[HN Gopher] Elon Musk moves ahead with Twitter deal in 13D filing
___________________________________________________________________
Elon Musk moves ahead with Twitter deal in 13D filing
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 258 points
Date : 2022-10-04 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sec.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov)
| stanislavb wrote:
| The person (Elon Musk) who is echo chambering Russian propaganda
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000 buying
| one of the biggest western/world social networks and having more
| influence there - that's bad.
| memish wrote:
| stanislavb wrote:
| I'm sorry, but not a single point in Musk's proposition is
| pro Ukraine
| https://twitter.com/StanBright/status/1577079715038261249
| jandrese wrote:
| It's pretty galling for Elon to tout how charitable he is
| for allowing the US government to buy a large number of
| Starlink terminals at full price to send to Ukraine.
| stanislavb wrote:
| and it's pretty normal for Hacker News to get comments
| like this one downvoted -\\_(tsu)_/-
| dr-detroit wrote:
| bought and paid for with dads conflict emeralds all with the
| stated goal of a million slaves on Mars... We're nearing the
| end of neo fascism with the hilarious route of Russia in
| Ukraine but it was a fun ride while it lasted.
| boomskats wrote:
| Genuinely curious, what part of the tweet you linked to do you
| consider to be Russian propaganda?
| divan wrote:
| "Khrushchev's mistake" is a uniquely russian narrative.
|
| No western historian would ever use this, you can only get
| this from russian propaganda sources like "Moskovskiy
| Komsomolets" or from someone who's influenced by it.
|
| I wonder where did Musk get this from. And what other memes
| of russian's version of history he got.
| stanislavb wrote:
| This:
| https://twitter.com/StanBright/status/1577079715038261249
|
| - Elections after they displaced millions of people and moved
| there theirs!? WTF!
|
| - Yeah, and the US land was formally part of the UK circa
| 1776!?
|
| - I'll stop beating you up, only if can't have new friends,
| so that I can beat you up again!?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| simlevesque wrote:
| The part where he repeats Russian propaganda points.
|
| Like when he says they should do "elections under UN
| supervision". In a region which just experienced mass
| deportation of it's habitants and mass migration of native
| russians, by force, in the last months.
|
| Also, he absolutely glosses over the fact that Russia
| blatantly broke the Budapest Memorandum. How can you trust
| them at all ?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| You're not giving Musk enough credit. Do you think taking
| these things into account wasn't part of his proposal? What
| do you think he would answer if he got a direct question
| about this part?
| drcongo wrote:
| He literally revised his poll when he did get direct
| questions about it, because he obviously hadn't thought
| any of it through. Absolutely blows my mind how many
| little fanboys he has that will perform incredible feats
| of mental gymnastics just to lickspittle themselves at
| his feet.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Do you think taking these things into account wasn't
| part of his proposal?
|
| I presume it was about as well thought-out as the
| original Twitter purchase offer.
| neaden wrote:
| Also mass murder of its inhabitants.
| [deleted]
| dralley wrote:
| The part where he referred to the country of Ukraine as
| "Khrushchev's mistake", for one.
| jandrese wrote:
| The idea that Russia would
|
| 1. hold honest elections
|
| 2. allow the residents who have been forced to flee to return
| so they could vote
|
| 3. honor the result of said election
|
| goes well beyond naive and into the realm of parroting
| propaganda. Literally nothing in Russia's recent history nor
| what we know about Putin suggests this is at all realistic.
| The only thing it does is attempt to legitimize the
| "elections" they just held over the annexation of the
| territory.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Great start for peace, the assumption that nothing said by
| Russia is true, and their future behavior will always be
| bad. You have no inside line, and no particular insight,
| what makes you so sure of what _Russia_ thinks, what
| _Russia_ wants, and what _Russia_ will do, and casually
| disregards anything that Russia says and any of Russia 's
| stated concerns?
|
| Why does everyone speculate about the inner states of Putin
| and the Russian administration as if they know more than
| what they're told?
| redeeman wrote:
| so let me get this straight, when elon musk says the
| elections they had now cannot be trusted, and calls for new
| elections with UN observers, so that the result should be
| trustworthy, he is really just trying to legitimize the
| "elections" they already held?
|
| I can see I need a few words with my english teacher
| willcipriano wrote:
| The part that doesn't make the US military industrial complex
| money and send countless young men into the meat grinder.
| mepian wrote:
| The "Khrushchev's mistake" part.
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| Aren't you allowed to have open discussions about things
| anymore? Elon throws out stuff all the time, sometimes just to
| get the discussion started.
|
| Also, try to steelman the guy. Where do you think this is
| coming from? That he agrees with Russia or that he wants to
| avoid nuclear war?
| IntelMiner wrote:
| This rings of "just asking questions"
|
| https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
| robswc wrote:
| Honestly. It honestly seems to me people want to tear down
| the man who noticed the elephant in the room.
|
| I'm 100% "pro-Ukraine", what Putin is doing is ridiculous and
| there's literally no justification.
|
| I have been absolutely trashed for pointing out some of the
| stories coming out of this war are just completely fake,
| though. Like the "Ghost of Kyiv" thing. I asked if there was
| any proof and just got instantly accused of supporting a
| "war-criminal."
|
| Not a fan of an environment where people will straw man you
| if you venture out of the "pre-defined opinion limits."
|
| I'm not an expert in this at all either... so forgive my
| ignorance but isn't there a very real risk of insane levels
| of carnage if the war ramps up to control over Crimea? What
| is stopping this from becoming a nuclear war?
|
| I know we can't just fold to the demands of every insane
| dictator... but I think its totally appropriate to ask what
| the chances of nuclear war (or a war resulting in millions
| dead) and if we're ok risking that for Crimea. You can do
| that without even a neuron of support for Russia.
| thoughtstheseus wrote:
| Yes, losing Crimea is not an acceptable option for Putin
| and there are clear indications he will escalate the
| conflict if that happens - cyber, chemical, nuclear. With
| Nordstream blown there are few off-ramps for this conflict.
| Very worrisome.
| robswc wrote:
| If this is true, I think its perfectly reasonable for the
| world to speculate if Crimea is worth starting a nuclear
| war over. (and again, this can be done 100% without
| supporting anything Russia/Putin)
| roelschroeven wrote:
| What do you mean by "if the war ramps up to control over
| Crimea"? How can the war ramp _up_ to that? It could
| potentially ramp _down_ to that, and then we 're back in
| the situation of 2014 - february 2022.
|
| Giving bullies what they want leads to them wanting more.
| See the monstrous failure of Chamberlain's appeasement
| policy in the early stages of WW II.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Only Russians have open discussion. Why do you love Putin?
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Didn't Musk donate Starlink terminals to aid Ukraine in the
| war? Seems impossible to do that and also be on Russia's side.
| iecheruo wrote:
| Is it a donation if the US taxpayer is footing the bill?
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-
| quietl...
| [deleted]
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| He's basically the Joker at this point. No apparent rhyme or
| reason to his actions, and no overarching goal. Just chaos.
|
| You hate to see it. Or at least, I do. I had an immense
| amount of respect for Musk based on his work at Tesla and
| SpaceX, and that respect has basically evaporated now. It's
| as if he's no longer the same guy at all.
| flatirony wrote:
| I think it's more likely that he's being exposed than that
| he's changed.
| memish wrote:
| Of course he's not on Russia's side. No serious person truly
| believes that.
|
| "SpaceX's out of pocket cost to enable & support Starlink in
| Ukraine is ~$80M so far. Our support for Russia is $0.
| Obviously, we are pro Ukraine.
|
| Trying to retake Crimea will cause massive death, probably
| fail & risk nuclear war. This would be terrible for Ukraine &
| Earth."
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577077410863775744
| dragontamer wrote:
| Why was he saying that Crimea belongs to Russia?
|
| The dude is obviously seeped in pro-Russian propaganda now.
| I dunno why or how he got to this state, but... Elon made
| this very clear yesterday.
| memish wrote:
| The idea that pushing for peace is Russian propaganda is
| itself propaganda. I can't believe how effective the war
| machine still is, even with Iraq and Afghanistan still
| fresh in memory.
| dragontamer wrote:
| https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lindbergh-to-
| con...
|
| This will go down in history just as Lindbergh's pro-
| Hitler cowardice did.
|
| -----
|
| EDIT: Wow. You completely changed your post wholesale
| with your edit.
|
| Elon Musk isn't "pushing for peace". Elon Musk is pushing
| for Crimea to be part of Russia. Its the same bit as when
| Lindbergh publicly stated to not help Poland or France in
| WW2 in the "name of peace".
|
| Its a clear mistake.
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| He's really not though. His claims aren't of a moral
| nature. They're pragmatical in terms of what could lead
| to peace and possibly avoid nuclear warfare that more or
| less could lead to the end of civilization.
|
| If Russia wasn't a threat, I'm 100% sure he would say
| that the rest of the world should help in reclaiming
| Crimea. So I don't think he's saying that Crimea belongs
| to Russia at all.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > His claims aren't of a moral nature.
|
| His claims are 100% Kremlin propaganda.
|
| No one else was ever claiming the things he said, aside
| from Russia. The timing of it was especially egregious,
| as Ukraine made a *HUGE* advancement over the frontlines
| this past weekend.
|
| Pro-russian propaganda coming in exactly as Russia's
| front line collapses? What? The timing and speech pattern
| here (ie: the Kremlin-style argument of "Khrushchev's
| mistake") suggests _direct_ Russian influence.
|
| No one else was saying things like that. No one speaks
| like that, not here in USA at least.
|
| --------
|
| If Elon Musk said this when Ukraine was losing, then
| maybe you'd have a point. But Elon Musk decided to say
| this when Ukraine was __WINNING__ on the battlefield.
| guerrilla wrote:
| His "peace plan" was literally to ask Ukrainians under
| Russian occupation if they want to surrender and give
| Russia exactly what Russia is demanding.
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| dragontamer wrote:
| > "Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since
| 1783 (until Khrushchev's mistake)."
|
| > -- Elon Musk, October 3rd 2022
|
| This... isn't a normal argument. This is literally
| Kremlin propaganda. Wholesale lifted. The question we
| should be asking is: why is Elon Musk echoing Kremlin
| propaganda and signing his name and reputation under it?
|
| If it was a mistake, then so be it. But Elon Musk needs
| to come to terms with the severity of this mistake here.
| rsynnott wrote:
| "Khrushchev's mistake" was the bit that really made me
| blink. One has to wonder what nonsense he's been reading.
| simlevesque wrote:
| It's all just marketing for him. His ideas for peace are
| straight out of Putin's wishlist.
