How To See Through Musk’s Truth Distortions: A Mirror Doesn’t Lie
from the don't-lose-sight-of-the-truth dept
A mirror returns exactly what stands before it. No amount of wealth can bribe it, no volume of threats can intimidate it, no technological innovation can reprogram it. A billionaire’s reflection shows the same unaltered truth as a beggar’s. This fundamental democracy of reflection—this absolute fidelity to physical reality—makes mirrors uniquely immune to power. They are perhaps the last truly incorruptible witnesses in an age where truth itself has become negotiable.
Consider how people respond when confronted with an unflattering reflection. Some might adjust their appearance, accepting the mirror’s feedback as useful information. Others might avoid mirrors entirely, preferring not to face what they show. Still others, in moments of particular desperation, might smash the mirror itself—as if destroying the instrument of truth-telling could somehow alter the reality it reflects. But of course, breaking a mirror doesn’t change one’s appearance. It only ensures you’ll no longer have to look at it.
This relationship between truth and power lies at the heart of our current political crisis. We watch as wealthy and powerful figures attempt to rewrite reality itself, behaving as if sufficient money or influence can alter even physical law. When Elon Musk claims he can simultaneously run half a dozen major companies while reorganizing the federal government, he’s essentially asserting the power to create a twenty-fifth hour in the day. When Donald Trump declares that law doesn’t constrain his authority, he’s claiming the ability to rewrite the Constitution through sheer force of will. These are not just lies in the ordinary sense—they represent attempts to establish a world where truth itself is subject to negotiation, where reality becomes whatever those with power declare it to be.
There really is a sense in which we are truly living in Orwell’s nightmare. It didn’t come in the brutalist form of Oceania—at least not yet. It came in a more complex and unexpected way: censorship by attention overload. “Flooding the zone” to make truth impossible. The mirror we hold up to our collective civilization now is social media. And it lies to us.
Unlike a physical mirror, which stubbornly returns exactly what stands before it, our digital reflection has become infinitely malleable. Social media doesn’t just show us reality—it shows us a carefully curated, algorithmically enhanced version of ourselves and our world. The reflection changes based on who’s looking, morphing to confirm their existing beliefs and amplify their fears. This isn’t just distortion—it’s the destruction of the very concept of an objective reflection.
But we must also confront a deeper issue—the growing shamelessness of figures like Musk and Trump. People often describe their audacity as an absence of shame, but this misses the mark. Shame requires a shared standard, a common understanding of right and wrong, and a reality against which one’s actions can be measured. In a world where shared truth has disintegrated, that standard no longer exists. Without a common mirror to reflect reality, there’s nothing against which to compare behavior—no measure for judgment, no grounds for shame.
This is the most insidious consequence of truth’s erosion: it eliminates the very possibility of ethical accountability. If two plus two can equal five, then nothing—not corruption, not hypocrisy, not cruelty—can be definitively condemned. And when power operates unbound by truth, it becomes unbound by morality as well. Shamelessness is not a defect in such a world; it is a survival strategy, a natural adaptation to an environment where reality itself has become negotiable.
When Orwell imagined the Ministry of Truth, he envisioned bureaucrats manually editing newspapers and photographs, laboriously erasing people from history one image at a time. But our reality has proved more insidious. Instead of erasing truth, we’ve buried it under an avalanche of competing claims. Instead of forcing people to believe that two plus two equals five, we’ve created a world where every mathematical operation returns whatever result best serves power at that moment. The mirror hasn’t been broken—it’s been replaced by a screen that shows us whatever those controlling it want us to see.
What makes this particularly dangerous is who now controls these digital mirrors. Elon Musk’s acquisition of X (formerly Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg’s sudden alignment with Trump aren’t just business decisions—they represent the consolidation of our collective reflection in the hands of those actively working to distort reality. These aren’t neutral platform owners maintaining digital public squares. They are active participants in the transformation of truth into a negotiable commodity, converting the instruments of public discourse into tools for reality manipulation.
The physical mirror’s power lies in its incorruptibility—its stubborn insistence on showing exactly what stands before it. But our new digital mirrors operate under different rules entirely. Social media platforms don’t simply reflect reality; they actively shape it through complex algorithms that determine what information spreads, what stays buried, and how ideas are framed. This isn’t just a distorted reflection—it’s a fundamentally different kind of mirror that changes based on who’s looking and who’s controlling it.
The genius of modern reality distortion isn’t in preventing truth from being spoken—it’s in making truth impossible to find or hold onto. When every feed is filled with competing claims, when each story generates a thousand counter-narratives, when every fact faces an avalanche of “alternative facts,” the very concept of truth begins to dissolve. This isn’t censorship through silence but through noise—drowning out reality in a sea of manufactured confusion.
Musk’s acquisition of X and Zuckerberg’s alignment with Trump represent something more dangerous than mere political preference. These are the owners of our primary instruments of public reflection actively working to distort reality. When Musk declares that naming government employees is “criminal,” while simultaneously serving as a government official himself, he’s not just being hypocritical—he’s demonstrating how platform control enables reality manipulation in real-time. Zuckerberg’s eagerness to attend Trump’s inauguration despite Trump’s open hostility to democratic norms shows how thoroughly tech oligarchs have abandoned any pretense of defending truth-based discourse.
This transformation of our collective reflection has profound implications for democracy itself. How can citizens make informed decisions when their very understanding of reality is shaped by those actively working to undermine democratic institutions? How can we hold power accountable when the instruments of accountability—our shared understanding of truth—have been corrupted? We’re watching not just the distortion of specific facts but the dismantling of truth-telling capacity itself.
When Musk declares that “you, the people, must be the media,” he’s not championing transparency—he’s working to replace objective reflection with a funhouse mirror of his own design. Consider the calculated precision of his approach: First, throttle links to external sources, making it harder to access traditional news. Then, alter the algorithms to amplify extreme views while suppressing fact-checkers. Finally, position X as the last bastion of “truth” against a supposedly corrupt mainstream media. This isn’t democratizing information—it’s creating a closed system where reality itself becomes whatever the platform owner declares it to be.
The physical mirror shows us exactly what stands before it, whether we like what we —it shows us what he wants us to see, while simultaneously convincing us that we’re seeing reality more clearly than ever before. When engagement with fact-checkers drops by 52% while extreme content flourishes, we’re watching the systematic destruction of our collective ability to distinguish truth from fiction.
This is why grounding ourselves in simple truths is more important than ever. The statement “two plus two equals four” isn’t just a mathematical fact; it is a metaphor for the unyielding nature of truth. No amount of noise or narrative manipulation can alter its simplicity or its power. When we anchor ourselves in such undeniable realities, we create a foundation from which to resist the tidal wave of distortion.
What makes this particularly dangerous is how it combines technological control with psychological manipulation. By positioning X users as both consumers and producers of “truth,” Musk creates the illusion of democratic participation while maintaining absolute control over the infrastructure that determines what information spreads and what stays buried. It’s as if he’s convinced millions of people that they’re looking into a clear mirror, when in fact they’re staring at a screen he controls completely.
This transformation of X into an “everything app” represents something more dangerous than just media consolidation—it’s an attempt to create a closed ecosystem where truth itself becomes proprietary. When Musk throttles links to external sources while promoting content from within X, he’s not just changing how news spreads—he’s working to make his platform the arbiter of reality itself.
The merger of social media and financial services through X Money isn’t just another business expansion—it represents something far more dangerous: the fusion of narrative control with economic power. Consider what it means when the platform that shapes our understanding of reality also controls our ability to participate in economic life. This isn’t just a digital mirror anymore—it’s becoming a gatekeeper to both truth and commerce.
