I dont think this is a useful question because the resolution criteria are extremely unclear,

How does one prove something hasn't happened?

What kind of evidence would be needed for a NO? Given that it's "open until resolved" and it's hard to prove a negative.

His decisions around cutting of starlink are discussed in the Isaacton biography.

He says that Elon got nervous about nuclear war when Ukraine started attacking, using starlink, what Russia sees as it's own territory and a potential nuclear red line.

Restricting star link for attacks on Russian territory is very much in line with Musk's well established trait of trying to reduce extention risk for humanity, as demonstrated by the mission of all of his ventures - Tesla, open AI, and space X.

In the book Isaacson says that musk has now outsourced the decisions about where starlink is used to the Pentagon, has never provided any support to Russia who he regards as the aggressor, and Musk has simply asked that he gets paid like all other defence contractors are for US support provided to Ukraine.

@Daniel_MC it's not attacking – it's self defense. Russia invaded Ukraine.

And Musk admitted taking a call from the Russian ambassador before doing this. Stoking fears about nuclear war is part of Russia's propaganda campaign so Musk expressing fears about nuclear war is him being a willing vessel for Russian propaganda. We don't even know what Russia's present nuclear capabilities are.

How would blackmail resolve?

@TheAllMemeingEye ooh, interesting question. I think still yes. Being compromised means he is still not operating out of free will.

@Lorelai I think a bribe and blackmail are two different things. The wording of your question indicates bribe not blackmail. I think if you want to include blackmail that should be in a different question.

I think Elon has mental problems, and thus he is vulnerable to bold propaganda. Likely no money took place.

How will this resolve if it turns out he's just a useful idiot?

@soweliSon it will resolve "no", although slightly harder to resolve if someone in his immediate circle e.g. Sacks, Fridman is being paid off instead and is subsequently influencing him politically

I don't think you can buy Elon, just my thought

What kind of evidence would be needed for a YES?

@Retr0id a published article in the same vein as Farrow's expose but with more tangible evidence of money flows

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule

Questioning the purpose of a military alliance that had achieved its goals = sedition, yup

@AlQuinn also taking into account Starlink sales to russia (and the stream of russian propaganda on his twitter account has been constant)

@Lorelai There doesn't appear to be any substantial evidence Starlink is selling units to Russia. Even if the Ukrainian intelligence is correct that Russia somehow acquired terminals, those could have been acquired in any number of ways.

Regarding Musk's tweets, I despise twitter and avoid it as a general rule, so I don't know what he's saying day to day. Even if he is anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia (which based on my knowledge of Musk's opinions more generally, is a likely misconstrual), that by itself would not indicate he was "bought" by Putin.

@AlQuinn he has been consistently pro-Russia at least in terms of his public statements since the beginning of the full-scale invasion

@Lorelai not at all.

I imagine he's the biggest private donor to Ukraine based on the ~$80m of free starlink use he gave them. According to Isaacson, at the beginning of the war all of Ukraine's communications were blocked out by Russian hacking and starlink was the only provider that could stand up to Russian attempts to block communications.

Here are some pro Ukrainian tweets.

@Daniel_MC why are you so eager to whitewash Musk's obvious pro-Russia stance? He can scatter in "I am pro-Ukraine" all he wants but when he conveys obvious pro-Putin messaging (scaremongering about nuclear war, not allowing Ukraine to use Starlink for self defense etc) this means nothing.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/17/fiona-hill-putin-war-00061894

@Lorelai Again, you seem to be applying the logic that because Musk has the "wrong" opinions on this geopolitical issue that he must be guilty of treason. If you want to put your bulletin board with the yarn strung between New Yorker and MSNBC articles to better use, why don't you consider the case for China instead, where Musk actually has significant business interests?

@AlQuinn I don't see him publicly defending China and making statements in China's geopolitical interests. Which he does do with Russia. If you don't like the market, don't bet on it. I think it's an interesting question to consider as there are serious indications that he is supporting Russia's geopolitical interests and Farrow's article was extremely telling. If you care about his Chinese interests, feel free to make that market yourself.

@Lorelai try this (not rigorously chosn but should give an idea:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/02/24/house-china-committee-elon-musk-spacex-starshield-taiwan.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna87378

(Farrow's article was paywalled for me, btw, but the brief glimpse I got of it didnt reveal anything new to me)

I assumed charitably that the point of this market was to be convinced in either the direction of NO or YES. I'm offering a reframe wrt China to show how Musk's policies on things like Starlink are consistent across theaters (i.e. he doesn't want his product to be a flashpoint for WW3). I disagree with his assessments, but I think his (naive) reasoning is in good faith.

@Lorelai why are you so dumb you buy into the leftist propagand?

Is this another question that will never resolve NO? I really suggest making these resolve NO if there is no evidence for YES after a specific date.