Musk's Memory Manipulation Madness

The subscriber base for this newsletter has doubled since last week. Wow! For those of you who are new here: “Odds & Sods” is what I used to share on Instagram, Linkedin, and, years ago, on Twitter as well. It contains my thoughts, rants, and comments on current events—mostly tech ethics, along with some pop culture and politics. I endeavour not to cover what you’ve already read numerous times elsewhere, but I also won’t hesitate to add my spin on what the likes of Trump, Musk, or Merz are doing.

Sometimes, I touch on five topics weekly; other times, I touch on two. Some are longer, while others are shorter. Every now and then, I’ll provide a link and a recommendation for something I found interesting. No added comment.

Once you've finished today’s edition, do me a favour: think of someone who would appreciate this mix of topics and pass on my newsletter. If you’re among the fortunate recipients of those recommendations:

When Knowledge Becomes a Political Casualty

As a kid, I was cautioned that "the internet never forgets" and that every post, shared thought, and picture would endure forever. How bitterly ironic that those childhood fears have inverted, leaving us grappling with a world where truth can be deleted at whim. We now confront a far more insidious issue: the deliberate erasure of public records and data. This is not the forgetfulness of the internet but the calculated amnesia of those in power. Under Donald Trump’s second presidency, vast amounts of public data have disappeared. The National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, which tracked police misconduct, was closed with a single stroke of the pen, eliminating a tool designed to prevent abusive officers from quietly transferring between agencies. Over 2,000 datasets from data.gov have vanished, including essential environmental and scientific research. Health data—crucial for public safety—has been removed from federal websites, leaving blank pages where life-saving information once existed. Even discussions of LGBTQ+ health and hate crimes have been eliminated in what can only be described as a politically motivated distortion of reality.

Elon Musk’s involvement adds another Orwellian layer. His "efficiency teams" reportedly operate under Trump’s Presidential Records Act declaration, shielding their activities from public scrutiny and rendering transparency nearly impossible. Musk has also criticised institutions such as Wikipedia, which serve as strongholds of shared knowledge, standing firm against this wave of erasure. One of the more significant resources is the Wayback Machine, a digital time capsule that lets us glimpse the internet's past. You can, with a few clicks, resurrect long-dead websites, exhume deleted press releases, and witness the evolution of blogs through the years. Imagine scrolling through a political candidate’s website from a decade ago, comparing their past promises to present actions. Or picture yourself unearthing a corporation’s hastily retracted statement, capturing the fleeting moment of unguarded truth before the PR machine kicked into gear. This archival prowess isn’t just a boon for the nostalgic or the curious; it’s a powerful tool for journalists. In an age where the powerful can attempt to rewrite history with a keystroke, the Wayback Machine is a bulwark against such Orwellian revisionism. However, this digital archive is not infallible. It’s a constant race against time and technological change, with the archivists struggling to capture the ever-shifting landscape of the web. Not every page is saved, not every version preserved. But in this imperfect mirror of our digital past, we find a crucial weapon in the fight for truth and accountability, holding hundreds of billions of archived webpages today–including those presidential tweets.

The implications of Elon Musk’s and Donald Trump’s attacks on crucial information are staggering. When public records disappear, accountability dies alongside them. Police misconduct goes unchecked. Health crises escalate without accessible data. Scientific progress falters when research is concealed or destroyed. This is not mere bureaucratic oversight; it is an assault on truth itself—a deliberate attempt to control what is remembered and what is forgotten. Such actions resonate with the darkest chapters of history, where authoritarian regimes distorted reality to secure power. As George Orwell cautioned in 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future.” Those in power strive to dictate what is real by erasing unwelcome truths and silencing dissenting voices. This serves as a chilling reminder that preserving knowledge is not merely a technical challenge but a moral imperative.

A brief interlude amid my “Odds & Sods”: After eight editions of my newsletter, it seems I’m perpetually comparing current events to Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. I have two thoughts: I should write a longer piece on this and also subject my comparisons to a more rigorous examination. Am I trivialising totalitarianism? I will write a piece on this at some point this year.

Furthermore, I would be keen to know how many of my subscribers have read the book in question. Please let me know by quickly responding with either “yes” or “no” to this email.

The AfD’s Optical Illusion

Suppose the recent German elections triggered a negative response in your nervous system due to the map of German election districts looking very blue. If so, you might find this interesting: Die Zeit’s visual data journalist Gregor Aisch, who is also a co-founder of Datawrapper (a programme I love to use), has created a visual representation of the results that does not visually overrepresent the large but sparsely populated AfD electoral districts in the East. Population density is very important in electoral representation yet often overlooked when examining election results.

You ought to have a look at his explanation of how he constructed it and how the final algorithm functioned. Do you feel a bit better yet? It’s like they always say: “Land doesn’t vote; people do.”

When ‘Never’ Becomes ‘Well, Maybe Just a Little’

Mozilla Firefox built its reputation on transparency and privacy. The browser positioned itself as a sanctuary for those weary of surveillance capitalism—a contrast to competitors like Google Chrome. For years, Mozilla proudly stated, “Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.”

