategorize many civil service jobs as political appointees, meaning they would be tied to the specific agenda of an administration, rather than viewed as career government workers. The order would essentially allow for career certain civil servants to be removed in favor of Trump loyalists by classifying them as political appointees, a key part of the Project 2025 plan for remaking the government.

For all of Musk and fans whining about the hiring of “unqualified” people (which has been very clearly coded to mean non-white, non-male, non-cisgender), the fact that he’s hired a kid whose experience is “camp counselor” into a high-level position is fucking insane.

But this isn’t just about personnel changes. It’s about systematically dismantling government institutions from the inside out.

And it’s only getting more and more dangerous. It’s been reported (and a lawsuit has been filed over it) that the “fork in the road email” was sent via a hastily setup on-premises server that these idiots needed to do the email blast, even though that almost certainly violates federal law.

On top of that, there are multiple reports of Musk basically taking over various parts of the government. He apparently showed up at the General Services Administration on Thursday, just after his right-hand man in the Twitter shakeup, Steve Davis, told them they were ending a bunch of leases on government buildings (another thing that Twitter also did). Even worse, Wired reports that Musk’s friends are using the GSA to try to get access to a variety of systems, including remote access to laptops, and even reading emails of government employees.

There also appears to be an effort to use IT credentials from the executive office of the president to access GSA laptops and internal GSA infrastructure. Typically, access to agency systems requires workers to be employed at such agencies, sources say. While Musk’s team could be trying to obtain better laptops and equipment from GSA, sources fear that the mandate laid out in the DOGE executive order would grant the body broad access to GSA systems and data. That includes sensitive procurement data, data internal to all the system and services GSA offers, and internal monitoring software to surveil GSA employees as part of normal auditing and security processes.

The access could give Musk’s proxies the ability to remote into laptops, listen in on meetings, read emails, amongst many other things, a former Biden official told WIRED on Friday.

Then, on Friday morning, there were even scarier reports of him fighting with the longest tenured non-political employee at the Treasury Department, David Lebryk, leading Lebryk to resign after Musk demanded access to the US Treasury’s payment system.

Typically only a small number of career officials control Treasury’s payment systems. Run by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the sensitive systems control the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to households, businesses and more nationwide. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across the country rely on the systems, which are responsible for distributing Social Security and Medicare benefits, salaries for federal personnel, payments to government contractors and grant recipients and tax refunds, among tens of thousands of other functions.

But Musk demanded that he get to control it, apparently.

The highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department is departing after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks.

And it’s not that Lebryk had ideological disagreements. As the WaPo story notes:

“I could not, to this day, tell you his politics,” Faulkender, who served as an assistant secretary at Treasury during Trump’s first term, told The Washington Post at the time. “He always seemed to be relaxed and under control.”

But he got pushed out because Elon’s team wants control over the money spigot.

Then, later today, Reuters reported that Musk’s aides have locked career civil servants entirely out of government computer systems.

Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the U.S. government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees, according to two agency officials.

[….]

The systems include a vast database called Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which contains dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and length of service of government workers, the officials said.

“We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems,” one of the officials said. “That is creating great concern. There is no oversight. It creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications.”

Officials affected by the move can still log on and access functions such as email but can no longer see the massive datasets that cover every facet of the federal workforce.

Again, Elon has not been nominated as an officer of the US, and the Senate has not even been given the ability to review any such nomination. Instead, he’s basically acting like he runs the government and is slashing and cutting with wild abandon.

There are all sorts of laws that have been broken in the process, forcing courts to jump in. Earlier today, for example, a judge in Rhode Island had to stop the Musk/Trump administration from carrying out their attempt to stop spending money apportioned by Congress. A judge having to use this kind of “talking to a five-year-old language” to the Presidential administration is crazy:

The Executive’s statement that the Executive Branch has a duty “to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities,” (ECF No. 48-1 at 11) (emphasis added) is a constitutionally flawed statement. The Executive Branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional appropriations, not through “Presidential priorities.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 3 (establishing that the Executive must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . .”). Federal law specifies how the Executive should act if it believes that appropriations are inconsistent with the President’s priorities–it must ask Congress, not act unilaterally. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the President may ask that Congress rescind appropriated funds.3 Here, there is no evidence that the Executive has followed the law by notifying Congress and thereby effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called “pause.”

