The Evolution of Elon Musk, Part 2
Protect Yourself Against Information Feudalism
TL;DR: Last week, I documented Musk's conversion of Tesla wealth into governmental power through DOGE. This week, I examine how his AI investments amplify this asymmetry, recommend self-defense measures, and highlight the irony of advocating for scientific transparency while recommending personal privacy. Without structural reforms, Musk's information control strategy threatens democracy itself.
In last week's analysis, I traced Elon Musk's three-phase evolution from Product Builder to Market Value Engineer to Information Controller. The data revealed a calculated strategy: sacrificing $39 billion in Tesla stock to acquire Twitter/X, then leveraging this platform to gain unprecedented government authority through DOGE. While Tesla shareholders watched $800 billion in market value evaporate, Musk was executing what I called an “information heist” by trading public market accountability for private control over both information flows and government policy. This heist is now positioned to become an actual coup d’etat.
The urgent reality we face cannot be overstated: We stand at the precipice of an authoritarian shift enabled by unprecedented data centralization and AI capabilities, not necessarily to a “Deep State” government but more probably to a technological feudalism controlled by private actors. This is not hyperbole—it is the logical conclusion of the evidence presented. When authoritarian control becomes evident to the general public, the systems to resist it will already be dismantled. I urge readers to adopt a defensive posture now, treating digital security not as a theoretical concern but as an immediate necessity. The window for preventative action narrows daily. While some may dismiss these concerns as alarmist, history consistently shows that societies recognize authoritarian takeovers only in retrospect, when resistance becomes exponentially more difficult and dangerous. The evidence detailed below illustrates why preparation today may determine our freedom tomorrow.
The metaphor of Leatherface seems apt, particularly since it is one that Musk himself has promoted.
Like the iconic horror character who transformed power tools into instruments of terror, Musk has converted conventional business assets—cars, rockets, satellites, and social media—into an integrated system for information dominance. However, unlike fictional villains whose motives remain opaque, Musk's strategy is quantifiable through financial data, judicial rulings, and his own public statements.
This week, I'll dissect what may be the most alarming component of Musk's information strategy: his strategic positioning at the intersection of artificial intelligence and unprecedented data access. AI doesn't merely complement his information control strategy—it exponentially amplifies it by transforming raw data into actionable intelligence. Using quantitative analysis, we can calculate both the magnitude of this threat and suggest countermeasures that individuals can implement immediately while we work toward necessary structural reforms.
The AI Amplification Factor
No discussion of Musk's strategy would be complete without addressing artificial intelligence. He has significantly influenced this domain through investments in companies like xAI and his previous founding role at OpenAI. The AI connection to his current power consolidation is both strategic and troubling.
AI systems fundamentally amplify information asymmetries. Those with access to the most data and computation can build increasingly sophisticated models that extract insights from vast information repositories—precisely the asymmetrical advantage Musk seeks through DOGE's government data access and X's user behavior algorithms.
Examining the pattern across his companies:
PayPal processes 33 million financial transactions per day and has a total of over 500 petabytes of data in its systems
Tesla has collected hundreds of billions of miles of driving data, creating a proprietary dataset for autonomous vehicle development.
X captures behavioral data from hundreds of millions of users daily
Starlink's global coverage provides unprecedented geospatial network data
The DOGE extraction now adds massive historical government administrative and personal data (YES, YOU!) to this ecosystem. This theft cannot be undone.
These actions create a data constellation that could power AI systems with unprecedented predictive capabilities about markets, behavior (including voting), and policy outcomes. This data-AI-identity feedback loop represents the most concerning aspect of Musk's evolution: his capacity to access information asymmetrically and process it using computational tools that further extend his advantage.
Implications and Growing Republican Resistance
Let's estimate that DOGE can now access legally verified data on 200 million American adults. While single data points have limited value in isolation, the aggregate creates an integrated ecosystem where Tesla's vehicle data, X's behavioral information, Starlink's geographic insights, and DOGE's government records form a constellation with exponentially more value than the sum of its parts. In an 'information economy,' adding government data is equivalent to robbing Fort Knox in broad daylight.
This evolution has profound implications supported by observation:
Tesla shareholders suffer substantial financial losses as Musk diverts his attention to DOGE. The stock's 45% year-to-date decline directly correlates with his government appointment. Yet, investors don’t seem to understand that he is no longer aligned with them.
“In order to turn around Tesla's stock slump, Musk needs to first correct his US$44-billion mistake—which was Twitter. There's been a brand deterioration around Musk and that's what's created a black cloud around Tesla.” Dan Ives, the managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities. [Note: Twitter and Tesla only intersect at Musk’s reputation.]
American citizens face unprecedented privacy vulnerabilities as DOGE accesses sensitive personal data. Yet, many Americans are blind to the threat.
“If anybody actually understood how all these pieces work together, we’d have to shoot them. They’d be too dangerous. And I’m only halfway joking. I would have fired anyone who tried to give me access [to the IRS’s Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS)].” Terry Lutes, former associate chief information officer of the IRS.
Democratic institutions confront unaccountable power as DOGE has created a governance structure that bypasses constitutional checks and balances. Yet, at least superficially, the rest of the government seems to have been rendered powerless to enforce its own laws.
“USDS [DOGE]’s power to override agency officials, swiftly gain access to agency systems, and impose job requirements on federal employees all further suggest substantial independent authority.” U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling, March 10, 2025.
Information security systems risk compromise as DOGE staff access government databases without undergoing standard vetting procedures. This exposes critical infrastructure to security risks that normal clearance processes are designed to prevent. Yet, rather than simply accessing the databases for information, DOGE is actually copying them for covert activities.
Also, from Judge Cooper: “USDS [DOGE]’s operations thus far have been marked by unusual secrecy… For instance, USDS reportedly installed an outside server at OPM to store government staffers’ personal information, including their names and email accounts.”
The risk may extend beyond mere data access. What's particularly alarming is the possibility that DOGE may have obtained “write” access to government data in addition to “read” access”. This distinction is critical—read access allows data observation, while write access permits modification. With write privileges, data could be altered, erased, or fabricated. Musk, who has been accused of being an illegal immigrant himself, could theoretically erase records of his own history. Voter registrations could be quietly modified, citizenship statuses altered, and criminal records amended—all without leaving evidence. Such capabilities could render traditional oversight mechanisms useless, as the records used to verify compliance could be manipulated. The installation of "outside servers" at OPM, as noted by Judge Cooper, suggests precisely this kind of infrastructure being established—parallel systems that can extract and potentially alter federal records outside standard security protocols.
Republicans, traditionally supporters of smaller and less intrusive government, are finally growing ‘concerned’. According to an Associated Press report last week, several Republican lawmakers are ‘uneasy ‘about DOGE's methods. Even Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called DOGE's lack of Congressional consultation “political malpractice,” saying: “Maybe you've got a good reason to do it, but we don't need to be reading memos in the paper about a 20% cut at the VA.” [Even Lindsey doesn’t understand the game he is playing in.]
The shrinking regulatory oversight, concentrated data collection, and AI-powered analysis create a perfect storm for democratic erosion. When even traditional supporters of small government express alarm, it signals we've moved beyond partisan concerns to fundamental questions about power distribution in a digital society—it remains to be seen whether the partisans themselves can unite. While documenting these threats is necessary, simply identifying problems without proposing solutions risks feeding learned helplessness and contravenes the theme of this series. Let me, therefore, turn from diagnosis to prescription.
Regular readers might notice an intentional irony in this installment. I spent three of the last four segments advocating for transparency and verification in scientific contexts through SciValidate; I'm now recommending strategic opacity for individuals. This apparent contradiction creates an essential asymmetry: transparency should flow from positions of power toward individuals, not the reverse. When information ecosystems are appropriately designed, institutional transparency and individual privacy aren't opposing values but complementary safeguards.
Beyond Alarmism: Practical Defenses Against the Federal Data Compromise
The centralization of federal personal data presents risks far beyond conventional identity theft. If someone with Musk's resources and political influence has compromised voter records and naturalization data, we face a fundamentally different threat landscape—one where targeting could occur based on political affiliation or immigration status. Rather than attempt to reinvent security practices that others have perfected, I strongly recommend the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD) resource. For over thirty years, the EFF has been developing and refining practical guides for people facing sophisticated surveillance, from journalists in conflict zones to activists under authoritarian regimes. Their security scenarios are tailored to different threat models, with specific guidance for vulnerable populations. Their approach emphasizes developing a personalized security plan based on your particular risks rather than attempting to protect against every possible threat—exactly the pragmatic stance needed in our current climate. The SSD resources are regularly updated, translated into multiple languages, and provide step-by-step tutorials for implementing proper security measures.