However, recent developments have cast a shadow over this noble promise. In late February 2025, Mozilla introduced new Terms of Use for Firefox and updated its Privacy Notice, sparking an immediate backlash. The initial wording granted Mozilla “a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licence" to use user-input information, raising the alarm among privacy-conscious users. Compounding the issue, Mozilla quietly removed its long-standing promise never to sell user data from its FAQ page. The ensuing uproar forced Mozilla to backpedal swiftly. Within days, the company revised its terms, attempting to clarify that it only requires the rights necessary for Firefox’s basic functionality. Mozilla said that “in some places, the legal definition of ‘sale of data’ is broad and evolving,” and that “the competing interpretations of do-not-sell requirements does leave many businesses uncertain about their exact obligations and whether or not they’re considered to be ‘selling data.’” This statement reads like a case of poor wording and a hasty change because of the lawyers' advice—yet, the damage was done.

The incident laid bare the delicate balance Mozilla must strike between its idealistic privacy commitments and the harsh realities of sustaining a major browser in an advertising-driven internet ecosystem. This controversy reflects a broader challenge faced by companies striving to maintain an open, free internet while ensuring financial viability. Mozilla’s dilemma—caught between upholding privacy ideals and exploring new revenue streams—highlights the complexities inherent in digital ethics. As users grapple with this shift, the incident raises pointed questions about the future of online privacy and the compromises we may be forced to accept in our increasingly data-driven world.

Europe’s Corporate Clowns Embrace Musk’s Circus Act

Why do I, a European with no connection to the US, keep going on about how dangerous Elon Musk is, you ask? Because we must also challenge the ideas put forth here. More and more influential people are beginning to repeat his bullshit. The latest example is Deutsche Telekom’s CEO Tim Höttges, who has called for Europe to embrace its own version of DOGE. This proposition, while masquerading as a clarion call for streamlined bureaucracy, is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle the regulatory frameworks that have long protected European consumers and fostered competition. Höttges laments the existence of 270 regulatory bodies that his company must navigate. One can almost hear the world’s smallest violin playing a somber tune for the plight of this multibillion-euro corporation. The irony, of course, is that these very regulations have prevented the emergence of monopolistic behemoths that would make America’s gilded age robber barons appear like socialist reformers.

Let us not be seduced by Musk and his acolytes' siren call of efficiency. The DOGE, far from being a panacea for bureaucratic bloat, is a Trojan horse designed to concentrate power in the hands of tech oligarchs. For one, Musk, with his vast corporate empire and disdain for government oversight, is hardly the disinterested party one would want overseeing the dismantling of regulatory safeguards.

The speed at which this digital coup d’état is unfolding should give us all pause for thought. Europe, with its rich tradition of social democracy and robust regulatory frameworks, should view Musk’s DOGE with the same skepticism one might reserve for a fox volunteering to guard the henhouse. The continent’s strength lies not in imitating the worst excesses of American-style deregulation, but in refining and reinforcing its commitment to a balanced approach that fosters innovation while protecting the public interest. Höttges and his ilk would do well to remember that efficiency without ethics is a recipe for disaster. Instead of clamouring for a European DOGE, perhaps they should focus on innovating within the existing framework, proving that it is possible to be both profitable and responsible. After all, the true measure of a company’s success should not be its ability to circumvent regulation, but its capacity to thrive while upholding the values of the society it purports to serve. In the end, the choice facing Europe is clear: embrace the Muskian vision of unfettered corporate power, or stand firm in defence of a system that, while imperfect, has served to balance the scales between business interests and public good. The continent would do well to choose the latter, lest it find itself dancing to the tune of a Silicon Valley piper whose melody may prove as seductive as it is ultimately destructive.

Schuldenbremse Swindler: Merz Steals Grüne’s Homework

At this point, you must have realised that I’m an angry and cynical person. I tried to finish today’s edition without mentioning Friedrich Merz, the chameleon of German politics. But as a late addition, here goes: Our next Chancellor has executed a breathtaking volte-face that exposes him as a fraud. After relentlessly attacking the Grünen for their stance on the Schuldenbremse, he is now shamelessly adopting their long-held position. This isn’t mere policy evolution; it’s brazen deceit. Yes, reforming the Schuldenbremse is crucial for Germany’s and Europe’s future. Whatever it takes. But Merz has revealed himself as a weathervane, spinning wildly in the winds of expediency. His convictions have the consistency of a jellyfish in a blender. Is this the leader we want representing Germany? A man who campaigned on lies and now intends to govern using stolen ideas? The German people deserve better than this craven opportunist. We need fiscal reform, but not at the hands of a political huckster who treats his campaign promises as disposable as yesterday’s newspaper. Merz’s duplicity isn’t just a personal failing; it’s a betrayal of democratic trust. It’s high time we called a spade a spade: Friedrich Merz is a liar, plain and simple, and he has no business leading our nation.

(If you want less opinion and more analysis, I recommend reading Benedikt Becker’s piece in Wirtschaftswoche about this. He’s a former colleague of mine and knows his shit.)

You’ve made it; this is the end. I haven’t had anyone unsubscribe yet—you wouldn’t want to be the first now, would you? If today’s “Odds & Sods” isn’t for you, perhaps next week’s edition will leave you either enraged or enlightened. You never know.

Thank you for reading.