While just at the district court level, this judicial smackdown echoes historic rebukes like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where SCOTUS reminded Truman that “the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” Musk’s shadow administration represents a constitutional crisis orders of magnitude greater than Twitter’s blue check chaos.

When Elon took over Twitter, he certainly had the right to go in and destroy the place through ignorance and overconfidence.

But this is the US government. He doesn’t own it. He wasn’t elected. He wasn’t officially appointed. And there are laws that are being broken left and right. Even worse, the impact of all this nonsense is way more significant and way more serious than any of the shit he pulled at Twitter.

Millions of people actually depend on the US government functioning. You can’t just have some random jackass show up and rip out fences and assume shit won’t go south. They went completely south with Twitter, but that was just a random social media site people could move on from. This is the most powerful country in the world, and it’s being ripped apart by someone with no concern or care for the actual damage he’s doing.

I would be among the first to say that the federal government needs massive reform, just as I thought that Twitter needed a major overhaul (one of the reasons I wrote my Protocols not Platforms paper was to try to inspire that kind of overhaul). But there are smart ways to do it and then there’s this: which is just utter destruction while looking over his shoulder to see if the nihilistic kids who worship his every move are finding it entertaining.

There’s a crucial lesson here about thoughtful reform versus destruction: Musk’s approach to institutions resembles a toddler “fixing” a grandfather clock by removing its pendulum. Yes, the clock needed maintenance — but now it can’t tell time at all. The federal government absolutely needs reform, but what we’re seeing isn’t reform — it’s vandalism dressed up as innovation. And unlike Twitter, where users could move to Mastodon or Bluesky (or just log off entirely), there’s no backup government waiting in the wings when Musk’s wrecking ball finishes swinging.

Those who care about functional institutions must demand adherence to constitutional processes, not billionaire whims. Because if we don’t, we might find ourselves longing for the days when Musk was only breaking social networks instead of the basic machinery of democracy.

For all the hype and warnings about how TikTok is clearly a “national security threat” from China, the Trump administration has effectively kneecapped the investigation into one of the most serious cybersecurity breaches in US history — a genuine, proven threat to national security. In what Team Trump probably thinks is a move to “destroy the deep state,” they’ve actually disbanded the government review board tasked with getting to the bottom of this unprecedented hack of our phone system by China.

We’re still nowhere near understanding just how bad the Chinese hack of our phone system was. The incident that was only discovered last fall involved the Chinese hacking group Salt Typhoon, which used the US’s CALEA phone wiretapping system as a backdoor to gain incredible, unprecedented access to much of the US’s phone system “for months or longer.”

As details come out, the extent of the hackers’ access has become increasingly alarming. It is reasonable to call it the worst hack in US history.

Soon after it was discovered, Homeland Security tasked the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) to lead an investigation into the hack to uncover what allowed it to happen and assess how bad it really was. The CSRB was established by Joe Biden to improve the government’s cybersecurity in the face of global cybersecurity attacks on our infrastructure and was made up of a mix of government and private sector cybersecurity experts.

And one of the first things Donald Trump did upon retaking the presidency was to dismantle the board, along with all other DHS Advisory Committees.

It’s one thing to say the new president should get to pick new members for these advisory boards, but it’s another thing altogether to just summarily dismiss the very board that is in the middle of investigating this hugely impactful hack of our telephone systems in a way that isn’t yet fully understood.

Just before the presidential switch, the Biden administration had announced sanctions against a Chinese front corporation that was connected to the hack. And while the details are still sparse, all indications are that this was a massive and damaging attack on critical US infrastructure.

And one of Trump’s moves is to disband the group of experts who was trying to get to the bottom of what happened.

This seems… bad?

Cybersecurity researcher Kevin Beaumont said on the social media platform Bluesky that the move would give Microsoft a “free pass,” referring to the CSRB’s critical report of the tech giant — and Beaumont’s former employer — over its handling of a prior Chinese hacker breach.

