false Prophets - Dr Usman - Article thematic Image - Nov copy

In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that the well-worshiped heroes of Silicon Valley are, to put it mildly, inept at dealing with the challenges of the digital economy. The “tech bros,” as they are often called, have spent much financial and social capital positioning themselves in the public mind as new emperor’s who can solve the toughest problems of the 21st century as part of their personal quest for immortality. But such figures, including Elon Musk of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, are both striking examples of billionaire messiahs who have drawn increasing ire for actions that now appear to be a quixotic mixture of hubris, fiat, and revelry. The recent issues that have emerged in both cases should signal the clarion call for the public to realize that these are false prophets of the digital economy.

The case of Elon Musk as digital messiah  is interesting because Musk’s portfolio involves several genuine success-stories such as Tesla, which proved the naysayers on electric vehicles wrong (at least partially). Yet his dive into Twitter cannot be framed in terms of the broader vision he touts of human life of the future (Martian travel). His purchase of Twitter for $44 billion is, by any measure, an overpriced sum. He has had to sell billions of dollars in Tesla stock to help pay for the acquisition (thus sinking its price), and is looking at a billion dollars in interest payments annually for the $13 billion leverage applied in the purchase. In looking at Twitter’s books, he has realized that it will need to be heavily monetized, but his approach to solving this has been dismal. He began to tout the idea for $20/account for a verified identity on Twitter, at which the Twitterati balked, and so he brought the sum to $8/account.

This meant, however, that any Tom, Dick, and Harry could purchase verification and then wreak havoc through the newly-verified account. Hilarity has since ensued on Twitter. One verified account changed its handle to @GeorgeWBushs and its profile picture to the former president’s, only to tweet “so what if I did 9/11?” and “I miss killing Iraqis.” Another adorned the persona of Tesla itself and disparaged it. More strikingly, an account posing as the drug maker Eli Lilly tweeted that it would give away its insulin products for free, causing the stock of the company to fall precipitously and resulting in a $16 billion dollar loss to the actual company! A similar problem befell the aerospace company Lockheed Martin, whose stock fell when a false (yet verified) account said that the company would halt arms deals with the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, pursuant to human right investigations.

The shenanigans continue to multiply, and so too does the crisis at the company itself. Twitter has laid off 11,000 workers in one fell swoop, many of whom accounted for its best assets in human capital. Advertisers have begun to shun the company, leading to a risk to Twitter’s revenues, while existing mainstream corporations and public figures are growing wary. How does this entire Twitter fiasco synergize with Musk’s fantasies of futuristic, space travel, and hyperloops? It doesn’t, and one should enjoy the hilarity of the new Twitter while discounting its leadership’s credence.

Another example from Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook (now Meta) also gives an indication of the out-of-touch billionaire masquerading as False Prophet. In recent times, Zuckerberg has harped on about the idea of an immersive digital universe, or “metaverse” as it is called, which will draw in countless users in the way Facebook has long enjoyed. It will be a form of near-permanent virtual existence to which humanity will willingly and gladly surrender, he hopes. But the world is, unsurprisingly, not as keen on the metaverse as Zuckerberg is, and the markets have punished Meta’s stock accordingly.

Whereas Meta traded at close to $350 in 2021, it is now at less than $100, and one hundred billion dollars has been wiped off Zuckerberg’s net worth. This is because he remains adamant about the metaverse when it is clear that virtual immersive worlds already exist (GTA 5, Second Life, World of Warcraft), and the Crash Bandicoot level of graphics that Zuckerberg is positing cannot be the next phase of digital life. In fact, younger users do not consider Zuckerberg to ne the path-breaking trendsetter anymore, and are adopting other platforms such as TikTok.

The digital economy is an ever-evolving space where the best new ideas can emerge from any corner. The tech bros of Silicon Valley do not have a monopoly on good ideas, and their insistence on shaping the economy to their will, rather than adapting with the times, will mean that the public will gradually recognize the proverbial emperor’s new clothes. Building Tesla does not equate to rescuing Twitter, and building Facebook is no guarantor of a thriving Metaverse. The future of the digital economy is, therefore, in our collective hands, and not in those of digital false prophets.

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is the Director for Economic Affairs and National Development at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in News Lark. He can be reached at [email protected].

Image Credit: Online Sources


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »