Last week — in the ever-growing sector of the news cycle called “did I dream it?” — Twitter owner Elon Musk suggested to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that they settle their, essentially trifling, differences in a cage fight.
Zuckerberg, rather than saying: “Elon, that’s insane, you’re 51 years old and the richest person in human history, and I’m not far behind,” ostensibly replied: “Sure. Where and when?”
For those of us old enough to remember, the circus rivaled the one that accompanied the 2002, celebrity-adjacent, boxing-adjacent contest between Ricky Gervais and Grant Bovey.
Dana White, the bombastic president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, revealing a surprising ignorance of the historic beef between the animal-loving comedian and Anthea Turner’s wrong’un ex-husband, predicted that the Musk-Zuckerberg clash would break all records.
“This would be the biggest fight ever in the history of the world,” he said.
Fighting used to be regarded as a way out of poverty. Manny Pacquiao, an all-time boxing great, grew up in extreme destitution in the Philippines (last year, he ran for president). So, how to explain why two men with a combined wealth of US$340 billion would choose to step into the octagon in Las Vegas and bash seven shades out of each other?
White talked of the “hundreds of millions of dollars” they would raise for charity, but no one was buying that. If Musk and Zuckerberg were really interested in philanthropy, they could drop billions without getting a black eye and a busted ego.
More persuasive is the theory that the fight was an extreme case of a pair of tech bros going rogue. In many ways, this made sense: Musk and Zuckerberg have amassed unimaginable riches and both have, presumably, had to stare down the question of what a meaningful life entails.
For Zuckerberg, this led to a year of eating wild boars that he killed with a bow and arrow. Recently, he has become obsessed with Brazilian jujutsu, winning a couple of medals at a competition in California.
He is not alone among high-profile men in testing himself this way. The actor Tom Hardy made a surprise appearance in a Brazilian jujutsu tournament in Milton Keynes, England, last year, winning all his bouts.
There is also a simpler explanation for what has happened: Musk was clearly joking and whoosh, it flew straight over Zuckerberg’s head. You might expect the men who between them control Twitter, Instagram and Facebook to know better, but social media is an atrocious place to have any kind of discussion, which is why it so often descends into a trash fire.
Sarcasm is the first casualty of digital conversations. Musk even put “lol” at the end of his initial response to the idea of a cage fight.
The Musk-Zuckerberg spat mainly shows how far social media has fallen from its original ideals. In 2010, Zuckerberg was named Time’s Person of the Year and praised for his efforts to “tame the howling mob and turn the lonely, antisocial world of random chance into a friendly world.”
Alternatively, you can just settle your disagreements with a fight in a cage.
Tim Lewis is an Observer columnist.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS