Elon Musk Offers To Buy Twitter For $41 Billion (reuters.com) 311
Billionaire Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter for about $41 billion, just days after rejecting a seat on the social media company's board. From a report: Musk's offer price of $54.20 per share, which was disclosedin a regulatory filing on Thursday, represents a 38% premium to Twitter's April 1 close, the last trading day before the Tesla CEO's more than 9% stake in the company was made public. Twitter's shares jumped 12% in premarket trading. "Since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company," Musk said in a letter to Twitter Chairman Bret Taylor. "My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder," Musk said.
i guess its good (Score:2, Funny)
He should buy Russia instead (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It would be more useful for the world if Elon would buy Russia and fire Putin.
I'm sure he'd LOVE to do that. Unfortunately, Putin doesn't want to sell his controlling interest. So Elon is stuck with a hostile takeover route there, too. (In this case it involves literal hostilities - such as enabling Starlink in Ukraine and shipping them a truckload of dishies, to counter Putin's attacks on their net infrastructure.
Re:i guess its good (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk either doesn't have the part of the brain that makes people feel aversion to risk, or he is really practiced at ignoring the part of the brain that creates risk aversion.
Many of the changes that Musk has been hinting to change on twitter are very high risk changes Which could devolve Twitter into a 4Chan where unfettered free speech, without consequences bring a flood of misinformation, deception and creating highly concentrated echo chambers. But that is my Risk Adverse brain looking at a problem and see how bad it could get, if one would turn off that risk aversion, the changes could allow for more communication and freedom of sharing ideas, and having the good ideas flourish over the bad stupid or misleading ones.
As a pragmatic person, I care more about how said changes are implemented vs the ideology of the changes. As a bad ideology implemented well is often much better than a good ideology implemented poorly.
Re: i guess its good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: i guess its good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:i guess its good (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude. He's not planning on doing anything with Twitter except pumping and dumping his stock. It's not complicated. Musk is not a complicated person. He's just a greedy shitbag who knows how to manipulate rubes. He's done this sort of pump and dump before.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:i guess its good (Score:5, Insightful)
He bought Paypal with daddy money. He did nothing to make Paypal what it is, he just used inherited wealth, which came from slavery, to buy a successful company. He innovated nothing. He just paid people and then took credit. Do you know as part of the Tesla deal, he demanded the actual founders not be credited? He's an egotistical shithead with no talents besides grifting and cheating workers.
And you musk stans are even worse. You are the bottom of the barrel of humanity.
Twitter must allow user swappable feed algorithm (Score:5, Interesting)
What Twitter needs is a personalizable and user-programmable feed algorithm. Now, before you idiots say that can be used to fuck-off their CPU load/data usage .. it can be implemented without fucking off the CPU -- but thats not a topic for this comment because it is too stupid. Anyway, what I am saying is that users should be allowed a limited amount of programmability to their feeds so they can create or purchase third-party algorithms that determine what posts and comments show up to them. For example, if you decide to follow a certain hashtag, you can have your algorithm apply certain criteria to determine whether or not to show it and what badges can appear next to it. I mean, on a simplistic level, you can decide to follow a hashtag like say #climate-change, but only see stuff from users who, by certain criteria, are determined to be left-wing. For example, I could only choose to highly regard statements that have been "badged" (ie, medaled or modded) 3+ by the slashdot community, who I trust. Anything with a 2 is considered, but with suspicion. A 1-rating and below, I choose to be amused by only. If your trusted authorities want Trump banned, then he's banned from your feed. Of course, this will magneto-polarize the world into factions and hardcore beliefs due to people getting themselves locked into and self-reinforcing certain ideas within their meme-communities. In other words, a flat earther will not get exposed to any meaningful rebuttals if he only trusted stuff signed by groups of idiots. We can only hope though, that users will choose to create or buy decent algorithms that expose them to all viewpoints and correctly discard spam and misinformation by attaching medals of reputable communities. I think that will be the case due to social pressure anyway .. people who only follow morons might be subject to ridicule at parties. We have to rely on that fact that a majority of people don't intrinsically want to believe lies.
Re: (Score:3)
We can only hope though, that users will choose to create or buy decent algorithms that expose them to all viewpoints and correctly discard spam and misinformation by attaching medals of reputable communities. I think that will be the case due to social pressure anyway .. people who only follow morons might be subject to ridicule at parties. We have to rely on that fact that a majority of people don't intrinsically want to believe lies.
You have a much more charitable opinion of people than I do
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Twitter must allow user swappable feed algorith (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly hope shareholders take the money and run. Will be rather hilarious to watch him play with Twitter and how his fanboys will immediately call it better even as long promised features are always touted as "next year" and never materialize or are yanked.
Re:Twitter must allow user swappable feed algorith (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have a programmable feed, that would f**k with selling your data and access to you.
On the contrary. A programmable feed would be a valuable data set about your preferences, something the current algorithm has to work hard for to guess at from your likes and clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Example: We apparently live
Re: Twitter must allow user swappable feed algorit (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as my feed is constantly reminding me I'm part of the problem I figure I must be doing something right.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL it's nice to hear that you have that right, but you should also understand that being registered with a political party (as a voter) is fundamentally a problem. It does nothing for democracy, only for tribalism.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, it's still working great on Usenet, after all these decades.
Wake me up when [eternal] September ends.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter, or at least Jack Dorsey, has made noise [mobileworldlive.com] about this in the past. As well as project blue sky [slashdot.org], which I believe would help facilitate this.
Doesn't seem to be much development in that space though. Customization and decentralization are both relatively expensive and don't bring in money as well
End of the alternatives (Score:4, Interesting)
If this happens and Twitter lets say clears it's ban list, all the alternative Twitters will be on a fast death march as everyone abandons them back for Twitter.
However, something like at least half of those users will likely just be banned against in short order becaue a place like Twitter needs to have some rules to maintain any semblence of order and anyone who is has been on the internet knows some people are just out to get shit all over everyone. If the moderation methods were less vague that would be an improvement but that is going to take a lot more labor to accomplish.
Biggest change that will come out of this is Trump gets his Twitter back in time for 2024.
Honestly, I like SpaceX, I like Tesla but this feels like Musk is the dog that caught the car here.
Re: End of the alternatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Musk has proven adaptable because he is relentlessly product-focused, even brutally so. That translates well to Twitter, which long ago forgot its roots and became a social activism c corp instead of a social media product.
Re: End of the alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be right but changing the paradigm of rockets and electric cars are technical problems with technical solutions.
The issues with social media, real and perceived, cannot be solved by whizbang tech or throwing more developers at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Some can't. Some can. Edit button. Moderator action log and people verifying it. Removal of shadowbans. Making chronological order (as opposed to "suggested") the default and people who opted out not having their feeds reverting to "suggested first" every couple weeks. Never mind making the opt-out a human-readable option instead hiding it behind a "sparkles" icon. Consistent, logical rules of account verification.
All technical/organizational solutions to serious social problems. Not a solve-all, cure-all,
Re: (Score:2)
I agree fully on moderation log and just general removal of vagueness. I think anyone who is banned should get a reason explaining what caused it.
The suggested feed is I to imagine an advertising driven action. If it is a dogmatic rule because Twitter wants to use it "their way" then I agree it should be a clearer option but if advertisers want it Musk will still want to keep the site profitable I imagine (or if he just wants it to exist for discourse profits be damned then more power to him)
None of that
Re: End of the alternatives (Score:5, Informative)
Elon Musk’s father — Errol Musk — was a South African citizen, and his mother — Maye Musk — was a Canadian citizen. In 1971, Maye Musk gave birth to her first child — Elon Musk — in Pretoria, South Africa. Therefore by birth, Elon is a South African citizen.
He can not be president. Not without changing the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, forgot about that, and no matter how riled up he can get the populace, no way he'd get a constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because people want to believe that NASA cannot build rockets, people want to believe the US cannot build cars. Because people want to believe that any unregulated environment is the best environment while the corporate business model is the only business model. The world has gotten tired of unconsciously associating the "great white hunter" with an american face, so we allow others to to throw their hats into the ring. This country has made a man president because he knows how to possess money without ear
Re: End of the alternatives (Score:4, Informative)
SpaceX is his biggest achievement, but how much of that is down to the engineers and scientists and how much is down to him?
Tesla... He took it over, and a lot of mistakes were made. He has proven hopeless at fulfilling his promises. Cybertruck, Semi, new Roadster, Full Self Driving, Robotaxi, all solar powered chargers, the list goes on. They aren't terrible cars or anything, but they also aren't as great as some people seem to think and there is very much an Apple-style reality distortion field around Tesla.
It's far from a sure thing that he could improve Twitter. He's already being sued for not declaring his stake in it in a timely manner, and the SEC is taking an interest. Mostly though, just looking at his tweets, I don't think he has a clue what makes Twitter successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a lot of people stretch their budget to an iPhone, the same way they stretch their budget to a Tesla. Remember that, at least around here, most people buy on finance or lease, and the monthly cost is based on the rate of depreciation of the car and an interest rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Rockets and electric cars needed money to solve the problems holding them back. His money isn't going to fix anything wrong with twitter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Musk will kill Twitter. He's a "free speech absolutionist" which means he thinks that 8chan is the pinnacle of human discourse.