Jake Williams, faculty at IANS Research, went even further on the same website: “We should have been putting more resources into the CSRB, not dismantling it,”he wrote. “There’s zero doubt that killing the CSRB [would] hurt national security.”

While some have speculated that this move is an attempt to cover up the extent of the breach or even deliberately assist the Chinese, a more likely explanation is simple incompetence. Trump and his crew still don’t understand what the government actually does and are so obsessed with a fictional “deep state” out to get him, that this is just part of their process of firing as many people as possible, without regard to the important work they actually do.

Still, even as all the headlines remain fixated on TikTok and its supposed (and still totally unproven) national security threat, the new administration has dismantled the team of experts tasked with figuring out what happened with an actual Chinese hack on critical US infrastructure. That seems important.

But outside of specific cybersecurity news sites, the story has received basically no coverage at all. I’m at a bit of a loss as to how any of this makes America great again.

President Joe Biden, asked last week what his government planned to do to reduce the number of civilian casualties in Gaza, responded by rejecting the idea that the numbers could be trusted. “I have no notion if Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed,” Biden said on Wednesday. “I’m sure innocents have been killed and it is the price of waging war,” he added. “But I have no confidence in the number that Palestinians are using.”

A new analysis by The Intercept provides evidence refuting that claim.

Biden’s effort to delegitimize the numbers coming out of Gaza as fake news has created an opening for defenders of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign to dismiss the crisis; they note Hamas governs Gaza, therefore runs the Ministry of Health and is inflating the figures. (Biden later clarified he meant to say he didn’t trust Hamas, not all Palestinians, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

Biden’s claim was quickly rejected by human rights organizations that have been active in Gaza for years. The Associated Press noted that the Ministry of Health’s figures from previous conflicts have broadly matched the numbers arrived at by both the Israeli government and the United Nations. And the State Department itself has long considered the numbers reliable. 

The Gaza Ministry of Health, meanwhile, responded by publishing a list of names of 6,747 who had died as of October 26 since the bombing campaign began, including 2,664 children. The list included 2,665 children, but The Intercept found that one 14-year-old boy was listed twice, bringing its total down to 6,746. Otherwise the list does not contain duplicates.

Now that the Health Ministry has published a list of victims, skeptics have suggested that the list may be fabricated and that a paper with names on it proves nothing. Immediately after the publishing of these names, Biden’s National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications John Kirby maintained the skepticism, saying that the ministry is “a front for Hamas” and that “we can’t take anything coming out of Hamas, including the so-called Ministry of Health at face value.” 

Pressed, Kirby acknowledged civilian casualties were rising. “We absolutely know that the death toll continues to rise in Gaza. Of course we know that. But what we’re saying is that we shouldn’t rely on numbers put forth by Hamas and the Ministry of Health,” he said. A reporter noted that independent reporting suggested “thousands” of civilians had been killed. “We would not dispute that,” Kirby said.

But is the list itself reliable? We interrogated it and were able to corroborate dozens of names on the ministry’s list through a single family. 

Prior to the release of the list, Maram Al-Dada, a Palestinian who was born and raised in Gaza but now lives in Orlando, Florida, had told The Intercept about the deaths of seven relatives on his father’s side of the family and 30 on his mother’s side, in and around Khan Yunis. A week later, that number had risen to 46 total. (He and his family were featured on last week’s Deconstructed podcast.)

We compared the list of his relatives that began to be compiled last week — before the release of the list by officials in Gaza — to the list subsequently made public by the Ministry of Health. Al-Dada and his parents requested that last names not be published, as there is concern in Gaza that Israel has targeted journalists and their families, and might also retaliate against civilians who speak to Western media. The family hopes to emerge from the war with as many relatives still alive as possible.

The list of those killed includes four different last names: 30 members of one branch of the family, nine from another, four from a third, and three from a fourth. 

Of those 46 members of Al-Dada’s family so far lost in the war, 43 appear on the list, from the littlest — a baby girl not yet one — to the oldest, a 71-year-old grandmother.

