Elliot and Elon

Elliot Carver was born in Hong Kong, the illegitimate son of a German woman who died during childbirth and Lord Roverman, a press tycoon. Carver studied communication sciences in Hong Kong and began his career at a local newspaper. Later, he worked as a meteorologist for a Hong Kong television station and eventually became its anchor. In his mature years, Carver took over his father's media empire and became a billionaire.

Elliot Carver was known for his ruthless abuse of media influence. “Great men have always manipulated the media to save the world. Look at William Randolph Hearst, who told his photographers: ‘You provide the pictures, I’ll provide the war.’ I just took it one step further.”

Elliot Carver doesn't exist. He is the villain from the 1997 James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies. But he could exist. Or rather—he does. The extent to which today’s world resembles a Hollywood fiction from three decades ago is a sign of how far we’ve fallen. How dumb we’ve become. “The internet has made the world 20% dumber than it was,” says Timothy Snyder. The only reason we don’t realize it is because we ourselves are 20% dumber. History repeats itself—first as fiction, then as farce.

Elliot Carver was a psychopath and megalomaniac. “Caesar had his legions, Napoleon had his armies, I have my divisions: TV, news, magazines. And by midnight tonight, I will reach and influence more people than anyone in the history of this planet, save God Himself… And the best He ever managed was the Sermon on the Mount.”

Carver used the media to gain power, and power to make money. “Mr. Jones, are we ready to launch our new software?” “Yes, sir. As requested, it’s full of bugs, which means people will be forced to upgrade for years.”

Elliot liked rockets. “Mr. Gupta, is the missile ready for launch?” “Push the magic button and Beijing is gone.”

Elliot also had great influence over the U.S. president. “Mr. Wallace, call the president. Tell him that if he doesn’t sign the cable TV price-cutting bill, we’ll release the video of him with the cheerleader in the Chicago motel room.”

But there are important differences. If the Bond screenwriters had brought a story about Elon Musk to producer Albert Broccoli in 1997, he would’ve kicked them out of his office. Even imagination—at least in 1997—had its limits.

Back then, the CIA helped Bond catch Elliot. Today, the CIA would help Elon catch Bond.

Elliot Carver didn’t lie about events, because in 1997 no one would believe people could be so uncritical about obvious falsehoods. To be the first to report on wars and scandals, he had to create them himself. “Good morning, my golden retrievers. What devastation will the Carver Media Group wreak upon the world today?” “Flooding in Pakistan, riots in Paris, and a plane crash in California.”

Elon doesn’t bother trying not to lie. He does it consciously and deliberately. The lie isn’t an obstacle—it’s liberating.

Elliot had to hide his plans for world domination. Elon does it completely openly. “I promise to report the news boldly and without fear. I promise to be a force for good, to fight injustice at every step, to crush intolerance, battle inhumanity, and champion freedom. Yes, that is the mission of my media corporation and empire.” Elliot was lying. Elon believes this.

Elliot was a villain—because he didn’t have an “X.” Elon is a hero to many—because he does.

Elon believes liberal democracy threatens freedom. Therefore, in the name of freedom, liberal democracy must be abolished—even at the cost of freedom itself.

Elon believes he’s saving Western civilization from collapse. To do this, he must liberate speech. He’s doing that with his online platform, which has freed the masses from the shackles of censorship and ideological indoctrination by traditional media and liberal elites. And now, he’s not alone. Overnight, Mark Zuckerberg—the owner of Facebook—and other tech magnates have bowed to the new boss in the White House.

I have some reservations about this supposed salvation of Western civilization.

Let’s start with freedom of speech and the end of censorship. As Zuckerberg explained on Facebook on the People’s Uprising Day, it’s necessary to “remove many restrictions on topics like migration and gender, which are out of touch with the thinking of ordinary people,” and to “work with President Trump to counter governments that persecute American companies and promote increased censorship.” At first glance, this sounds (almost) reasonable. Censorship has no place in freedom. But let’s take a closer look at what this actually means.

Facebook’s publishing rules recently added a clause allowing “accusations of mental illness or abnormality based on gender or sexual orientation,” because such claims are part of the “political and religious discourse on transsexuality and homosexuality.” The new rules also “allow room for various forms of speech, including calls for exclusion or insults within discussions of political or religious topics—such as debates about the rights of transgender people, migration, or homosexuality.”

On the other hand, Mark still doesn’t allow comparing people or groups to animals, pathogens, or subhuman lifeforms like cockroaches and locusts. But to avoid overly limiting freedom, Facebook will allow women to be compared to household objects or property, and people to be likened to feces, filth, bacteria, viruses, diseases, and savages. You know, ordinary people. Western civilization. Freedom to call your fellow human “shit.”

I don’t know about you, but these meticulously defined rules—crafted by Zuckerberg’s lawyers to codify how and how much it’s permissible to insult and degrade others—leave a bad taste in my mouth. A taste of excrement, filth, bacteria, viruses, disease. A taste of savagery. This isn’t freedom of speech. It’s freedom to hate.

Facebook is also ending fact-checking. Because facts threaten freedom, Western civilization, and American corporations.

To be clear, my objections to these changes are more ethical than legal. After all, freedom of speech does include the right to lie and insult. Freedom of speech is not absolute—it ends where the law says it must, to protect society from the worst forms of hatred and violence—but in principle, we can’t counter problematic discourse only by limiting speech, no matter how good the intentions.

It’s different when control over social networks is abused for political purposes. This isn’t about freedom of speech. It’s about monopolizing hate. It’s not just about insults and lies, but about unregulated power—using algorithms to incite, spread, and exploit those lies and insults. It’s about incitement against individuals and groups that can lead to violence; about undermining democratic institutions and manipulating voters.

A few years ago, the Cambridge Analytica scandal erupted because of secret election interference. Today, Musk is doing it openly, in full view. What’s most absurd is the enthusiasm of the bots—those blindly obedient foot soldiers of Musk’s quest for world domination—fulfilling commands just like some once followed instructions from the Central Committee. All while shouting about freedom.

That’s where the joke ends. That’s where we must intervene—with regulation, with awareness, with determined defense of our democracies and our freedoms against the rampages of unhinged megalomaniacs.

Musk may be crazy, but that doesn’t mean he won’t succeed. As Elliot Carver explained to Bond: “The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.”