When Musk combines control over public discourse with payment processing, he’s creating unprecedented power to shape behavior. Imagine a world where your ability to transact financially becomes intertwined with your compliance with platform-approved narratives. The mirror isn’t just showing you what Musk wants you to see—it’s gaining the power to punish you for seeing anything else.
This progression from social media platform to “everything app” reveals the true ambition at work. It’s not just about controlling information flow—it’s about creating a closed ecosystem where every aspect of public and private life becomes subject to platform governance. When Musk throttles links to external news sources while simultaneously building financial infrastructure within X, he’s working to make his platform not just the arbiter of truth but the mediator of daily life itself.
The parallel to China’s WeChat is impossible to ignore. But there’s a crucial difference—WeChat’s fusion of social media and financial services operates under state oversight, however problematic that might be. X’s transformation represents something new: private control over both information and economic participation, accountable to neither democratic governance nor market competition.
The key is understanding how control over financial transactions adds teeth to control over information flow. It’s not just about distorting what people see anymore—it’s about creating real-world consequences for those who resist the platform’s preferred reality.
And yet, the mirror remains. Though smashed and distorted, its incorruptible nature still calls to us. It reflects not what we wish to see, but what is. It reminds us that no matter how deeply noise and narrative obscure reality, truth itself does not cease to exist. The mirror is our tether to the real, a guidepost for those willing to look, a symbol of what must be reclaimed.
To restore the mirror’s place is to restore our ability to see clearly, to know what is real, and to hold power accountable. It is not an easy task, but it is a necessary one. The mirror’s incorruptibility reminds us that no amount of distortion or manipulation can change reality itself. Two plus two will always equal four. And as long as that truth remains, so too does the possibility of reclaiming a world built on shared reality, justice, and democracy.
“There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”
— Edith Wharton
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Under: constitutional crisis, coup, elon musk, power, truth
Companies: twitter, x
Comments on “How To See Through Musk’s Truth Distortions: A Mirror Doesn’t Lie”
Needs a tl;dr.
Mr. Brock, as a retiree of some years, I have nothing but time on my hands to read various sites across the net. But undoubtedly you are the poster boy for abusing the greatest number of electrons, by far. Please, get ahold of a dictionary and look up the word ‘Concise’.
Then apply it to your otherwise readable writings. It’s one thing to express an opinion, it’s quite another to repeat almost verbatim what you’ve said, again and again and…. Trust me, it tends to turn people away, no matter how important the message might be.
Thanks you, AC.
Re:
It’s typically the kind of things someone with too much free time can say.
Thank to have shared it with the world since nobody was asking of it.
Re: tl;dr
Elon Musk is Dorian Gray.
Re:
Or, to put it more succinctly,
The time for rhetoric has mostly passed. But it’s also too soon to throw a second coup to remove the first coup.
Bide time, gather resources, look for the right opportunity, then forcibly use all the corrupted tools the right wing sets up back on them, to show that a century of prepping for a right-wing coup will only result in the forced disbanding of their entire political party and seizure of its wealth and power.
However, you cannot do that if you are duct-taped to anxiety about freedom of speech, rule of law, and the slippery slope. Those will indeed return, but can’t until the GOP is toothless and its PACs and lobbyists made second-class citizens.
I personally am just waiting for the Left to get fed up enough to get that message, because they aren’t going to kumbaya vote and protest their way out of this, and the judicial system can only slightly slow the erosion of the status quo.
Re:
Thank you for the feedback. You make a fair point about concision. Let me give you the tl;dr:
Private citizens are illegally seizing control of government systems. Musk’s employees now control Treasury payments, federal personnel records, and IT infrastructure. When officials tried to protect these systems by following security protocols, they were removed. This isn’t about politics – it’s about whether we’ll let unelected individuals take over government functions while pretending they’re “fixing” them.”
The longer analysis is there for those who want to understand the full scope and evidence. But you’re right – I need both versions to reach different audiences.
I’m detailed because these events are unprecedented and complex. But I hear you – I need to meet readers where they are. Would love your thoughts on how to strike that balance while maintaining the urgency and credibility of the message.
Re: Re:
The best advice I can give you addresses something like this:
You’re effectively saying the same things twice, even if they’re separated by other paragraphs. If you need to make a solid point, make it once and move on. If you can think of multiple ways to express that point, write them all out, pick what you think will have the best impact out of those, and use only what you chose. I’d also suggest trying to use as many one- and two-syllable words as possible, since that can help with readability. I took a crack at consolidating those two paragraphs into one to show you what I mean:
I’m not saying my edit is perfect or should serve as a foundation for all your future writing. That would be arrogance and hubris. Alls I’m saying is that if you’re finding yourself making the same point repeatedly, even if you don’t mean to do that, you can always find a way to make that point once and cut the rest. Or to put it more succinctly: Write as if no one will read it; edit as if you’ll give a copy to every person in the world.
Re: Re:
OP here….
S. T. Stone said it much better than I could’ve, with an excellent example I might add.
Your version of a short piece was spot on, it got the point across, but as you are somewhat prone to emphasize, the urgency is not as compelling as your longer piece, I agree.
Balancing salient points in any message is always a compromise. However, my opinion is that you need not aim at different audiences, rather that no matter how you state your case, there will always be someone who has a bone to pick.
Which leads me to reply to a different AC above. I don’t think that one should infer that ‘available time’ is an indicator of what someone might think or say, that’s rather callous of you. Rather, I didn’t imply I don’t wish to spend my time reading repeated things, I was more on my high horse about my frustration with having to sit still for something I’ve already doped out from the previous text. Repeated bullet points are not the way to win me over, that’s my point.
And returning to you, M. Brock, I will say that I reviewed all of your previous posts, and you are by-and-large reducing your word count. That’s a good thing. 😉
The flip side to that argument, though, is that with enough manipulation and distortion, those who want to change reality can make it change enough that reality becomes what the manipulators want it to be. Trump wants a world free of “DEI” (read: Black people doing jobs Trump thinks white people should be doing), and with enough people doing the work to rid the government of the influence of “DEI”, he can at least make the government more hostile to any person of color who isn’t 100% supportive of Trumpism. Sure, that reality may not last. But he can potentially make it happen.
We live in a time where deceit runs rampant in the halls of power. Telling the truth has become a radical act. The truth discomforts those who would harm others through deceit. They will do anything to stop the truth from being spoken or shared. We must commit to telling the truth, no matter how much it may frighten us to be truthful—with others as much as with ourselves.
All who stand for the truth cannot deceive themselves forever. They can claim the emperor has no clothes, and they can even force themselves to believe it, but that belief will always crumble under the weight of the truth. Those who believe Elon Musk and Donald Trump are acting in the best interests of the United States populace are deceiving themselves; sooner or later, their belief will crumble. The question is whether they’ll accept the truth, find a way to escape into an even deeper delusion, or dive into some form of self-harm to cope with their shattered illusion.
You can paste the article into an LLM and get a summary. Complex issues can’t be properly addressed in concise ways without losing important nuance. Readers shouldn’t be less informed just because some can’t handle the volume necessary to articulate it.
Re:
It’s funny that you bring up LLMs, because every article I have read by LLMs has increased my certainty that Mike Brock’s articles are mostly if not all generated by one. The volume of writing he is producing, the way he writes (I can elaborate if needed)… heck, even the response to another comment that was constructively critical sounds exactly like what an LLM sounds like if you give it negative feedback. Also, if you go to the main site for him, there is art accompanying the articles that is blatantly AI-generated.
And I haven’t said anything before because… well, it seemed trifling to say, especially because I agreed with the broad points. But I like TD, and I like most of the writing people do here, and as I see more of these “Mike Brock” articles it becomes apparent that they are far too wordy, really repetitive, and don’t add much to the conversation.