When a building is struck, multiple generations are wiped out. “In Palestine, the society is set up differently than it is here,” Al-Dada noted. “People never leave their place. So families are huge; they all stay close to each other. For example, if you have a son, he will get married and he will build a house right behind your house and this keeps going. That’s why you will find a lot of people are getting killed from the same family.” 

Each name on the list is the story of a profound tragedy. One family’s home had already been bombed, for instance, and so the father and two children sought refuge at his brother’s house. The wife of the family’s father was in Saudi Arabia, undertaking a pilgrimage to Mecca, when she learned her husband and children had been killed in a new bombing at her brother-in-law’s house. The bombing also killed the man’s brother.

There have also been many close calls. On Monday, the neighbor of Al-Dada’s grandparents was bombed, killing the family living there. A small piece of shrapnel from the explosion tore through a steel grate, blasted through a white chair and destroyed the family’s refrigerator. His grandmother, who was unharmed, had been sitting in that chair just moments earlier. He shared the following photos with us.

A report in HuffPost also found that nearly 20 State Department reports have cited the ministry, and one also argued the ministry may have undercounted. “The numbers are likely much higher, according to the UN and NGOs reporting on the situation,” the U.S. State Department report read.

The Intercept presented the White House with our new reporting and asked if Kirby and Biden stand behind their claims. We also asked whether the administration has made any independent efforts to gauge the extent of the killing if the Health Ministry’s numbers aren’t reliable, and if, as the administration states publicly, it is concerned about civilian casualties. The White House referred us to public comments made by Kirby and State Department spokesperson Matt Miller that acknowledged civilian casualties.

“We don’t have any way to make an accurate assessment of our own about the number of civilians who have died in Gaza,” Miller told reporters. “There is not an independent body that’s operating in Gaza that can provide an accurate number. But we do have skepticism about everything that Hamas says, but that said, obviously a number of civilians have died, which is why we’re working to do everything we can to minimize civilian harm and get humanitarian assistance in to the civilians in Gaza.”

Far from doing everything it can to minimize civilian harm, the IDF has said its “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Amir Avivi, former deputy commander of the Gaza Division of Israel’s military, said recently, “When our soldiers are manoeuvring we are doing this with massive artillery, with 50 aeroplanes overhead destroying anything that moves.”

Al-Dada said his family was firmly apolitical, with zero connections to Hamas. The October 7 attack on Israel surprised them as much as it did the world. 

Since Biden muddied the waters on the extent of the carnage, Israel imposed a total communications blackout on Gaza, while ratcheting up its airstrike campaign and launching a ground invasion. U.S. officials have reportedly issued private warnings to the Israeli government but have still not threatened to withdraw any military, political, or economic support. Instead, the Biden administration is putting together a $14 billion package for Israel that includes money for the Iron Dome, replenishment of weapons, and more.

The Ministry of Health in Gaza produced updated figures: As of Tuesday, October 31, at least 8,525 Palestinians have been killed and more than 21,543 injured since October 7.

The post Biden’s Conspiracy Theory About Gaza Casualty Numbers Unravels Upon Inspection appeared first on The Intercept.

It seems to anger certain Elon Musk fans every time I mention it, but pre-Elon Twitter was generally doing okay. Not great. Not terrible. Just okay. It wasn’t printing cash like Meta or Google, but it had been steadily increasing revenue and was profitable in 16 of the previous 20 quarters before Elon took over. There was a big paper loss in the 2nd quarter of 2020 due to a single noncash deferred tax asset, and many people see that giant loss and mistakenly think it showed the company was deep in the hole. However, you can tell it was nothing given that most analysts basically ignored that single big loss and focused on the underlying advertising and user numbers.

Elon has admitted multiple times now that he basically set fire to Twitter’s value and what had been a growing revenue stream. So it’s little surprise that he admitted it once again over the weekend, tweeting an admission that the company had lost around 50% of its advertising revenue.