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| It is? Giving up all captured areas except for Crimea
| (given that a UN lead referendum would result in the other
| regions staying in Ukraine)? That sounds like a pretty big
| failure to me.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Russia would NEVER give the residents the ability to
| actually vote him off the island. The entirety of the win
| is the immediate PR win he handed them by implying
|
| - That the remaining residents even have the legal/moral
| right to have such an election.
|
| - That such an election could possibly be morally
| conducted with armed men camped on your land and the
| unburied dead scattered on the landscape without the
| specter of intimidation.
|
| - That such results would be valid given it would be
| conducted after the Russians drove off or tortured and
| murdered half the population that didn't agree
|
| - That anyone could possible trust the Russians to
| conduct it no matter what oversight was provided
|
| - That they would respect the results if they went their
| way
|
| It re-contextualizes the discussion from an immoral war
| criminal is slaughtering his neighbor, raping and
| pillaging their lands, attempting to erase their identity
| and attempting to cover his tracks with sham elections to
| somehow the sham elections are a path to peace between
| warring neighbors if only we conducted them more fairly.
|
| They cannot possibly be conducted fairly and Musk's
| statement was literally the most stupid and offensive
| thing he has ever said in his life.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Allowing them to legalize their annexation of Crimea
| would just encourage doing the same thing all over again
| in a few years.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Which is exactly what happened.
| ulrashida wrote:
| Close. The US paid upwards of $2 million to SpaceX to provide
| the devices (~$1,500 / unit). The idea of them being a
| donation was typical marketing from Musk.
| starik36 wrote:
| Not exactly. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577077410
| 863775744?s=20...
|
| "SpaceX's out of pocket cost to enable & support Starlink
| in Ukraine is ~$80M so far. Our support for Russia is $0.
| Obviously, we are pro Ukraine."
| yupper32 wrote:
| While that $80m number may be true, his tweet is not a
| reliable source.
| starik36 wrote:
| I see. You took it upon yourself to decide who is a liar
| and who isn't.
| yupper32 wrote:
| I specifically said it may be true. He has a public and
| indisputable history of exaggerating and lying about a
| whole bunch of stuff, though, so he is not a reliable
| source for much.
| starik36 wrote:
| Exaggerating about timelines of products being ready. You
| are accusing him of lying.
| yupper32 wrote:
| I'm accusing him of lying in the past, yes. He certainly
| exaggerates way more than he lies, but to say he hasn't
| lied publicly means you have your blinders on.
|
| https://elonmusk.today/ has a looootttt of exaggerations
| that ended up being completely incorrect. It also has
| plenty of outright lies.
|
| Just from scrolling a bit you can find plenty of
| indisputable lies:
|
| Lie:
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1374619379929772034
| Lie:
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1256239554148724737
| Lie:
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1078010341651492865
|
| Just to link to a few.
|
| Scrolling through the list, though, you can't help but
| know that Elon knows at least some of his exaggerations
| are bullshit, which would turn them into a lie. For
| example: https://twitter.com/brenttoderian/status/1557224
| 539267817472 turns what seemed to be an exaggeration of a
| product being ready into a straight up lie.
|
| Does knowingly miscategorizing facts count as a lie?
| Because I'm not convinced Elon is stupid enough to know
| that Twitter was not lying about bot numbers.
|
| If $80m turns out to be $10m, is that a lie or an
| exaggeration?
| hllooo wrote:
| are these actually lies? i know tesla stopped accepting
| bitcoin but it doesn't seem surprising to operate nodes
| when they did accept it. companies change policies all
| the time so i wouldn't call this a lie unless they never
| did it all. is that public information?
|
| "almost all" possessions is pretty vague. perhaps this is
| false but it's not obvious at face value and wouldn't be
| malicious. it seems mostly a question of semantics (does
| renting = owning? do we mean houses and cars or clothes
| and silverware?). if someone tweets "i'm selling all my
| shit" are they lying?
|
| break pads never needing to be replaced is obviously not
| 100% true since some percentage of every part will
| inevitably break, but if pads without defects outlive the
| rest of the car, i don't see how you could disagree with
| this statement. teslas are barely old enough to evaluate
| this statement and doubly so for cars produced in 2018.
|
| i don't follow this stuff nearly closely enough to know
| if these are lies and it's not clear to me the
| information needed to evaluate those tweets is publicly
| available or even exists. i don't dispute he's made
| misleading statements and exaggerated but i'm not
| convinced it's obvious he's lying or that not seeing it
| means you have blinders on.
| starik36 wrote:
| > If $80m turns out to be $10m, is that a lie or an
| exaggeration?
|
| Yes, that would be considered a lie, or at least a gross
| exaggeration.
|
| But we can do the math using publically available
| information - assuming its correct. According to this
| article (
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-
| quietl... ) (which honestly feels like a click bait hit
| piece), as of Apr 8, there were 5000 terminals in the
| country. It says SpaceX paid for 3670 of those (so about
| 2/3), plus internet service for all.
|
| As of May, there were 10k terminals
| (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/02/ukraine-
| official-150000-usin...). Who knows how many there are
| now - 4 months later. So at $1500 a pop of what it costs
| to manufacture, plus probably same, if not more, to fly
| it to Poland, then transport it via land to Ukraine - the
| numbers add up. Add to that work being done to overcome
| Russian attempts at jamming
| (https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-russia-
| ramp...). Add things that we are not aware of. I can see
| how costs can pile up.
|
| > https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1374619379929772034
|
| But this isn't a lie. Come on.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Great, that's $15m-$30m (if you accept that it's somehow
| $1500/unit to ship??). Only $50m-65m left to account for!
|
| And for the hundredth time in this thread, I'm not
| claiming the $80m number is a lie. You just can't take
| that number as fact when the only source is his twitter.
|
| >>
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1374619379929772034
|
| > But this isn't a lie. Come on.
|
| One month after that tweet, Tesla announced selling 10%
| of their bitcoin stash, which they accumulated through
| their own purchases of bitcoin and customer transactions:
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-sold-
| bitcoin-q1-proceed...
|
| I have no idea how you get from that tweet to selling 10%
| of their bitcoin holdings without saying he lied. It's
| not like there was a massive time frame between the two.
|
| And you picked one out of a ton of lies to attempt to
| refute. What about my other examples?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Basically anyone who doesn't have a motivation to twist
| the truth? Like the US government who can actually
| provide hard proof that they paid for the hardware? Why
| would we believe Elon in this case?
| starik36 wrote:
| But there isn't proof that he is lying - you deciding
| whether he lied or not is your judgement call. If you may
| recall, the initial shipment of Starlinks were sent in
| response to request by Mykhailo Fedorov - Ukraine's
| Minister of Digital Transformation. Before US govt got
| involved. So I would tend to take Musk at his word.
|
| https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/02/27/elon-musk-
| deploys-s...
| yupper32 wrote:
| No one is saying that he is definitively lying about the
| $80m. Why do you keep saying that?
|
| All I'm saying is that his tweet is not a reliable source
| for that number. We'd need another, more reliable source
| to confirm.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Who would know better than him?
|
| Knowing and _being honest_ are not the same.
|
| _edit:_ Parent poster rewrote their comment.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| > The report found that the US Agency for International
| Development, or USAID, paid $1,500 apiece for 1,333
| terminals, adding up to around $2 million.
|
| > According to space reporter Joey Roulette, SpaceX donated
| 3,667 terminals to Ukraine, or around $10 million worth,
| after also factoring in the three months of data it
| provided with the terminals.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/8/23016670/starlink-
| spacex-u...
|
| It seems both the US government and SpaceX donated
| terminals.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| He finds the cash to buy Twitter the day after he tweets in
| support of Putin (the only person in the world wealthier than
| Musk). Interesting.
| datalopers wrote:
| Elon Musk's message to Ukraine is on-par with the "lie back and
| enjoy it" advice to young women in how they should handle being
| raped.
| starik36 wrote:
| He corrected himself. Somewhat.
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577083012914651142?s=20...
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577077410863775744?s=20...
| digianarchist wrote:
| What next? Parag Agrawal fired I assume. Massive overhaul of the
| business?
| minimaxir wrote:
| This is as official as it gets that Elon Musk is commiting to buy
| Twitter for the $54.20 original price, and I'm still confused why
| no other submissions about the news have made it to the HN front
| page.
| paxys wrote:
| Signing the original agreement was also "as official as it
| gets", yet here we are.
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Is this it? I don't know how these buyouts work but we had a
| similar story 4 months ago. Is this the final deal?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Note: the purpose of this offer (to complete his original offer)
| is to stop the lawsuit, as it appears to be contingent on [edit]
| the court delaying or terminating proceedings [/edit].
| (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elon-musk-twi...)
|
| But a court will not terminate or delay legal proceedings due to
| one party unilaterally offering to settle on the eve of trial,
| especially not if the offer is contingent on such court action.
| For the court to even delay proceedings this close to trial,
| _both_ parties must approach the court requesting such a delay.
| And while this happens the overwhelming majority of the time when
| a settlement is being worked out, Musk is not a trustworthy
| counterparty and his prior behavior in this specific case works
| against him here. Twitter might be willing to delay the start of
| trial by a few days, but that 's the best Musk will get unless he
| actually goes through with the acqusition.
|
| There's no realistic possibility of the court terminating the
| proceedings before a deal closes unless Twitter withdraws its
| lawsuit. And they're not going to do that until the acquisition
| goes through, because if Musk pulls the rug out from under them
| again, they'd have to file a new lawsuit. That new lawsuit would
| be starting back at square one, and likely wouldn't be completed
| in time before the original offer expired.
| RedditKon wrote:
| They're unlikely to terminate entirely, but they are likely to
| put a temporary stay on the proceedings which is like hitting
| the pause button.
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| People have been saying a bunch of stuff like this on Twitter,
| but Twitter's current lawyers aren't stupid, and Musk playing
| like Lucy with the football is about the most obvious legal
| risk you can imagine. Whatever happens next, it's unlikely Musk
| is going to be able to use it to stall the Chancery Court. The
| best bet here is that Musk is simply going to end up owning
| Twitter.
| SergeAx wrote:
| So, no World War III then?
| nyokodo wrote:
| Will Twitter employees now hollow out like it just got purchased
| by private equity? Anyone with insight into this?
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| There's probably a non-zero number of employees who would be
| excited to build something new, versus their current work at
| Twitter (assuming Musk follows through with making big
| changes). What those new things are and how they're managed
| will be more important than who owns the company IMO.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| I think a lot of folks would love to work Twitter after they
| get rid of the low productivity virtue-performative people.
|
| This also allows them to move their HQ out of zombieland.
| coldpie wrote:
| I've heard second-hand that this whole drama has been a huge
| drag on folks working there. The way it was phrased to me is
| Musk's handling of this whole thing has made their work feel
| like it's all a joke. So, I don't know, but I would guess it's
| at least not going to be a _positive_ thing for retention or
| hiring.
| wincy wrote:
| I think there's a lot of non Silicon Valley engineers like me
| that'd be super excited to go work at a Musk owned and
| operated Twitter.
| [deleted]
| coldpie wrote:
| Fewer than you think, I expect. But who knows! To be
| honest, even though I expect to be closing my Twitter
| account after this, I'm not sad to see a shake-up in this
| space.
| Insanity wrote:
| Honest question - why?
| wincy wrote:
| I've watched as the internet changed from this wondrous
| bastion of free speech into curated gardens acceptable to
| advertisers.
|
| Just the other day Facebook flagged me for hate speech
| because I used some analogy that wasn't at all hate
| speech or advocating for violence. Satirical in nature,
| but I'm sure I used some flag words like "Nazi" and
| "Hitler".
|
| We've all been slowly trained by an algorithm to make
| sure we don't say the no no words, and more keep
| appearing. So you end up with people in Wall Street Bets
| saying they're all "highly regarded" because they'll get
| in trouble if they say what they used to say.
|
| As I've gotten older instead of feeling like an adult I'm
| feeling more and more like a child being nannied by all
| these services.
|
| If I worked at Twitter and Musk does precisely what he
| says, ensures you can say anything you can legally say in
| the US on Twitter, I feel like I'd be doing some good in
| the world to work for the company.
| preommr wrote:
| I am curious too. Putting aside Musk's... "immature
| behavior", there's many people that have talked about how
| horrible it is to work at places like SpaceX because of
| rough working conditions. And that's a field where people
| can feel passionate about doing something great for
| mankind.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Lots of people can get passionate about working for a
| free speech platform, I know I would. However, it's
| another question if Elon will deliver on that promise.
| wincy wrote:
| I responded to the parent comment if you're interested in
| my reasoning.
|
| You could be right though about the working conditions, I
| worked with some Tesla business analysts to do some
| software integration with them and it didn't go super
| great. They wouldn't communicate for m awhile, then
| they'd yell and screaming at us for not doing something
| they hadn't asked us to do, seemed pretty bad. So you
| might be right! It's possible I'd hate it.
| drcongo wrote:
| robswc wrote:
| I'm not a hater of fellow SDEs but at the end of the day,
| what did people even do at twitter?
|
| Seemed like they spin wheels only to push out and then kill
| half-baked features.
|
| Ofc, this could be "anyone's" fault but all the same...
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| he filed a filing
| kreeben wrote:
| using the FTP protocol
| qaq wrote:
| What if this whole thing was to shift the narrative from the sky
| is falling Musk should not be allowed to buy Twitter to let's
| force Musk to buy Twitter. Cost him +/- nothing.
| malshe wrote:
| I am not a Musk fan and I really don't want him to buy Twitter.
| However, neither do I want him to get away with his
| shenanigans. I want to see, for a change, a billionaire held
| accountable.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Well, he's overpaying for Twitter by $20b compared to when he
| originally made the offer.
|
| On top of that, he's partially funding it by selling Tesla
| stock that is also worth less than it was when he originally
| made the offer.
|
| This is an incredibly expensive game of 4D checkers.
| qaq wrote:
| He is paying the same amount as he offered originally but now
| with 0 push back. You can get huge political dividends by
| controlling twitter.
| mmastrac wrote:
| He's too volatile to take advantage of what Twitter gives
| him. Musk is great with vision, but his day-to-day
| execution just isn't great. He can't keep a straight
| opinion from one day to the next, so half of Twitter is
| just ignoring him at this point.
|
| Twitter would need some cool-headed, smart leadership for
| him to get the political gains out of it.
| digianarchist wrote:
| There's no evidence that Twitter has huge political sway.
| It was barely mentioned during the 2016 presidential
| election.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| I doubt it was intentional, but nonetheless I do find it pretty
| funny how fast the pendulum swung on that one.
| addicted wrote:
| The pendulum hasn't swung at all on that. The people who were
| unhappy with Musk buying Twitter are still unhappy and have
| the same concerns. The only thing that changed is instead of
| him getting Twitter for the same price (but probably higher
| value, since he has spent months damaging it) months ago, he
| had to wait. In the meanwhile he made a bunch of humiliating
| statements, has suffered a humiliating defeat, and with the
| intervening damage sustained by the likes of Meta Twitter
| appears far less powerful today than it did then.
| amusedcyclist wrote:
| There are lots of obsessive Elon fans which has also created
| a set of obsessive Elon haters. I don't like him but I don't
| see how he'd do a much worse job of running twitter than the
| guys running it now
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Elon Musk is very good at hiring motivated people who can
| figure out how to make things work. It's hard to imagine
| that skill going to waste at Twitter, whose management
| didn't seem to really know or care much about the platform
| or the business they were in.
| adventured wrote:
| There is an important caveat to that positive take: if
| Musk has the time to properly keep his eye on Twitter, so
| as to know which good people to hire. He's already
| dividing his time into a lot of pursuits.
| pavlov wrote:
| When you overpay by tens of billions it's actually 4D chess
| mind games, apparently.
| googlryas wrote:
| I don't think it is 4d chess, but I do suspect that with
| Elon's luck, TWTR will have a market cap of $150B in a few
| years.
| qaq wrote:
| Overpay is relative there is no meaning-full difference
| between your net worth being 250 or 230 Billion. Now having
| control of a key political discourse platform of the world
| while being the richest dude that def comes with benefits.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Well he clearly didn't think it was worth it, given the
| attempts to backtrack out of the deal.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Then why actively damage the credibility of said platform?
| Stop with the 4d-chess apologism.
| escapecharacter wrote:
| 13D Chess, even
| [deleted]
| bawolff wrote:
| Who benefits from the pendulum swing? I can't imagine musk
| cares that much what the anti-musk crowd thinks.
| paxys wrote:
| If I'm Twitter's board the first step will be to ask him to put
| the money into escrow before agreeing to anything else.
| karamanolev wrote:
| I'd be curious to know how the logistics work for putting $44B
| in escrow. Can't be just casually making a $44B wire transfer?
| rwmj wrote:
| This was quite interesting:
| https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2019/02/how-do-
| the-... (I think there's a corresponding youtube video, and
| this is the transcript). Of course $XX _billions_ is vastly
| more than paying for your Picasso.
| eastbound wrote:
| So, by credit card, wire or cheque, which are valid even
| for billions of dollars. Morale: Don't ever write plenty of
| zeroes as a joke expecting a signal that it can't possibly
| be taken seriously. In the same fashion: Once you propose a
| price for a house in France, you are committed to buy. A
| bit like this guy who has to buy Twitter now.
|
| I was very surprised indeed that my little bank accounts
| used to manage hundreds of euros were also suitable to
| manage millions, one I sold shares in a startup. I thought
| I would be called by a full chain of managers and have to
| present 3D fingerprints of my eyes, then be called by
| various countries' TRACFIN and IRS where I used to live. In
| reality, the French IRS guy told me my declaration was very
| simple and unsurprising.
| manquer wrote:
| Ultimately it is just numbers on two systems if he already
| has the liquid cash [1], it shouldn't matter how big the
| numbers are, the transaction workflow is more or less the
| same. In the Revlon transfer Citibank screwed up that $900M
| only had 3 people working on the actual execution and
| verification.
|
| While it is lot of one person to control individually, and
| even sizeable for a company to operate daily it is not that
| much in the grand scheme of things. These days some companies
| have cash balances that size, famously Apple had more than
| $200+ Billion in short term assets at one point.
|
| Big banks regularly deal with billions of dollars transferred
| around everyday. Market makers and central bankers etc do
| these numbers frequently without blinking twice.
|
| [1] His bankers who are already underwriting the loans can
| also easily loan him the rest against Tesla stock.
| hbcondo714 wrote:
| Wow, it was amended 11 times.
|
| Funny the title of this post sounds like he made a tweet that
| turned into a SEC filing.
| philipov wrote:
| In Before: "SEC announces innovative new mechanism for quick
| filings"
| [deleted]
| flerchin wrote:
| The stock price seems to indicate that we believe he's really
| going through with it. Amazing.
| paxys wrote:
| The stock closed at $52 vs the $54.20 purchase price, so
| there's still some delta for the case where the deal doesn't
| close.
| aeyes wrote:
| This is normal because it will still take time for the deal
| to close and I'm sure you can find something more secure to
| get 4% now which is why you see this gap. It will close the
| closer we get to the closing date but this can still take
| quite some time and you might be better off putting your
| money in other investments.
| locusofself wrote:
| trading was halted at least once today. pretty interesting
| rurp wrote:
| It's not 100% of course, but when you account for the time-
| value of money the implied odds are extremely high. Honestly
| it's quite a bit higher than I would expect. Given that this
| is Elon Musk here, the odds of him trying some sleezy angle
| or just changing his mind again in a week or two are decently
| high. Not that those would necessarily stop the deal, but it
| would continue down the long drawn out and messy road it's
| on.
| incahoots wrote:
| Buy the rumor, sell the news. The graph has a gap now, curious
| how it fills it later in the week.
| coolgoose wrote:
| Well if he buys it it's going to be the end of Twitter for me :)
| nelsonic wrote:
| 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 wrote:
| It may be the end of Twitter if google or apple don't like him
| -- they may delist twitter.
|
| To paraphrase Mao, "Let 2, only 2, and exactly 2 flowers
| bloom."
| sleepymoose wrote:
| Can it really get any worse than it already is? On the same
| note, has Elon actually stated a single concrete change that he
| would make? I think the reality is that for the vast majority
| of users, Twitter won't change a bit.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| He has alluded to making private messages end to end
| encrypted.
| hirundo wrote:
| Maybe not concrete but this feels like a clear policy
| preference: Suspending the Twitter account of
| a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was
| obviously incredibly inappropriate -- Elon Musk (@elonmusk)
| April 26, 2022
|
| A Twitter that agrees with "obviously incredibly
| inappropriate" here would be a significant change.
| [deleted]
| redeeman wrote:
| and for the others... who wants legitimate truthful stories
| blocked? what does that say about them?
