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 US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »