Crypto News: The MAGA “civil war” continues

Elon Musk bought the social network now known as X while promoting himself as a free-speech champion. Right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer disputes that characterization. Max Chafkin writes today about how the feud has hit Loomer's income and why it matters in Trumpland. Plus: What happened to Walgreens' smart screens, how Dry January runs counter to Americans' drinking trends and how populism is working (or not) for the working class. If this email was forwarded to you, click here to sign up.

One of the more intriguing subdramas hanging over President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration is the interplay between his new friends and his old ones. On one side—and sitting in some of the best seats—are Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and the TikTok guy. On the other is a group of Trump loyalists who worry they're being edged out, and in some cases even punished, for failing to fall in line behind Trump's new friends in tech.

Laura Loomer, a podcast host and right-wing content creator who played a prominent role in the 2024 election, says she's lost a huge chunk of her income from X after criticizing Musk and others in his orbit. Her claim of so-called demonetization echoes a critique that's come up ever since Musk bought the social media platform, then known as Twitter, as part of what he framed as a crusade to protect free expression. Musk almost immediately tossed that principle out the window.

Musk initially said he was such a devout believer in free speech that he wouldn't suppress his critics or ban the account that followed his plane. He did both of those things less than two months after buying the company, while apparently tweaking the platform in ways that ensured his posts dominated users' feeds. After railing for years about Twitter's decision to suppress emails from a laptop that had belonged to Joe Biden's son, Musk did something roughly parallel—suspending a journalist who'd shared an opposition research dossier about Vice President-elect JD Vance.

Musk, at Trump's campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York. Photographer: Adam Gray/Bloomberg

Liberals have long pointed to what they see as obvious hypocrisy, but since Trump's election Musk seems to have focused his vindictive energies on conservative critics, too. In December dozens of users who criticized his stance on H-1B visas saw their verified user checkmarks disappear. (Musk favors the temporary work permits for skilled immigrants; opponents, including many on the right as well as Senator Bernie Sanders, see them as a way to undercut American workers.) From the outside, taking away those checkmarks after a political debate looked like an obvious example of censorship, because X prioritizes posts from verified users.

Making things even more awkward: One of these users, Loomer, is among Trump's most visible supporters. But last month she criticized a Trump appointee who's close to Musk, claiming that he'd previously donated to Democratic politicians. She also, memorably, referred to Musk as a "stage 5 clinger." Musk responded by accusing Loomer of "trolling for attention." He told his followers to ignore her.

Loomer thinks Musk did more than that. She's regained her checkmark but has seen the number of views to her X posts fall by roughly 80% since the feud began, according to screenshots she shared with me. At the time of her dispute, she had roughly 2,000 paid subscribers on X, each paying $7 a month. Those subscriptions were canceled. She says she received no explanation other than a request to delete a post that included a screenshot of a public Federal Election Committee fling, apparently a violation of X's policy on doxxing because it included personal information. Loomer says that she'd posted similar FEC filings in the past without consequence and that other verified X users had done the same.

Loomer, who was among the influencers Musk brought back to Twitter after taking over the company, calls this an attack on her livelihood and a betrayal of Musk's supposed free-speech ideology. "The rules are being selectively enforced," she says. Although Loomer herself says she doesn't object to hate speech on social media—she is a "free speech absolutist" after all—she notes there's something odd about being punished for posting a public document when X is awash in content that seems to violate its terms of service. "How is it that you can be demonetized and unverified when you publish an FEC record but you're not demonetized when you post 'Heil Hitler' 30 times a day?" Thirty times a day may be an exaggeration, but there appears to be some truth to this claim. X didn't respond to a request for comment.

The feud between Loomer and Musk might be a sideshow if not for their close relationships with Trump. It also raises questions about the ideological sincerity of other tech founders who are cozying up to the president-elect days before his term begins. His campaign didn't respond to a request for comment.

As part of his big free-speech announcement last week, Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms Inc., said content moderation teams were being moved from California to Texas, as part of what he framed as a plan to make his staff less "woke." But Wired reported on Wednesday that few Facebook employees will actually be forced to relocate. Like Musk—who seems motivated, at least in part, by a desire for SpaceX contracts and more favorable regulation of driverless cars—Zuckerberg has selfish reasons to embrace Trump, including the looming ban of TikTok and a Federal Trade Commission trial.

Will Trump accede to their requests? So far he's been more than happy to take money and praise from his new supporters in the tech industry. It isn't clear whether he'll be willing to fully embrace their policy agenda—especially amid criticism from members of his base. "The question is, are we at the point where President Trump's own staff have to tiptoe around Elon Musk or their concerns about the role that big tech is playing in the administration because they too will worry about facing retribution the way I did," Loomer asks. "Does loyalty matter more than the checkbooks of the billionaire technocrats?"

In other words, expect the MAGA "civil war" to continue.

In Brief

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza, but they're already trading blame over the details.
A group of shareholders representing $266 billion in funds has asked Walmart to explain its business case for cutting DEI programs. Previously in this newsletter: Walmart's DEI pullback is a chance for a new approach.
Do immigrants really take jobs from Americans? Here's a no-nonsense guide to one of the country's most divisive issues.

A $200 Million Fight Over Fridge Doors

Illustration: Sean Dong for Bloomberg Businessweek

The refrigerated section at the flagship Walgreens on Chicago's Magnificent Mile was glowing with frozen food and bottled drinks, but not for long. Where the fridge cases were previously lined with simple glass doors, there were door-size computer screens instead. These "smart doors" obscured shoppers' view of the fridges' actual contents, replacing them with virtual rows of the Gatorades, Bagel Bites and other goods it promised were inside. The digital displays had a distinct advantage over regular glass, at least for the retailer: ads. When proximity sensors detected passersby, the fridge doors started playing short videos hawking Doritos or urging customers to check out with Apple Pay. If this sounds disruptive—in the ordinary sense of the word, not Silicon Valley's—that might have seemed a generous description in December 2023, when all the screens went blank.

At first, the outage didn't arouse suspicion. These internet-connected fridge panels, developed by a Chicago startup called Cooler Screens Inc., frequently flickered, crashed or showed the wrong products. Every so often, they caught fire. But store managers were stuck with them. As part of a 10-year contract with Walgreens for a split of the ad revenue, Cooler Screens had installed 10,000 smart doors at hundreds of US locations like this one. It planned to install 35,000 more. By this point, Walgreens had already tried to pull out of the deal and get rid of the doors, blaming what it says was glitchy hardware and software. But Cooler Screens had temporarily prevented their removal the prior June by suing Walgreens for breach of contract, seeking $200 million and demanding its screens stay in place. Unreported until now is that over the ensuing months of legal battling, during which Walgreens had countersued for monetary damages, Cooler Screens Chief Executive Officer Arsen Avakian decided to try a different form of pushback.

Austin Carr writes about all the twists and turns from there: Walgreens Replaced Fridge Doors With Smart Screens. It's Now a $200 Million Fiasco

Where the Populist Project Is Falling Short

Photographer: Jordan Tiberio for Bloomberg Businessweek. Embroidery: Emily Simpson

In pedigree and personality, the 45th and 46th US presidents couldn't have been more different. In their economic policies, though, Donald Trump and Joe Biden shared a populist core. Which means their presidencies look like the advent of a distinct era in history that, with Trump's return as the 47th president, is set to be extended for another four years.

While Trump and Biden may bristle at sharing the "populist" label, both have styled themselves champions of the common man and woman. Their agendas are grounded in the same grievance-driven economic nationalism that challenges decades of orthodoxy on the benefits of free trade and the efficiency of markets. Both blame business and political elites for taking America down the wrong path. And both have staked their presidencies on bringing factory jobs back to the US and lifting up the people and places struggling to keep pace with change.

And yet the reality is that eight years of MAGA and Bidenomics haven't delivered for many of those distressed corners of the world's largest economy.

Using employment, wealth or health as a yardstick, Shawn Donnan writes, it's hard to find any meaningful gains for the working class, which raises questions about the next four years: Eight Years of Populism Hasn't Gotten America Very Far

Americans' Drinking Habits Are Shifting

Photographer: Isa Zapata for Bloomberg Businessweek; prop stylist: Christina Allen

Americans have always had a close relationship with alcohol. Every hour was seemingly happy hour as colonists quaffed wine at breakfast, beer at lunch and toddies at dinner, according to the authors of the 1981 tome Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition. Although Americans now drink less than a third by volume per capita than their counterparts did at the blotto peak of the early 19th century, the share of citizens who consider themselves drinkers has remained pretty steady for decades. Gallup has been keeping track of how many Americans report being drinkers since 1939—only a few years after the end of Prohibition—and the number almost always falls somewhere between 60% and 70%. In 2023 it was 62%.

But even though the percentage of Americans who drink has stayed steady, drinker demographics have changed a lot in the past few years. Male drinkers traditionally consume more than women, but women—especially those in their 20s and 30s—have been catching up since the 2000s. That's thanks in large part to the normalization of the "wine mom," whose drinking is marketed as a cheeky sort of rebellion against her familial and professional duties. (Experts are more likely to call it "drinking to cope," which sounds a lot more grim.)

The pandemic, too, spiked alcohol consumption—more Americans drank, and those who did drank more on average. A recent study from the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine found that those increases—about 4% more of the country's adults started drinking—were durable at least through the end of 2022, even as millions returned to their normal work and school routines. Of particular concern is the study's identification of a 20% jump in heavy drinking, which is defined as five drinks in a day or 15 drinks per week for men and four drinks in a day or eight drinks per week for women; any way you slice it, more Americans are getting drunk. This change, though not exactly great news for public health, is also not entirely unexpected. We historically turn to alcohol during periods of anxiety, upheaval and loneliness. And, well …

History teaches us that the US has always loved to drink, Amanda Mull writes. Here are some trends to consider this Dry January: Young Americans Are Drinking Less—But Can It Last?

Property Rebound

7.3%

That's how much the market value of New York City's more than 1 million properties is projected to rise in the upcoming fiscal year. Brooklyn is expected to lead with an estimated market value jump of 9.4% as rental apartment values in the borough climb 15%.

American Oligarchy Threat

"Today an oligarchy is taking shape in America—of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, a fair shot for everyone to get ahead."

Joe Biden

US president

Biden warned Americans of a "dangerous concentration of power" in the hands of a "very few ultrawealthy people" and the impact he feared it would have on the country's democracy as he delivered a farewell address on Wednesday from the Oval Office.