How an ‘unusual director' rose to the boardroom at age 32
Bridget Loudon-Harris says she is an 'unusual director', whose appointment to the Telstra board ruffled feathers with some institutional investors.
On Thursday night she was named winner of the Alvarez & Marsal award in the inaugural Financial Review BOSS Director Awards. The special award is for leaders whose values and actions clearly align with Alvarez & Marsal's principles and positioning, which emphasises leadership, action and results.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
16 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The billion-dollar industry with scant consumer protections
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Musk used X to boost Trump. Now he's wielding it against him
Thursday's online drama underscored that while Musk's stewardship of X made it into a powerful tool for his allies and the conservative movement, he feels free to wrench it in whatever new direction he pleases. When he acquired Twitter, Musk drove some users and advertisers away from the platform by putting his personal views ahead of business concerns, loosening speech rules and reinstating accounts banned for harassment or spreading misinformation. His fight with Trump proved again that he is willing to risk an exodus of users – this time from the right – by using the platform as a bully pulpit. Trump commands an actual military, but Musk oversees the larger digital horde. He has 220 million X followers, while Trump has 100 million on X and another 10 million on Truth Social, where he has lately become more prolific than he ever was on Twitter. Musk also controls X's moderation policies and its algorithm, both of which he has used at times to boost his own reach and silence his critics. Musk's power to direct attention on X has helped drive the emergence of an ecosystem of pseudonymous conservative political and tech influencers. Many have built followings in the millions on X by praising Musk, denigrating his rivals and trumpeting his agenda. They've been rewarded with amplification from Musk and a cut of X's ad revenue. All those advantages were arrayed in Trump's favour after Musk endorsed his candidacy on X less than an hour after Trump survived an attempted assassination in July. Musk donned a MAGA hat in his profile image, held an hours-long live audio event on X with Trump and posted fake AI-generated images of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in communist regalia. On more than one occasion, pro-Harris accounts found themselves throttled or temporarily suspended, leading some Democrats to cry foul. As Musk's 'DOGE', or Department of Government Efficiency, swept through Washington in February at Trump's behest, X became a digital command centre of the new administration. Musk used it to amplify claims of waste and corruption, some of them unfounded, at the agencies and programs he targeted for elimination. He baited critics with memes of himself as the Godfather and polled his followers on what DOGE should cut next. Now it's Trump that Musk is trolling, after ending his government service a long way short of his stated goal of cutting $US2 trillion in federal spending. He sent warning shots on Tuesday, calling Trump's massive tax and immigration bill – the president's top domestic priority – a 'disgusting abomination'. The conflict escalated in a hurry on Thursday after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that his 'great relationship' with Musk might be over. Over the following hours, Musk accused Trump and other Republican leaders of betraying their principles and approvingly reposted criticisms of them from other accounts. That can have ripple effects across X as users vie to craft posts that will win a reply or amplification from Musk that can boost their own followings. At one point, Musk posted a poll asking his 220 million followers if it was time to 'create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 per cent in the middle'. Six hours into the 24-hour poll, the votes leaned heavily toward 'Yes'. Traffic to X surely spiked on Thursday as political and tech insiders became glued to the conflict and citizens were left to wonder what it meant for the world's richest person to be at war with its most politically powerful. How the feud will affect Musk's influence and business empire is less certain. Loading Tesla and SpaceX, his most valuable companies, depend heavily on government regulation and contracts, making them vulnerable to attacks by Trump and his administration. Tesla stock fell on Thursday as investors appeared to fear retribution. Public spats between influencers are great for engagement on social platforms. But if the acrimony continues, Musk may have to reckon again with an exodus of users repelled by his politics. His embrace of Trump sent liberals scurrying to Meta's Threads and upstart Bluesky. His split with the president could give Trump an opening to lure more conservatives to Truth Social. On Thursday, some X influencers appeared to have calculated they had better prospects by sticking with Musk. An account called DogeDesigner with 41 million followers posted that Musk 'sacrificed a lot for Trump' and deserved better treatment. Just last week, Musk had sent it a heart emoji for a post promoting his alliance with the president. Another account called Shibetoshi Nakamoto mused, 'can i finally say that trump's tariffs are super stupid'. In a battle between Musk and Trump, 'My money's on Elon,' conservative commentator Ian Miles Cheong wrote, adding that 'Trump should be impeached and [US vice president] J.D. Vance should replace him.'
The Age
a day ago
- The Age
Musk used X to boost Trump. Now he's wielding it against him
Thursday's online drama underscored that while Musk's stewardship of X made it into a powerful tool for his allies and the conservative movement, he feels free to wrench it in whatever new direction he pleases. When he acquired Twitter, Musk drove some users and advertisers away from the platform by putting his personal views ahead of business concerns, loosening speech rules and reinstating accounts banned for harassment or spreading misinformation. His fight with Trump proved again that he is willing to risk an exodus of users – this time from the right – by using the platform as a bully pulpit. Trump commands an actual military, but Musk oversees the larger digital horde. He has 220 million X followers, while Trump has 100 million on X and another 10 million on Truth Social, where he has lately become more prolific than he ever was on Twitter. Musk also controls X's moderation policies and its algorithm, both of which he has used at times to boost his own reach and silence his critics. Musk's power to direct attention on X has helped drive the emergence of an ecosystem of pseudonymous conservative political and tech influencers. Many have built followings in the millions on X by praising Musk, denigrating his rivals and trumpeting his agenda. They've been rewarded with amplification from Musk and a cut of X's ad revenue. All those advantages were arrayed in Trump's favour after Musk endorsed his candidacy on X less than an hour after Trump survived an attempted assassination in July. Musk donned a MAGA hat in his profile image, held an hours-long live audio event on X with Trump and posted fake AI-generated images of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in communist regalia. On more than one occasion, pro-Harris accounts found themselves throttled or temporarily suspended, leading some Democrats to cry foul. As Musk's 'DOGE', or Department of Government Efficiency, swept through Washington in February at Trump's behest, X became a digital command centre of the new administration. Musk used it to amplify claims of waste and corruption, some of them unfounded, at the agencies and programs he targeted for elimination. He baited critics with memes of himself as the Godfather and polled his followers on what DOGE should cut next. Now it's Trump that Musk is trolling, after ending his government service a long way short of his stated goal of cutting $US2 trillion in federal spending. He sent warning shots on Tuesday, calling Trump's massive tax and immigration bill – the president's top domestic priority – a 'disgusting abomination'. The conflict escalated in a hurry on Thursday after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that his 'great relationship' with Musk might be over. Over the following hours, Musk accused Trump and other Republican leaders of betraying their principles and approvingly reposted criticisms of them from other accounts. That can have ripple effects across X as users vie to craft posts that will win a reply or amplification from Musk that can boost their own followings. At one point, Musk posted a poll asking his 220 million followers if it was time to 'create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 per cent in the middle'. Six hours into the 24-hour poll, the votes leaned heavily toward 'Yes'. Traffic to X surely spiked on Thursday as political and tech insiders became glued to the conflict and citizens were left to wonder what it meant for the world's richest person to be at war with its most politically powerful. How the feud will affect Musk's influence and business empire is less certain. Loading Tesla and SpaceX, his most valuable companies, depend heavily on government regulation and contracts, making them vulnerable to attacks by Trump and his administration. Tesla stock fell on Thursday as investors appeared to fear retribution. Public spats between influencers are great for engagement on social platforms. But if the acrimony continues, Musk may have to reckon again with an exodus of users repelled by his politics. His embrace of Trump sent liberals scurrying to Meta's Threads and upstart Bluesky. His split with the president could give Trump an opening to lure more conservatives to Truth Social. On Thursday, some X influencers appeared to have calculated they had better prospects by sticking with Musk. An account called DogeDesigner with 41 million followers posted that Musk 'sacrificed a lot for Trump' and deserved better treatment. Just last week, Musk had sent it a heart emoji for a post promoting his alliance with the president. Another account called Shibetoshi Nakamoto mused, 'can i finally say that trump's tariffs are super stupid'. In a battle between Musk and Trump, 'My money's on Elon,' conservative commentator Ian Miles Cheong wrote, adding that 'Trump should be impeached and [US vice president] J.D. Vance should replace him.'