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I'd finally start using it!
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Why?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Yes, anyone who thinks Twitter is a hellscape now hasn't seen
| anything yet.
| rc_kas wrote:
| https://sendie.com
|
| If anyone else does not trust Elon Musk like me, I've made a
| Twitter alternative. You can import your tweet history from
| Twitter and .. not give Elon Musk your data.
| mabbo wrote:
| I am looking forward to Matt Levine's next 'Money Stuff' so I can
| learn why this filing is actually juicy as hell.
| ccooffee wrote:
| Hadn't heard of this before. I found old copies of that
| newsletter on the internet at
| https://newsletterhunt.com/newsletters/money-stuff-by-matt-l...
| . (Relevant to this post, there was a post about Musk/Twitter
| yesterday.)
| andruby wrote:
| Absolutely. He's the one voice/commentator that can explain
| complex financial matters plainly but with enough depth to be
| complete.
| tptacek wrote:
| Today's Money Stuff was fantastic; I'm glad this news broke
| before it could disrupt the natural Money Stuff. Funny note:
| Levine's plan was to take tomorrow off. :)
| WJW wrote:
| I thought the same, today was super interesting. I expect
| that poor Matt will interrupt his day off for a special
| edition of "Oh Elon" tomorrow though.
| Version467 wrote:
| Oh man, I'm usually not one for drama, but I really want this
| deal to go through. I don't use twitter and as such don't really
| care if it implodes, but from what I've heard twitter has been a
| cesspool of negativity for a while now and on a slow but steady
| downtrend in general.
|
| I'm sure Musk will try anything to recoup his investment, so
| it'll either go out with a bang, or he somehow manages to pull a
| rabbit out of his hat and actually turn twitter around. Though I
| don't think that's very likely.
|
| Either way it'll be a fun pastime to follow the unfolding of it.
| qwertox wrote:
| I like Twitter for all it's spaceflight related stuff from NASA
| and ESA, DLR and others, where live streams can only occur in
| form of text and photo updates. I couldn't think of a
| replacement platform for this use case. Or current news events
| for which the press is to slow to publish, or where they quote
| Twitter as the source, like today's "Fuck you" message, which
| is something which might make it into some history books.
| Sometimes some IT related posts are interesting, from people
| who are at the source or generally have a very good
| understanding of the topic.
|
| I never scroll my "feed" or whatever they call it.
| smm11 wrote:
| Back to Mastodon.
| datalopers wrote:
| Musk was about to be forced to go through with the deal by the
| Chancery Court. This way he still feels like he's in control of
| the botched takover.
| noirbot wrote:
| I'm not actually sure they would have made him go through with
| it vs. just pay some large fine to Twitter if he was insistent
| on wanting to get out. The issue is the road to get to that
| point would have run through a LOT of discovery and legal
| wrangling that was already starting to drag out some
| suspicious-looking stuff.
|
| Maybe it's all nothing, but even so, fighting anything in court
| is a punishment of its own.
| swores wrote:
| There's basically no chance it would have been a fine.
|
| Almost all experts, and Twitter, believed the court would
| force him to buy, meaning Twitter absolutely wouldn't discuss
| a partial settlement, even if that had been put on the table
| which it wasn't (unless something happened during the court
| case that shifted the odds so far towards Musk looking likely
| to win that at that point he would be the one not interested
| in a settlement).
|
| And there's no legal basis for the judge to suggest or order
| a settlement. Either Musk is right and the court would have
| ordered the contract breached (and perhaps fines on top for
| one or both sides), or Musk is wrong and he has to fulfil the
| contract he signed and buy the company at the price agreed.
|
| If a fine were possible as a middle ground, Musk would still
| be pushing for that option.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I don't know if that's a guarantee. The Chancery Court is
| interested first and foremost with keeping commerce running
| smoothly; they would've been aware that Elon _didn 't want_
| Twitter, and ordering a company to be bought/owned by a
| hostile entity which hates it is not exactly conducive to
| commerce. There's a chance they at least would've ordered
| him to choose between specific performance and a huge-ass
| fine.
|
| It's all a moot point now though.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| > The Chancery Court is interested first and foremost
| with keeping commerce running smoothly
|
| At a very high level, that's true. But at a slightly less
| high level they do this by guaranteeing predictability
| over fairness. And at a low level they do that through a
| lot of very specific implementation details people spend
| their lives studying.
|
| So the level of abstraction you're operating at isn't
| very useful for this kind of prediction.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| So, "I agree to do what I already agreed to do as long as you
| stop suing me for it"?
| mikkergp wrote:
| Yeah, that provision seems suss as hell
| kjs3 wrote:
| Spot on...the first thing I thought was 'really...he started
| listening to his lawyers?'.
| LiquidSky wrote:
| He was set to be deposed this week. I'm guessing his advisors
| finally got through to him that he's fucked and dragging out
| the trial will only further publicly humiliate himself and
| potentially open him to even more consequences. Musk finally
| has to face reality, for once.
| LightG wrote:
| Yup, take a $44b tesla share price and/or reputation hit,
| or pay $44b and at least have an asset to show for it.
|
| Actually, scratch the reputation bit. That's already toast.
|
| Kudos to Twitter.
|
| Checkmate.
| rchaud wrote:
| More like kudos to Musk's lawyers for creating several
| months' worth of billable hours out of trying to poke
| holes in a "I agree to buy it sight unseen, no refunds"
| contract.
| bena wrote:
| Yeah, isn't this effectively a complete win for Twitter
| concerning the lawsuits?
|
| If you're Musk or an apologist, how do you spin this in a way
| that doesn't say "Yeah, they were completely right and I had
| no basis for my claim"?
| kjs3 wrote:
| Probably something like "I no longer have time to fool
| around with trivial things like Twitter. Ignore it ever
| happened, since I'm now using my vast intellect teaching
| world leaders how to end their wars".
| phatfish wrote:
| He's already ruled out shoehorning in Dogecoin due to
| scalability concerns, so there is nothing else left apart
| from more shitposting.
| 323 wrote:
| What was the penalty if he lost the suit?
|
| Would they force him to buy Twitter? Pay a fine?
| WJW wrote:
| Probably "specific performance", which is pretty much
| enforcing the contract that he already signed. So that would
| come down to forcing him to buy Twitter, yes.
| fooey wrote:
| Conveniently, much of Musk's assets are stored in another
| Delaware company called Tesla
| snarf21 wrote:
| I have no inside info but I think this is because he is getting
| wrecked by discovery. More and more about him is being leaked
| from that and he doesn't like it. He'd rather lose billions.
| metadat wrote:
| The Musk brand damage could exceed a "paltry" $44B when his
| dirty laundry becomes public, especially given he'll only
| need to put in less than 50% of his own money.
|
| Regarding the information leakage, does this signal that Mr.
| Musk treats people poorly in his private dealings?
|
| It's all damage mitigation at this point.
| DeRock wrote:
| > He'd rather lose billions.
|
| Its an AND not an OR. He either proceeds with purchase and
| loses billions, or proceeds with discovery/trial, has
| personal info exposed, and is then forced to proceed with
| purchase and lose billions. He's tried to stall proceedings
| so far, but has reached a legal dead end.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| I'm scared what scorched earth musk in charge of a zeitgeist
| weapon like twitter will do.
| adventured wrote:
| We can build another if it comes down to it.
|
| See: Facebook's declining usage, and the rise of TikTok.
|
| Social networks are all quite replaceable, there are no
| exceptions.
|
| Twitter won in its micro blogging space (there were
| numerous competitors for a brief time, way back), however
| it has never been a stellar product. It can and will be
| replaced if Musk turns it into a disaster.
| [deleted]
| anzic wrote:
| I'd love to see some scorched earth in the current
| zeitgeist.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Yeah, it sounds like a TTRPG doesn't it?
|
| "Does applying scorched earth musk to my zeitgeist weapon
| always succeed, or do I need to roll another D20 for
| that?"
| drcongo wrote:
| Do you have examples of the stuff getting leaked? I've not
| seen anything (though I tend to stay away from celebrity
| gossip).
| andsoitis wrote:
| This article is interesting for surfacing the impulsive,
| non-strategic, and sucking-up communiques from those in
| Musk's orbit: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archiv
| e/2022/09/elon-...
| snarf21 wrote:
| There is lots of articles out there. Try this one:
|
| https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/10/1/23381257/elon-musk-
| text...
| rsynnott wrote:
| This... wasn't leaked, was it? It was released
| legitimately, as I understand it.
| drcongo wrote:
| Many thanks.
| braydenm wrote:
| Wow, it looks like Elon is going to actually complete the
| transaction. What a rollercoaster. I will be glad to see this
| drop out of the news cycle.
| wincy wrote:
| xmonkee wrote:
| This is one of the most insane things I've read on the
| internet today.
| WJW wrote:
| You think twitter will get less insane after Musk buys it?
| It's not as if (say) Tesla has been all that insanity-free
| TBH.
| naikrovek wrote:
| average insanity per employee will definitely rise once he
| is on the payroll.
| Kye wrote:
| All you get is a different ideology driving the same
| degree of absurdity.
| [deleted]
| dangerwill wrote:
| How do you possibly look at Elon's incredibly irrational
| behavior and think he will lessen the insanity? What you mean
| is he will fire the people that you don't like.
| wincy wrote:
| Sure. I don't like this group of people who have stolen the
| word "liberal" from me and many others. In the true sense
| of "liberation". Freedom from government and restriction on
| thought. I think there should be a place that isn't 4chan
| where people are allowed to say anything that want that
| isn't illegal in the US. That was the internet I grew up
| on. I thought that's just how the world was back then and
| it was amazing, and then everyone else got on the internet
| and it's the same old shit of everyone trying to control
| the narrative.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Written like someone who doesn't know people who've worked at
| Elmo's companies. The sane will quit, the insane will remain.
| gfodor wrote:
| Technically the sane will quit, the chaotic evil insane
| will quit, and the chaotic good insane will remain.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Cultural-left insanity will decline; libertarian insanity
| will increase.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| You guys remember when liberals/progressives used to
| stand up for free speech and flipping a middle finger to
| 3 letter agencies? It was beautiful.
|
| The current liberatarian = cultural-left ~10 years ago.
| wincy wrote:
| I really miss that internet. I thought everyone else did
| too. I feel like I've stood in the same place as people
| have started to just decide they don't believe in free
| speech when it's not convenient?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Silicon Valley used to have such a great sense of
| optimism and principled approach towards individualism.
| Highly inspiring and optimistic. Today, I can't even say
| I like Steve Jobs without getting labeled something.
| wincy wrote:
| Being principled for free speech sounds just awful. I
| don't know how we'll survive all these crazy libertarians
| not moderating discussion to support a very narrow San
| Francisco-centric worldview.
| wincy wrote:
| Maybe. I think it's quite possible Elon will just hand the
| CEO position back over to Jack and let him create the
| social media network he meant to create in the first place
| before he lost control.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I'm looking forward to at least the _potential_ for a
| mainstream social media site to be funded by something else
| than ads and "engagement".
|
| Musk might be crazy and disagreeable, but his craziness is
| the only possibility for something like this to happen.
| Whether it'll work is anyone's guess, but at least we might
| have _an attempt_.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Musk supports Putin and Trump. I'm not looking forward to
| an influential megaphone being controlled by a fanboy for
| fascism.
| rchaud wrote:
| If Apple, the richest computer hardware company on earth,
| is giving in to the lure of ads, I doubt Twitter will be in
| any rush to separate itself from ads.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Musk makes decisions that are often suboptimal when it
| comes to business and profit, so that's the way out.
|
| I also have the feeling that he's bought this thing to
| stroke his own ego and have better control over his
| soapbox rather than a business purpose, therefore
| absolute profitability may not be his priority.
|
| Furthermore, if he does this bet and it ends up proving
| that an ad-less business model makes _more_ money in the
| long run, it may push the rest of the market out of the
| local maximum it 's currently in and make them explore
| non-advertising monetization strategies.
| cronix wrote:
| Oh, I think any changes he makes will definitely be in the news
| cycle, forever.
| jandrese wrote:
| I wish I could share your optimism about this being the end of
| the drama.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| It's merely the beginning. He's bought a zeitgeist wmd and is
| in a manic phase.
|
| Shudder thee who crave the old days.
|
| They are gone.
| onion2k wrote:
| _I will be glad to see this drop out of the news cycle._
|
| Staying out of the media isn't really Elon's thing. I don't
| think we'll see that happen.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Yeah, I seem to recall that before all this legal drama
| started the story was that Musk was buying Twitter to turn it
| into a platform for free speech. Assuming he hasn't changed
| his mind about that, the news cycle here is only just
| beginning.
|
| Though on the positive side, I think I'll personally find a
| debate about free speech to be way more interesting than the
| current celebrity drama legal fight over contract law.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| > Though on the positive side, I think I'll personally find
| a debate about free speech
|
| Twitter will be forced to prioritize short-term profit to
| recoup Musk's losses and rage-porn style engagement content
| will be the easiest (and likely only) way they can do it.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Hypothesis: with the wavering of Credit Suisse and other big
| banks, and the bond market more generally, Elon Musk thinks that
| by agreeing to buy, he moves the onus onto the banks who agreed
| to finance the deal. If they cannot, in the current climate, sell
| the buyout bonds that they are contractually obligated to, he may
| still get to walk away` without the legal trouble. Disclaimer: I
| don't know what I'm talking about.
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-lbo-revives-12-5-1831...
| "...bankers may struggle to sell the risky Twitter buyout debt
| just as credit markets begin to crack."
| thoughtstheseus wrote:
| Great take here, I doubt you can get banks to finance this in
| the current climate.
| downvotetruth wrote:
| Larry: Keep these texts out of discovery! Elon: So, the billion
| investment is off? Larry: Done! Elon: Sorry Twitter, but
| financing is no go cuz u made em mad. Here is a billion.
| KthxBi.
| lvl102 wrote:
| This is the end of Twitter in my view. I am betting it will be
| replaced by a couple of services within a few years.
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's already been replaced by protocols like Mastodon or
| ActivityPub, but nobody uses them because of the network
| effect.
| cronix wrote:
| If "nobody uses them," then it has not been "replaced."
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| These protocols are a pipe dream that will live at the
| fringes. People want centralized, managed services.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Then there are even more centralized competitors to choose
| from. The network effect still prevails regardless.
| fortysixdegrees wrote:
| 'Par value' for anyone like me who didn't know:
|
| https://www.accountingformanagement.org/par-value-stock/
| [deleted]
| yalogin wrote:
| Wow that is a huge turnaround for Musk. It's also one for me. All
| this time I was thinking he will just be forced to pay a big
| fine, a few billion, and the saga will end. Now I am back to
| worrying what it means for Twitter and the country in general,
| since this means you-know-who is going to be unbanned and along
| with him a lot of other racist and wannabe dictator types too. In
| fact this will be the first act once the deal closes.
| Exuma wrote:
| legostormtroopr wrote:
| Perhaps we as a society will learn that Twitter is not, and
| should not be, how we measure how society feels. Twitter is
| without doubt a net-negative on society and I'd be glad to see
| Musk drive it to the ground.
|
| The amount of "journalism" from previously well-respected
| institutions that can be summed up as "some people on Twitter
| didn't like thing, here are there tweets" is shocking.
| outside1234 wrote:
| This is good news for corporate acquisition deals. You can't bail
| out of a contract just because you are a billionaire.
|
| Now, in terms of Twitter, I worry.
| r721 wrote:
| >Twitter issued this statement about today's news: We received
| the letter from the Musk parties which they have filed with the
| SEC. The intention of the Company is to close the transaction at
| $54.20 per share.
|
| https://twitter.com/twitterir/status/1577380758192197632
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| So, assuming Musk's funding comes through and the court agrees,
| we'll end up pretty much where we started.
| mkl95 wrote:
| Any reason why it's happening _now_? Was there some kind of hard
| deadline?
| LiquidSky wrote:
| Probably a mix of realizing he was going to lose and some bad
| stuff coming out in discovery.
| paxys wrote:
| The trial was/is set to begin on October 17, and it probably
| became clear to him which way it would go.
| tptacek wrote:
| There was some grim stuff happening in the Chancery case:
| multiple bits of evidence suggesting that Peiter Zatko had in
| fact been in touch with Musk's team, in advance of the
| "whistleblowing" release. The Chancery court had just come in
| with an order giving Twitter extended discovery rights to look
| for those communications.
|
| If it did turn out that Zatko had been talking to Musk's team,
| that would be a very big deal, not only undercutting a big part
| of Musk's current case (which he was set to lose anyways) but
| also falsifying several statements made both to the Delaware
| court and also to Congress(?!).
|
| I wonder also if the appearance, performative as it is, that Musk
| is choosing to buy Twitter rather than being forced to buy
| Twitter is helpful for financing. He's more or less obligated to
| purchase Twitter, but there's no rule preventing him from
| offsetting the expense with a syndicate of co-investors; that
| syndicate might be easier to put together if he can shift the
| narrative.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Not surprising, this is actually the least-shitty path for Musk
| now.
|
| He fucked up and his other alternatives were waaay more
| expensive (e.g. being forced to sell more stock and lose
| control of TSLA, shorters have a field day, people lose
| confidence on TSLA even though FSD is "one month away from
| working", it could all go down because of this).
|
| No one sheds 44B "to honor a deal", at least not him, lol.
|
| Epilogue: Matt Levine was on point all the time, I'd like to
| hear now from all the folks who were saying that Musk was going
| to get away with it.
|
| inb4 "it was all 4D chess, this is what he wanted" Yeah, sure
| pal ...
| la64710 wrote:
| Time for Parag to send back the emoji to Musk :D
| moralestapia wrote:
| I hope he reads this and I hope he does it.
|
| It has potential to become the most liked tweet in history.
| bambax wrote:
| > _Epilogue: Matt Levine was on point all the time_
|
| Matt Levine is always on point. He's a brillant writer and
| one of the funniest, too. A true living genius.
|
| But even he wasn't able to predict that last development.
|
| Also: Poor Matt. Tomorrow was supposed to be a day off for
| him, and it probably won't... ;-)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| You would shed $44B pretty fast if the Delaware Chancellor
| sets an emergency conference with you where she is about to
| say to you, "I am going to force you to buy this pile of
| garbage, and a lot more embarrassing shit is going to come
| out because I'm not going to let you seal the proceedings.
| Settle so we can all save face here."
| arcticbull wrote:
| And by 'settle' they mean carry out your end of the deal as
| inked, no compromises :)
|
| I can't help but feel everyone is getting exactly what they
| deserve. Elon is buying a company he didn't want to buy as
| punishment for trolling that company and their leadership
| _on that company 's own platform_. Twitter is getting new
| leadership and lord knows they need it [*]. And the
| shareholders are getting paid what they were told they'd be
| paid.
|
| [*] Twitter truly is a clown car that fell into a gold
| mine, and as Elon says, the most entertaining outcome is
| the most likely. [1]
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1347126794172948483
| ?lang...
| matwood wrote:
| > No one sheds 44B "to honor a deal", at least not him, lol.
|
| No, but many were thinking any breaking up fee would be 10B+.
| At that point, he might as well buy and have some asset at
| the end.
|
| Levine was definitely on point. And I repeated here what he
| and others said, if Musk wants out negotiations start at 44B.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| My personal opinion is that Levine was always off base in
| one important way- Musk always intended to buy Twitter, and
| this was merely a negotiating tactic on price. He bid at
| the wrong time, so he's paying a lot more than he "should",
| and this whole thing was an attempt to get the price down.
|
| I don't think at any point was he actually backing out of
| the deal, and I certainly don't think the whole thing was
| an elaborate scheme to sell Tesla stock.
| arcticbull wrote:
| You don't sign a purchase agreement with absolutely zero
| wiggle room to negotiate (and agree to the sellers
| additional seller-friendly terms along the way) in order
| to lower the price. You negotiate before you sign the
| agreement.
|
| This is like going into a Honda dealership, signing a
| bill of sale at 20% over MSRP for a Civic without looking
| at it, then arguing you should get a discount because the
| floor mats are ugly.
|
| He fucked around, and he found out.
|
| There's a reason everyone incorporates in Delaware. They
| don't have time for shenanigans.
| kcplate wrote:
| > You don't sign a purchase agreement with absolutely
| zero wiggle room to negotiate
|
| You also don't do that for a company you don't truly
| intend to purchase, especially when being guided by
| lawyers that only you and perhaps a dozen other people in
| the world can afford to engage for representation.
|
| Whatever all this drama was...it's way too early to make
| any informed judgement about motivations of the parties
| involved.
| nocoiner wrote:
| This is... not how your negotiate on price. What you call
| his "bid" was in fact his binding definitive agreement to
| acquire the company at an agreed upon price.
|
| Yeah, plenty of deals get re-traded between signing and
| closing and purchase prices get re-cut, but the extreme
| bad faith by Musk after he signed the merger agreement
| made it functionally impossible for twitter's board to do
| anything except hold him to the deal he made.
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| joshfraser wrote:
| The breakup fee was $1 billion. Expensive, but still
| cheaper than actually going through with the deal.
| moralestapia wrote:
| No way, look at the facts, if that were true Musk
| would've paid 1B and it ends there.
|
| The "breakup fee" was a judge ordering him to pay 44B,
| plus a lot embarrassment. As @matwood pointed out, you
| start negotiating from that.
| swores wrote:
| That was a fee set for if Musk's financing fell through,
| it was not an opt-out that either side could choose to
| take.
|
| Musk would've jumped at the chance to pay a measly
| billion to get out of it months ago if he'd had the
| opportunity.
| joshfraser wrote:
| That seems pretty easy to trigger. Just start calling
| around saying crazy stuff and watch the funding dry up.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| A Delaware court has previously made an acquirer buy a
| company when evidence showed they had sabotaged funding
| to get out of an agreement. So while it may be possible,
| it isn't easy.
| mediaman wrote:
| The commitment for financing had already been made by
| banks and could not be rescinded simply because they
| suddenly don't like Musk anymore.
|
| Throughout this whole saga it has been popularly believed
| that (1) the breakup fee represents an option for Musk to
| get out of the deal and that (2) the financing
| contingency is easy to get out of by having the banks
| cancel their commitments.
|
| Both have been untrue the entire time. If they were true,
| then Musk would not be proceeding with the deal at the
| original price.
| swores wrote:
| That would be looked on by Delaware judges about as
| kindly as using a cigarette lighter to burn the only copy
| of a contract in front of them. He had the financing
| contractually agreed, that clause was in case something
| happened like Tesla or one of the banks providing a loan
| going bankrupt (actually writing that makes me think I
| remember that the clause was only applicable to the loans
| part of the financing and not even the other investors -
| but I'm not sure I'm right, and too lazy to go find and
| re-read the purchase agreement they signed).
|
| Some people did speculate that the reason Musk started
| publicly disparaging Twitter was in the hope that some of
| his financing would try to pull their agreements thus
| triggering this clause, but the expert opinions I saw
| were that the court wouldn't accept that, especially
| after Twitter filed suit against him, and sure enough
| that strategy (if it was a strategy) didn't pay off -
| otherwise he wouldn't be where he is today. (Matt Levine
| covered this particular theory well in his Bloomberg
| newsletter.)
| likpok wrote:
| The merger agreement stipulates that Twitter can require
| specific performance (that is: force musk to buy them).
| It's an open question whether or not the judge would have
| ruled that way, but Musk was consistently losing the
| early battles.
| berkeleyjunk wrote:
| It would not surprise me if we come to find out that some
| people in the know (not Twitter insiders) were stocking up on
| TWTR shares during the lawsuit drama. Wonder if SEC has any
| restrictions on non-insiders with material knowledge.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| If you have material knowledge aren't you automatically an
| insider?
| tmaly wrote:
| Not for members of Congress for sure.
| tptacek wrote:
| No. You're an insider when you have material knowledge
| and a duty to the shareholders, implied or otherwise, not
| to abuse it.
| manquer wrote:
| > An "insider" is an officer, director, 10% stockholder
| and anyone who possesses inside information because of
| his or her relationship with the Company or with an
| officer, director or principal stockholder of the
| Company. Rule 10b-5's application goes considerably
| beyond just officers, directors and principal
| stockholders. [1]
|
| > This rule also covers any employee who has obtained
| material non-public corporate information, as well as
| _any person_ who has received a "tip" from an Insider of
| the Company concerning information about the Company that
| is material and nonpublic, and trades (i.e. purchase or
| sells) the Company's stock or other securities " [1]
|
| The formal Insider Trading Policy applies to any person
| who has the information, for the purposes of this law
| Insider ( as defined in the first part) is materially
| same.
|
| While you are half right that they are not "Insider" the
| law does not differentiate any person who got the
| information from the "Insider", so they are still a
| insider from the SEC regulations PoV and _law applies to
| them_ if they trade on material non-public information
| obtained from a "tip".
|
| [1]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164964/000101
| 968715...
| nimbius wrote:
| thats the understatement of the century but true. abdicating
| your responsibility for a discovery phase during an
| acquisition is tantamount to fraud in the United States, but
| when he started to drag his feet and publicly proclaim a
| "hold" on the twitter deal due to spam accounts, it likely
| started triggering investigation into securities fraud. Musk
| may have wound up in the frying pan, but he didnt exactly do
| much to turn down the heat.
|
| The court of public opinion is a bully pulpit for the wealthy
| elite but only if its the public opinion you intend to sway.
| Elon was about to start taking swings at investors and board
| members, who arent generally moved by public bloviation or
| jingoist egocentrism. Chancery court didnt last long but im
| sure it was a sobering experience for such a cloistered
| elite, assuming the near constant looming presence of the SEC
| hasnt rattled his bones enough.
| voisin wrote:
| Must be a bitter pill to swallow given how the markets have
| performed since his bid, which was already at a premium. Huge
| win for investors.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| On the plus side, it gave Elon Musk a chance to sell some
| Tesla earlier in the year.
| adventured wrote:
| At the price being paid it's one of the dumbest acquisitions,
| by price, by any entity (individual or corporation) in the
| past 30 years that I've been watching markets closely.
|
| Twitter would be lucky to be trading at $20 / share minus the
| supporting bid. Musk overpaid by a minimum of $15 billion
| because he doesn't properly control his impulse problems.
| There were numerous ways he could have proceeded more slowly
| in pursuing a purchase, without so tightly locking himself
| into that grotesque price tag.
|
| Let's put his stupidity into perspective: $15 billion was his
| total net worth five years ago. It was half his net worth a
| bit over two years ago.
|
| Next up, Tesla's stock is going to sink considerably from
| where it's at. It'll just amplify the pain of this over-pay.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| > Next up, Tesla's stock is going to sink considerably from
| where it's at.
|
| Dragging the rest of the stock market with it.
|
| It's like that domino meme, where the tiny brick is "19
| year old writes bot tracking Musks private plane" and the
| huge brick being "stock market crashes"
| mixedbit wrote:
| Right, Snap, somehow similar and also unprofitable social
| media company is down 67% since April 14 when Musk
| disclosed his offer. Twitter stock would likely experience
| similar kind of drop in this period.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Tesla spends $0 dollars on marketing (not really, but
| still).
|
| Twitter is Teslas marketing department, and probably the
| marketing department for other Musk firms.
|
| Musk gets to make sure this very valuable entity remains
| valuable.
|
| Lots of press outlast are being turned into sponsored non-
| profits.
|
| Seems Musk wants a similar model for this non-profiting
| for-profit.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I agree this is a smart move (or rather, salvaging an
| impulsive decision) if Musk uses Twitter to increase the
| value of SpaceX and Tesla by an amount greater than the
| premium between Twitter's enterprise value and his
| purchase price.
| FiberBundle wrote:
| Hard to believe that people still see this as a smart
| move. Musk has been acting really erratically the last
| couple of years and was due to fall flat on his face.
| He's now done that in possibly the worst way. I'm really
| not sure what happened to the guy, if you read any of the
| material that was published in the course of the lawsuit,
| he just seems to act totally unprofessional. I find it
| really hard to understand how someone like that has
| achieved what he has. His decision making just seems
| impulsive most of the time.
| trog wrote:
| > I find it really hard to understand how someone like
| that has achieved what he has.
|
| I think it's just strong evidence that a lot of rich
| people got lucky once and managed to leverage that into
| getting richer because so much of life becomes Easy Mode
| at that point. Immediately not being subject to the
| "Boots" theory, but at scale, makes a huge difference.
|
| I think there's a strong argument that Musk actually made
| a few smart decisions - right time, right place for
| electric cars. But reading some of the documents that
| have come out of this make it seems like he hit his
| limits a long time ago and is now floundering along
| uselessly.
|
| To me it's just another strong argument that we shouldn't
| tolerate billionaires and they should be taxed out of
| existence until they're merely "extremely incredibly
| wealthy" and not nation-states unto themselves.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _Twitter is Teslas marketing department, and probably
| the marketing department for other Musk firms._
|
| 40B+ to scaffold a marketing department?
| discodave wrote:
| Well, the market cap of Tesla is currently over $700B, so
| spending 6% of your market cap on marketing isn't that
| crazy.
|
| But in this case I don't think Musk is playing checkers,
| when everybody else is playing chess.. I think he was
| just doin drugs, and tweetin twetes.
| eigenvalue wrote:
| I think that's not the right lens to view it through. To
| me, this is more like a turbo charged version of Bezos
| buying the Washington Post. Twitter might be totally
| insignificant in terms of eyeballs/dollars compared to
| TikTok, but it is extremely important in cultural terms.
| It's not just about money but about influence. Also,
| Twitter was horrendously mismanaged for many years,
| probably because none of the key execs or board had enough
| skin in the game. Elon can probably terminate or "manage
| out" 80%+ of the employees without harming the underlying
| business meaningfully, so you can't really just look at
| historical financials here.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Won't be a bitter pill if he can offload most of the
| expenditure by selling it to Saudi Arabia, which would
| probably love to own such an influential chunk of the "public
| square."
| __derek__ wrote:
| There's effectively zero chance that CFIUS[1] would allow
| the KSA to purchase Twitter.
|
| [1]: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-
| issues/international/the-co...
| outside1234 wrote:
| What if he sells an API to Saudi and Russia and beyond to
| essentially hide criticism?
|
| Censorship as a service...
| __derek__ wrote:
| As I understand it, MBS and Co. prefer to drown out the
| criticism rather than censor it, so they already have
| that API, and a crusade against bots would put it at
| risk. Granted, it's possible that Elon isn't committed to
| shutting down bots so much as shutting down non-friendly
| bots.
| Nokinside wrote:
| Potential buyer is offering what they think is current
| market price. Something like like $15-$20 per share than
| $52 per share. Musk would sell with huge loss.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| HillRat wrote:
| One thing that's odd about that letter -- not the only thing,
| but one thing -- is that it makes a demand on the Chancery
| Court to adjourn the trial. That is, it's not a notice of
| settlement or even a request for adjournment, but some kind of
| weird attempt to bargain with the Chancellor, even though the
| issue at trial is whether Musk already reneged on this exact
| same offer. Not sure I understand what they're trying to do
| here.
| gojomo wrote:
| I don't find that too odd, because I believe the plaintiff,
| Twitter Inc, can more-or-less get a stay on request,
| especially if it's likely to make any further burdens on the
| court become moot. So wording it this way is just being clear
| about what Musk wants Twitter to cause to happen.
|
| Further, Twitter's complaint only asks the court to compel
| performance under the original agreement - it doesn't ask for
| extra damages from Musk's flip-flops. If Musk is offering
| exactly that performance, there's nothing for the court the
| compel, unless & until things change again. (If that happens,
| the stayed action can resume - and the judge would be even
| more disposed against Musk et al.)
| kosievdmerwe wrote:
| I'm not sure that Twitter could really sensibly demand
| damages if the sale went through.
|
| If Twitter is still sold at the original fixed price, then
| Musk is left holding the asset he himself damaged and would
| have to essentially pay damages to himself.
|
| The shareholders will still get the same payout regardless
| of the alleged damage to the company, unless they decided
| to sell before the sale, but I am not a lawyer so I don't
| know if they'd be able to sue successfully.
|
| Of course, I don't believe Musk is the sole owner, so his
| co-buyers might have a case.
| gojomo wrote:
| I think Twitter Inc agrees with you, as they've made no
| request for damages.
|
| Shareholder lawsuits are weird; maybe someone who owns
| Twitter Inc stock could claim Musk's actions caused them
| to sell early, or otherwise suffer losses (margin calls?)
| due to his actions temporarily pushing the stock value
| below the deal price, even if the deal concludes. But
| I've not seen hints of any such stretches.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I am not following the court oroceeding, and I am not a
| lawyer. So honest question, if one of the issues being at
| trial whether or not Musk reneged already, isn't an letter
| stating, basically, "never mind this whole trial, I'm
| willongbto honor the deal _now_ ", kind of not helping?
| gojomo wrote:
| "Not helping"... who or what?
|
| Musk is now offering to execute the signed deal - which is
| the only thing Twitter asked to court to enforce. So it's
| absolutely helping resolve the dispute faster, without
| further legal costs or burdens on the court - and probably
| with the same end state as was most-likely earlier. And
| perhaps by signaling a specific clear future, damage to
| Twitter's position from the uncertainty & acrimony will
| halt & start to heal... benefiting its future owner, Musk.
| eastbound wrote:
| I may go down in history like Bill Gates' interrogation in
| 1998, which is still taught in every law school as "what
| not to do" unless you want to upset the judges.
|
| So "what not to do, Elon Musk style": Be unclear about
| intentions, have second thoughts, trying to play 4D chess
| with apparently no advisor than absolute amateurs to tame
| him or PR department to sway the public opinion your way,
| then keep being erratic with the judge.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| > If it did turn out that Zatko had been talking to Musk's
| team, that would be a very big deal, not only undercutting a
| big part of Musk's current case (which he was set to lose
| anyways) but also falsifying several statements made both to
| the Delaware court and also to Congress(?!).
|
| I largely agree with this supposition, which makes it
| unfortunate that Musk (and co) can take a step like this to try
| to eliminate discovery that could point to perjury and a clear
| conspiracy for market-manipulation.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| It's a longshot, but it would be simply amazing if Musk
| managed to expose himself to criminal liability because he
| had managed to convince himself in a pot-induced stupor that
| Zatko was going to somehow free him of his obligation.
|
| Don't assume that this prevents the matter from being looked
| at more closely though. Musk is a juicy target.
| Nokinside wrote:
| I'm sure you already know this, but the deal has already been
| financed. He is not buying the whole Twitter by himself, just
| the majority. If co-investors bail out, investment banks who
| signed the deal take those stocks.
|
| If you compare the purchase price to what Twitter likely would
| cost without the deal-using the price change of other social
| media platforms and internet ad platforms as a benchmark-it
| seems likely that Musk is paying ~$20 billion over the current
| market value.
|
| If Musk wants to offload even more stocks, he takes huge
| haircut. At least 50% or more. It's likely better to wait for
| better times and restructure Twitter.
|
| No matter how you look at it, this is horrible deal for Musk
| unless he can make Twitter shine again.
| Animats wrote:
| _" pending receipt of the proceeds of the debt financing
| contemplated thereby"_
|
| Not equity. And probably at worse rates than could have been
| obtained in April.
| Nokinside wrote:
| $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors.
|
| $20 billion cash from Musk, $6.25 billion in personal bank
| loans to Musk (he is hooking his Tesla stocks)
|
| Rest is senior secured bank loans and subordinated debt
| loaned against Twitter stock. The cost of the debt is about
| $1 billion per year if I remember correctly.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I'm assuming that part of this settlement was that some of
| his funders told him that they wanted the embarrassment to
| end. This whole process has made him and all of his co-
| investor friends look like assholes and idiots, and I'm sure
| they didn't like that.
| Nokinside wrote:
| Musk burned his reputation. His handshake or verbal
| agreement is worth much less going forward. Without trust
| he can't move fast.
|
| Someone like Warren Buffet can make a one phone call and
| the deal gets closed in few days because his word can be
| trusted.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Well it's too late, I'm convinced all of them are assholes
| and idiots.
|
| Of course, I thought this even before the Twitter fiasco
| started. I just believe it even more strongly now.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| A lot of people think that Elon Musk was the modern
| Nikola Tesla or (yes) Albert Einstein. These texts let
| them know that he is actually the modern PT Barnum.
| varelse wrote:
| Nokinside wrote:
| Musk is modern day Howard Hughes.
|
| Brilliant man who worked in aviation and aerospace and
| did many things. Eccentric person with serious mental
| issues.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Having a very brief look at the world of the ultra rich
| through an acquaintance of a friend, Im pretty sure that
| "reputation" to those people means a very different thing
| than it does to us. The key thing to remember is that these
| people live a very luxurious lifestyle that they can fund
| without ever having to work a day in their lives, so
| funding stuff like that to them is pretty much
| entertainment.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| If you watch the expert testimony from the Depp v. Heard
| trial, you can see a little bit about how "reputation" is
| measured and how much it can matter to the rich and
| famous. It is a lot more like how companies measure
| "brand equity" than how normal people think about
| reputation.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Depp would not be considered ultra rich. Depp has a net
| worth of 650 million at peak, which is tiny compared to
| Musk, Bezos, etc.
| wyclif wrote:
| Not only that, but Depp is notoriously irresponsible with
| his wealth. Before he had to liquidate some properties
| because of the trial, he had an excess of houses, condos,
| boats, cars, and all kinds of expensive to maintain
| personal holdings. I don't know for sure, but from what
| I've seen of Elon Musk, he is a lot more conservative
| with his wealth--even considering the Twitter deal.
| javajosh wrote:
| (I had to look this up) Musk is worth ~$240B, ~1000x more
| than Depp. Honestly, I'm impressed that a (and I say this
| with love) junkie actor could do so well.
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012715/5-
| ric...
| paxys wrote:
| No one knows the details of the agreements Musk signed with
| potential co-investors and banks, but considering it has been
| 6+ months since and the reputation, value and bank balance of
| the underlying asset - Twitter - has fallen (partially due to
| Musk's own antics), not to mention drastically different
| overall economic conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if they
| all have second thoughts as well.
| nocoiner wrote:
| The commitment papers are publicly filed. True, Musk's
| equity syndication terms aren't public, but that's
| basically irrelevant - Musk personally is on the hook for
| 100% of the required equity to the extent any of his
| coinvestors don't show up at closing.
| HillRat wrote:
| Second thoughts, absolutely, but also hell-or-high-water
| contracts that require MAEs to break, and Musk has been
| notably unsuccessful in making that argument (hence where
| we are now!). Gonna be a lot of blood on the floor when
| folks have to take the writedown on this.
| swores wrote:
| Musk failed to prove a material adverse effect by
| Twitter.
|
| But if his investors wanted to get out of their
| contracts, they might have legal standing (IANAL), or at
| least enough threat of it to be allowed out of the
| contract by Musk to avoid more court battles, based on
| the fact that he has caused MAE...
|
| After all, there is an open court case of Twitter v Musk
| (separate to Musk v Twitter) in which Twitter claimed:
|
| " _Since signing the merger agreement, Musk has
| repeatedly disparaged Twitter and the deal, creating
| business risk for Twitter and downward pressure on its
| share price._ "
|
| and
|
| " _Musk's strategy is also a model of bad faith. While
| pretending to exercise the narrow right he has under the
| merger agreement to information for "consummation of the
| transaction," Musk has been working furiously--albeit
| fruitlessly--to try to show that the company he promised
| to buy and not disparage has made material
| misrepresentations about its business to regulators and
| investors. He has also asserted, falsely, that
| consummation of the merger depends on the results of his
| fishing expedition and his ability to secure debt
| financing._ "
|
| (Copied from the legal case Twitter filed -
| https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-
| musk-t... )
| shmatt wrote:
| My bet is on the rest of the communications being publicized by
| the court. Billionaires aren't used to their private texting
| being public like that.
|
| Musk might like the circus around him, but a lot of people who
| have been texting him probably aren't enjoying the hundreds of
| news articles analyzing their private conversations. He could
| have gotten some communications that he'll become a persona non
| grata in many of his circles if he doesn't stop the court
| procedures immediately
| kcplate wrote:
| > he'll become a persona non grata in many of his circles if
| he doesn't stop the court procedures immediately
|
| When you are the richest or one of the top 5 richest people
| in the world, you are always at the center of circle and
| people flock (or bend) to you. I suspect this was more about
| him and how he looked than concern for those folks texting
| him.
| la64710 wrote:
| Oh no where is that emoji? Time for Parag to send it back to
| Elon :D
| jscipione wrote:
| drcongo wrote:
| Can't quite tell if this is satire.
| IntelMiner wrote:
| The sad thing is it probably isn't
| benlumen wrote:
| This is fascinating and exciting to me, to be honest. Like a lot
| of people around here I'm sure, I've spent a lot of time thinking
| about Twitter's influence on our society and I can't say it's
| positive. The degree to which politicians all now depend on it
| unquestioningly bothers me a lot. The way our adversaries use it
| to subvert us is worrying. What it does to people's health isn't
| good.
|
| Musk is the one billionaire that I honestly believe thinks of
| humanity's best interests in the big picture, long term. He's
| clearly identified Twitter and social media in general as a
| challenge to be wrestled with. Just really glad about it tbh.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Musk is the one billionaire that I honestly believe thinks of
| humanity's best interests in the big picture, long term.
|
| I could believe that he thinks he's that billionaire. However,
| his competence leaves something to be desired. Just yesterday,
| he had a peace proposal for the current Russo-Ukrainian war
| that boils down to "give Russia everything it wants" on the
| basis that that's what the eventual peace is going to be, the
| fact that the Russian military and milblogger sphere is in
| full-blown panic over Ukrainian successes in Lyman and near
| Kherson. Or take this case, where Musk and his attorneys have
| completely shot their credibility with the judge--in a case
| where there will be no jury, only the judge ruling on the
| merits.
|
| In short, Musk does seem to have the tech-bro attitude of "I
| always know what the right answer is, and everyone who tries to
| tell me otherwise is an idiot." That is not the kind of person
| I want working towards humanity's best interests.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So the new narratibe, after all of Musks attics, is now of the
| billionaire pursuing humanities best that, human as we all are,
| had to be nudged to do that as well by honoring his acquisition
| of Twitter. I already how Musk would get out of it with his
| hero status intact, I guess I just got my answer, or at least a
| potential one.
| benlumen wrote:
| What are you talking about, "new narrative"? We're not all
| narrative-driven bots, you know. I've been reading about Elon
| Musk since before anyone else I knew had even heard of him
| and have always admired his endeavours.
| floren wrote:
| I agree that Twitter is awful, and I agree that there's no
| better man to absolutely drive it into the ground and pound it
| into irrelevance and bankruptcy than Elon Musk.
| slothtrop wrote:
| > Musk is the one billionaire that I honestly believe thinks of
| humanity's best interests in the big picture, long term.
|
| I find that hard to believe now.
| babypuncher wrote:
| What about this whole fiasco doesn't leave you questioning
| Musk's mental faculties?
|
| He looks like a toddler throwing a fit. That doesn't sound like
| someone who has humanities best interests at heart.
| coliveira wrote:
| It you mean is that he will destroy Twitter, then I probably
| agree. Otherwise, the way he fools around social networks will
| not do anything good for humanity.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| What a clown.
| peppertree wrote:
| It's unsettling Musk is going to control the biggest political
| megaphone of this country.
| memish wrote:
| It's less unsettling than who's currently in charge of it.
|
| At least he's committed to transparency in moderation and the
| algorithm.
| djbusby wrote:
| Elmo doesn't seem like the type where "commitment" means what
| it does to the rest of us.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > he's committed
|
| He was just sued for his lack of commitment.
| peppertree wrote:
| If you believe Musk would deliver true transparency then I
| got a self driving car to sell you.
| [deleted]
| memish wrote:
| He delivered millions of electric cars. Re-usable rockets.
| Starlink. Moderation transparency is a slam dunk.
| helf wrote:
| I've spotted the Elon Fan Club member!
| bink wrote:
| If he discloses the moderation algorithms it'll make
| gaming them that much easier and the bot problem that
| much larger.
| robswc wrote:
| Well... isn't everything a give or take?
|
| Seems they just have a "system" or "human" problem
| because tons of spam accounts get reported but it seems
| to take a long time to get them removed.
| angrais wrote:
| But he didn't do any of that? He owns parts of companies
| that have. That is not even similar.
|
| Why do you think and attribute him to those achievements?
| helf wrote:
| Hahahah ur funny!
|
| You really believe he is "committed to transparency in
| moderation and the algorithm"?
|
| I have some real estate on Mars for sale if you are
| interested.
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| It is currently unsettling that the biggest megaphone of this
| country is governed by a small group of individuals in Silicon
| Valley.
| coldpie wrote:
| The most unsettling thing is that a megaphone this big
| exists. We need to break up tech companies.
| chimineycricket wrote:
| If people wanted a broken up twitter, mastodon would be
| more popular right now.
| majikandy wrote:
| Awkward name though isn't it mastodon
| beebmam wrote:
| So what should we do about it? Let another oligarch buy it
| and operate it?
|
| Why not nationalize it? Then at least the US constitution
| would apply, your first amendment rights would be protected,
| and it would truly be a public space.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Nationalization might work but if it were 1950-1970's US
| Gov. Our government used to be so badass. I have no trust
| in the current government's abilities and specifically the
| current administration. They tried to form a misinformation
| department which was already a disaster:
| https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/08/24/following-hsac-
| recommend...
|
| Responding to the comment below:
|
| > Nationalize the news? We can be just like Russia, China,
| Cuba, Venezuela!
|
| > Who needs pesky freedom of speech anyway.
|
| We have that dude. Voice of America:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
|
| No one, atleast domestically gives a shit about it. Which
| is just beautiful! The most American thing ever.
| treeman79 wrote:
| /sarcasm
|
| Nationalize the news? We can be just like Russia, China,
| Cuba, Venezuela!
|
| Who needs pesky freedom of speech anyway.
| guerrilla wrote:
| All of Europe has public service. Actually most of the
| world does, not just authoritarian countries. Even the US
| has NPR, PBS and (god forbid) VOA. I'm not saying it's
| not all propaganda, but it's definitely not the kind
| you're thinking about (in most countries anyway.)
| int_19h wrote:
| McCarthyism was still a thing in 1950s.
| stale2002 wrote:
| There is another option.
|
| Just regulate it, like we regulate other communication
| networks.
|
| The phone company can't ban people for political speech
| from it's phone lines, and the government doesn't run into
| 1st amendment issues with that.
|
| Let's change the law, so that our existing laws, are
| expanded to apply to social media companies.
| Covzire wrote:
| Nobody ever gives up power willingly, especially not the
| tyrants. It's going to be 2023 or 2025 before anything
| like that happens, unless the supreme court hears a
| surprisingly prescient case but that's unlikely before
| 2025 anyway.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > It's going to be 2023 or 2025 before anything like that
| happens,
|
| Not necessarily. There is already a texas social media
| law, that does part of what the anti-censorship crowd
| wants. The appeals court upheld the law, and the supreme
| court has not struck it down yet.
|
| That law, in 1 state alone, could have a huge effect on
| social media pretty soon, already.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| well, if you have no problem with the way it is currently
| "curated" then yeah, you're right to be worried.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| He got slammed in discovery, lost a lot of his pre-trial motions,
| and started losing a ton of his net worth by appearing like a
| buffoon. He was about to go into an emergency conference at the
| Delaware Chancery court, and I assume that he was being told "you
| are going to lose" by his lawyers if not the Chancellor herself.
|
| There was some indication that Mudge may have been in contact
| with him. He lost a lot of discovery motions about bots. His own
| experts told him that he had no case about Twitter bots. This
| case has been a loser from the beginning, and I think he thought
| he could get a better price by doing this. He likely didn't want
| anything else to come out.
|
| The Twitter board did a great job not bowing to the pressure.
| [deleted]
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's interesting to consider how Musk's behavior might change
| if his net worth was more liquid. I'd expect him to buy up a
| platoon of lawyers, send them off to battle in his stead, and
| go join Larry Ellison on his island for mojitos at sundown.
| mediaman wrote:
| He already hired the best lawyers available.
|
| What do you mean by his behavior changing if his net worth
| were more liquid? Are you suggesting he couldn't afford
| expensive lawyers because he couldn't get enough cash?
|
| He has had no issue paying lawyers. The fundamental problem
| is that the case is dumb and without merit and he was always
| going to lose it. Expensive lawyers can't fix that, at least
| not against a counterparty who also has expensive lawyers.
| SpacePortKnight wrote:
| Twitter makes $5B in revenue with -$0.5B in income. Musk would
| need to turn it into a profit machine to recoup some of his
| investment.
|
| Per the annual report 2019[1] Twitter spent
|
| - $1.8B in Cost of Revenue
|
| - $1.2B in R&D
|
| - $1.1B in Sales/Marketing
|
| - $0.58B in Administration
|
| - $0.76B in Litigation
|
| Unlike other tech companies, it looks like a private Twitter can
| be profitable.
|
| Elon could even do layoffs and move staff to cheaper locations
| like Europe. Salaries in States are much higher than they are in
| London/Ireland, for example[2].
|
| [1]
| https://s22.q4cdn.com/826641620/files/doc_financials/2021/ar...
|
| [2]
| https://www.levels.fyi/companies/twitter/salaries/software-e...
| mFixman wrote:
| What kind of R&D does Twitter do for $1.2b per year?
| silisili wrote:
| Well...they added an edit button this year. That's worth
| something, right?
| matwood wrote:
| Agree. Twitter should absolutely be able to make money with
| competent management. It vastly underperforms for the space is
| occupies. Musk overpaid, but going private and getting good
| management should get it to return something.
| robswc wrote:
| *Salaries in certain metropolitan areas
|
| A lot of people will gladly take a "pay cut" to work fully
| remote or in a location they actually want to be.
|
| I will always be of the opinion that massive corporate campuses
| for tech companies are some of the most wasteful
| expenditures... but I'm also not the CEO of a massive tech
| company, lol.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > A lot of people will gladly take a "pay cut" to work fully
| remote or in a location they actually want to be.
|
| I thought Musk hates remote workers.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-04 23:01 UTC)