It is sad to think that this is what America has come to, but it is now the game we are in. We aren't under threat from our own government (or whatever DOGE becomes) yet, but the pieces are in place, and it is better to be prepared.
As AI amplifies information asymmetries, defensive measures become increasingly important. The same pattern detection capabilities that allow AI systems to correlate data across disparate sources can be weaponized against selected populations. When fed voter registration data, naturalization records, and social media behaviors, these systems can identify and target individuals based on political affiliation or immigration status with unprecedented precision. The effectiveness of AI-powered targeting algorithms can be significantly reduced by deliberately introducing entropy through strategic information noise and compartmentalization. While AI excels at finding patterns, it can be confused by deliberate inconsistencies—essentially exploiting the same pattern-matching capabilities that make these systems dangerous in the first place.
The rule is simple: Change your pattern from easy, expected, and predictable behavior. For example, if you're registered to vote, consider changing your party affiliation and making small public contributions to disagreeable candidates to confuse the algorithm. The ballot box is still private for now.
Responding to Political Targeting Risks
The consequences of information asymmetry in a democracy are profound, and now Elon Musk, a politically motivated actor with comprehensive federal data, has acquired unprecedented targeting capabilities. While no defensive measure is perfect, you can protect your identity as a stopgap until structural reforms create meaningful constraints on data misuse. Asymmetrical information—where centralized private entities collect comprehensive data while individuals have minimal visibility or control—is a high-stakes game that cannot be ignored. You’re in the game whether you like it or not.
Longer-term solutions will require developing public digital infrastructure with built-in transparency, implementing mandatory information reciprocity requirements, and establishing independent verification systems free from commercial conflicts of interest. These solutions are unlikely to materialize until (unless?) our technologically naive and geriatric Congress turns the reins over to a younger generation brought up in the power of the new media. Until those structural changes materialize, you must defend yourself against the new reality of aggregated identity data—the key insight is that strategic information management can significantly mitigate risks even when the underlying systems remain vulnerable.
Conclusion: From Enormous Wealth to Information Dominance
In Part 1, I documented Musk's strategic evolution: his methodical conversion of regulated public capital into unregulated private influence. This analysis reveals that the core vulnerability isn't Musk himself but the information asymmetry his strategy exploits.
What appears to investors as mismanagement—sacrificing Tesla's market value for Twitter/X, neglecting core businesses for government work—makes perfect strategic sense when viewed through the lens of information value. Musk has deliberately deceived his co-investors by appearing focused on financial gain while actually pursuing something far more valuable: predictive information power. His seemingly poor business decisions that have cost shareholders billions are, in fact, calculated investments in an information acquisition strategy.
The financial markets that made Musk wealthy operate on the assumption that corporate equity represents the pinnacle of value. This assumption is dangerously outdated. Information, particularly the legally protected and purified data we've all shared over the years with our government, represents a vastly more valuable asset than Tesla's entire market capitalization. Through DOGE, Musk has effectively stolen this asset while the financial markets remain blind to the true nature of his transactions.
Integrating this unprecedented data access with AI capabilities creates an asymmetric advantage beyond anything possible in traditional financial markets. The ability to predict outcomes—from market movements to election results—has always been more valuable than wealth itself. By positioning himself at the nexus of government data and AI processing power, Musk has orchestrated what amounts to the largest wealth transfer in history, not measured in dollars but in predictive control.
Without structural reforms that ensure equitable transparency, we risk replacing market capitalism not with a better system but with information feudalism—where the lords of data control the destiny of digital serfs, manipulating markets and democracies alike.
Even with all of these worries, I remain cautiously optimistic. We still have time to protect ourselves. The technologies needed for symmetrical verification exist today, and the implementation models are already working in several countries1. As public awareness grows about the costs of information asymmetry, the political will for change will follow.
The question isn't whether we can build better systems—it's whether we'll choose to do so before our digital landscape’s current asymmetries become permanent features.
Estonia's X-Road system provides a working model of secure, transparent data exchange that maintains user control while enabling verification. America’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) already allows visibility into government documents, but it’s limited to specific requests. Other technologically advanced countries are even more open: Finland, for example, celebrates the publication of tax records and income information under the Openness of Public Documents Act, resulting in its consistently high rankings in global anti-corruption indices.