Elon Musk's admission sheds light on the potential repercussions of his social media activity, indicating a significant shift in his stance regarding the impact of his posts.
The deposition provides insight into Musk's acknowledgment of the consequences of his actions on the digital platform.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is pictured during a visit at the company's electric car plant in Gruenheide near Berlin, eastern Germany, on March 13, 2024. (Photo: ODD ANDERSEN/AFP via Getty Images)
Financially Harming the Company
In a March 27th deposition unveiled by The Huffington Post on Monday, Elon Musk acknowledged the potential financial ramifications of his posts on the platform previously recognized as Twitter. Additionally, the billionaire conceded to possessing a "limited understanding" of the ongoing lawsuit, prompting his deposition.
Ben Brody, 22, filed a defamation lawsuit last Autumn against Musk, claiming that Musk propagated a conspiracy theory wrongly implicating Brody in a confrontation between two far-right factions in Oregon. Despite Musk's legal team's attempts to shield the transcript of his nearly two-hour deposition from public view, the judge rejected their requests.
During questioning by Brody's attorney, Mark Bankston, Musk was queried about his acquisition of Twitter and its influence on his activity on the platform.
Musk asserted that he perceived his posts to have remained consistent before and after the acquisition. However, he conceded that this stance might have ultimately detrimentally affected the platform.
Musk reflected on his actions during the deposition, admitting to the possibility of causing financial harm to the company instead of aiding it, particularly mentioning incidents like the Kevlar shoe controversy.
Despite potential financial implications, he stressed prioritizing content that he believes is engaging or significant to the public rather than being driven by financial considerations.
Throughout the proceedings, Musk also displayed uncertainty about Brody's lawsuit against him, expressing bewilderment regarding the motives behind the litigation and exhibiting a lack of clarity about basic case details.
He suggested that Brody's attorney may have a profit-driven agenda behind pursuing the lawsuit.
Defending His Actions
The lawsuit centers on a string of tweets posted by Musk last summer, in which he endorsed a far-right conspiracy theory that erroneously linked Brody to a clash in Oregon involving the Proud Boys and a local neo-Nazi faction.
Brody, residing in California, vaguely resembled one of the individuals involved in the altercation. Exploiting this resemblance, online trolls propagated the theory that the clash was a staged event, with Brody portrayed as an undercover government operative.
Musk actively engaged with users, promoting this unfounded narrative on social media platform X and amplifying their claims that the altercation was likely orchestrated. On June 27th, Musk responded to a post containing footage of the brawl, insinuating Brody's involvement in a "false flag" operation.
It came to light that Musk was the owner of an account under the handle @ermnmusk, where he portrayed his own toddler son in role-playing scenarios. Motherboard and other media outlets made this discovery in the past year.
Musk also expressed his belief that Brody, who faced evacuation from his residence at one point, did not suffer significant harm from the false accusations propagated, stating that people are frequently targeted in media and online platforms without enduring tangible negative consequences in their lives.