If I am wrong, if this is 100% human-generated content, I apologize for the harsh phrasing but do stand by the general sentiments regarding verbosity. But I really, really think I’m not wrong.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Brock is speed-running an involuntary commitment. Did Musk fuck his wife or something?
Re:
Musk isn’t married to Natasha Bassett the last I heard, so he actually fucked his girlfriend.
Well put. I wish it was less terrifying.
Re:
We all do. But if experience has taught me anything, it’s that wishing or praying things were different won’t make things different.
Re:
It’s only going to get worse. There’s very little to be hopeful about. This administration is going to steamroll everyone and everything!
I feel like that’s a lot of rambling for an analogy that’s not even really sufficient. A mirror doesn’t mystically reflect a “correct” reality. It reflects rays according to its shape. If you’ve ever heard of the concept of a funhouse, you know that even mirrors have editorial decisions built into them, no need for a screen to distort the reflected reality. But that’s beside the point.
Both the 24-hour article and this one feel like they breathlessly shout a bunch of useless abstractions while hiding the actual point in a few sentences. Here’s the article summarized: elon musk tries to gain power over truth by controlling the medium through which people express themselves. He does this by controlling Twitter. We have to stop him.
Both articles feel like they’re running around in a panic yelling “There are 24 hours in a day! This solves everything! MUSK IS DANGEROUS”. Only one of these sentences was useful to the final point, and the first two were distracting and diluted the text. Please be more focused; I echo the comments other people here have made: the abstraction given here doesn’t add much and wastes time. Please stick to the non-obvious facts and their implications, not how many hours are in a day. These latter considerations are not of value, and we could understand the message just as well if it was simply told to us.
Re:
I hear you. But I’m not a journalist. You can read news articles. I am trying to draw people to insights about how propaganda works in our modern world. Some people aren’t interested in that. I think there’s power in thinking about the world philosophically. Not everyone does! That’s fine!
Re: Re:
That’s fair enough; I approached this as a news article when it is not (I mean this without any ill will), so this makes more sense now. I apologize.
I do maintain my criticism of the length of the article, and the fact that… well, a mirror is, of all things, not an appropriate analogy for an object that accurately reflects reality, given how it can be manipulated. But that’s mainly a procedural point.
So, where do the “it’s too wordy” bots suddenly come from? Literal spam here, if seemingly thoughtful, maybe.
Re:
Or perhaps there are people who think this, and are not bots. There has been a lot of spam these days in the comments here, but I don’t feel like length is an inappropriate criticism of this article.
You might disagree with it, and you have every right to, but it does not mean that these are bots.
Re:
“People who disagree with me aren’t people”
– You
The problem isn’t that it’s hard to unravel Musk’s lies.
It’s that his lies are allowing him to do real harm, and no one is serious about trying to stop him.
You’re preaching to the choir.
Bleh, I meant read by him, not read by LLMs
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No comment on any of the actual fraud discovered, just tribal nonsense.
Sad to see how this site evolved from a decent news source to an opinion rag.
Re:
Techdirt has always been an opinion blog. What you don’t like is how the site has been focusing on the extreme actions of the Trump/Musk administration as of late.
Re:
If you could share some of that proof I am sure it would be appreciated. Nothing from the “trust me bro” source, but if there actually existed some real proof of actual tangible wrongdoing that could be slapped down in front of a neutral judge?
Re:
We’re all waiting with bated breath to see this fraud laid out in detail. So far all we’ve heard is a bunch of Trump and Musk sycophants claiming that lots has been found. Do you know something we don’t or are you just repeating the same talking points?
Re:
I’m on the same page as you on this. TechDirt used to be a pretty good site on issues like copyright reform and other policy matters. It’s still worth checking occasionally for things like Section 230 explainers.
But there’s far too many instances in any given week of more partisan-minded opinions rather than clarifications of law and policy. Seems like sites such as Reclaim the Net and TorrentFreak avoid falling prey to that.