The more interesting bit here, though, was him admitting that the company was “still negative cash flow.” Remember, in February, he had said the company was “trending to breakeven” and in April had suggested that it was now there. That April statement included him claiming that “most” advertisers had returned to Twitter, which Musk is now effectively admitting was a lie. And, his prediction that the company would be “cash flow positive” in the 2nd quarter didn’t quite pan out, I guess.

Of course, both of the things he complains about are directly due to Musk’s own terrible decisions. Advertisers have bailed because of his terrible choices, setting fire to brand safety efforts and driving away top tier advertisers (and users), and the “heavy debt load” was entirely due to his decision to finance $13 billion of the takeover with debt, on which the company how has to pay interest.

Both of those moves could have been easily avoided.

On top of that, you have to wonder how a company that was effectively breakeven before all of this is still cash flow negative when he’s (1) fired somewhere around 80% of the employees, (2) stopped paying rent (3) refused to pay out owed severance packages (4) not paying lawyers and PR companies or (5) cloud computing bills. He’s also shut down one of the company’s three data centers and closed offices (or been evicted from them).

What expenses is he actually paying?

Well, it seems he’s paying out what can only be considered bribes to some of his favorite Twitter users. Back in February, Elon announced that the company would start sharing ad revenue with Twitter Blue subscribers.

But since then there had been not a peep, even as some users raised questions about such payments.

Then, finally, late last week, some users started tweeting about how they had received their first payments, though many noticed that these payments were basically only going to Elon Musk’s favorite reply guys. This left some others (including some other Musk stans) pissed off that they weren’t getting their share of the cash.

Among those in Twitter’s payout pool was Andrew Tate, who tweeted that he received $20,379 under the new program. Tate wrote that “every penny” of the proceeds will go toward his Tate Pledge charity initiatives. The former pro kickboxer, who once tweeted that women should “bare [sic] some responsibility” for being raped, last year claimed tech platforms had banned him for what he said were “traditional masculine values.” Tate has 7.1 million followers on Twitter; his Twitter account had been banned in 2017 and was reinstated after Musk acquired the social network. Last month Tate was charged with rape and human trafficking offenses in Romania. Earlier this week, Tate and his brother Tristan sued a Florida woman and others, alleging they conspired to falsely accuse the Tates in the Romania case, the AP reported.

Also getting Twitter payments were Brian Krassenstein ($24,305) and Ed Krassenstein ($24,877), entrepreneurs who originally rose to prominence on the platform with their relentless anti-Trump tweets. “Now I’m going to stop promoting border crossings and begin promoting Tesla vehicles,” Ed Krassenstein joked in a tweet. “I assumed I’d would be getting paid around $500 or so for the past 4-5 months. I thought, it would be pennies on the dollar compared to what George Soros pays me (sarcasm).”

In 2019, the Krassentein brothers were banned by Twitter for allegedly using fake accounts to amplify their reach (which they denied). Following Musk’s takeover of the company last fall, Twitter reinstated their accounts in December.

Other Twitter users who shared ad-revenue payouts included podcaster and political commentator Benny Johnson ($9,546), Ashley St. Clair, a writer for political satire site Babylon Bee ($7,153), and an anonymously run account called End Wokeness ($10,419).

One user, who was not included, emailed Twitter and heard back from the company confirming that those selected were not based on the criteria stated in Twitter’s blog post about the program, but rather the payouts went “to a selected group of people.”

That email is all kinds of hilarious. In case you can’t see the image, it says:

Thanks for reaching out about being unable to receive your payment from Creator Ads Revenue Sharing on Twitter. We have information for you.

Currently, creator ad revenue sharing is only available to a selected group of people.

We hope this clarifies your concern.

Indeed, you do have information.

So… to sum up: Elon’s own decisions destroyed the company’s revenue and saddled it with way more expenses in the form of debt interest/repayment. The company is bleeding users and revenue, and despite promising a large group of users payouts if they joined his failed “Twitter Blue” program, the company is only paying that money to a small handpicked group which seems to consist almost entirely of accounts that suck up to Musk on the platform.

I might not be an intergalactic business genius, like many people assure me Musk is, but I fail to see how this strategy succeeds.