That's definitely not what he argues there. It's quite possible for 95% of hate to be mostly unfounded while that person is still worthy of hate. It's just that the existence of haters does not necessarily mean that person is hate-worthy.
The different rates and ways that various types of information travels through media (both social and not) and gets distorted by it are fascinating and there's probably been some good books written on them...
If my memory serves, Graham would sometimes link to his essay when people criticized Musk. It’s hard for me to check at the moment, as Graham’s Twitter account has been suspended.
As I said, 95% of criticism might by illegitimate while the 5% isn't. Paul could have been linking for the X% of Musk hate that's ill founded based on his personal knowledge of the guy.
In the article, he makes no breakdown like you describe. He appears to have created a straw man which he alludes to whenever once of his associates receive criticism.
In light of Musk fulfilling the predictions of his worst “haters,” maybe this merits clarifying the essay.
I’m referring to him treating Twitter as his plaything, changing rules on a whim to suit his latest impulses, creating a whole mess of problems such as scaring advertisers away.
I have to say it’s surprising the the site hasn’t had downtime. Maybe that’s a testament to how resilient the previous engineers made things. I think most experienced engineers would agree that if you lost 75% of your company in the span of a month and a half, you’re going to lose critical institutional knowledge, and Twitter has a lot of moving parts. So kudos to Musk for winning that round of Russian roulette? At least so far.
The different rates and ways that various types of information travels through media (both social and not) and gets distorted by it are fascinating and there's probably been some good books written on them...