Try to imagine what Musk's impression of Twitter is like, as a user with 81 million followers. Every shitpost gets a huge number of likes, feeding his ego. He's probably addicted to it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:End of the alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
I never though I would ever have to ask this on this site, but exactly what is wrong with having unfettered free and open speech on a platform?
Slashdot is literally one of the last free and open speech platforms left on the internet short of a chan and yet it doesn't have any of the problems a chan has because of its moderation system. You almost never see spam, troll, hate or many misinformation posts on this site because it's moderation is so effective.
But even with it's effective moderation system, users rarely complain about it. Why? Because users are in control of whats moderated and who moderates.
If I want to see whats hidden or downvoted, I can.
I with other users can upvote or downvote comments, which changes how its viewed for everyone else.
I have control of the view threshold and what gets highlighted or hidden.
I can Friend or Foe users and personally modify their score to change how their posts view to me.
I can meta-moterate and have a say on who moderates and how frequently they can.
This is much different than what Twitter is doing, where the company has a faceless moderator dept making decisions behind the scenes based on some unseen corporate policy and Twitter users have no say in what is kept and what is removed or banned.
But basically, allowing free speech isn't the problem. The platform itself is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot isn't unfettered free speech. There is a lameness filter that tries to block a lot of stuff, ranging from Nazis to pornographic fan-fic about the site owners to god knows what else. For a long time the n word was blocked, but I think it's available again now. I believe that Slashdot's various owners over the years have removed posts too, especially things like doxing.
As for moderation, I think Slashdot gets away with it because it's a relatively small site. Moderation doesn't scale.
On Twitter they
Re: (Score:3)
I never though I would ever have to ask this on this site, but exactly what is wrong with having unfettered free and open speech on a platform?
Slashdot is literally one of the last free and open speech platforms left on the internet short of a chan and yet it doesn't have any of the problems a chan has because of its moderation system. You almost never see spam, troll, hate or many misinformation posts on this site because it's moderation is so effective.
But even with it's effective moderation system, users rarely complain about it. Why? Because users are in control of whats moderated and who moderates.
If I want to see whats hidden or downvoted, I can.
I've seen plenty of complaints about the mods... but that's besides the point.
There's a reason that the /. mod system works, it's because /. comments don't matter. Sure there's some interesting conversations among ourselves and a few extra thousands (tens of thousands?) who click through.... but we're just talking to ourselves. I mean just look at any story on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we can't even get the paid Russian trolls to show up.
I see Tweets embedded in news stories daily, and see lots of bl
Re: (Score:3)
I never though I would ever have to ask this on this site, but exactly what is wrong with having unfettered free and open speech on a platform?
See, statements like that could be best answered by replying to you 100K times with algorithmically generated posts that you can't immediately tell from real responses and tracking you forever and replying to every post you ever make with such posts so that you can't ever have a real conversation on the Internet without slogging through that sort of thing. Except for 2 reasons. One is that I would never do something like that. More significantly, it's not practically possible because the various forums you
Re:End of the alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Because unfettered freedom naturally leads to oppression in the form of things like monopolies and slavery. This is called the paradox of tolerance [wikipedia.org].
Sometimes we have to limit liberty for some in order to maximize liberty for all. This is why we have laws, police, and prisons.
And yes, speech can also be used to oppress, for example by shouting your opponent into silence. Echo chambers further amplify the effect.
So "unfettered free and open speech" is a myth.
Re: (Score:3)
A paid internet troll feels threatened by a legitimate comment on Musk. Hmmm
Re:End of the alternatives (Score:4, Interesting)
On top of that 90%+ of Republican posts are to "pwn teh libs" and those sites don't have libs, ergo it's no fun. Plus they ban people too when they post something violent, so they aren't really freeze peach. That's why they whine about Twitter.
Of course unless Musk delivered a signed contract this might be a good way for him to pump up the stock and sell his extra shares. What? You don't think ALL of his shares are in his name did you? Are you a delicate poor snowflake who doesn't know the glories of holding companies that the rich employ? Well are you special.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal speech plus algorithm selection solves this. GPT has most of what's needed to sort people into bins automatically. Your choice as a user.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:End of the alternatives (Score:4, Funny)
Well, as the lefties always say..."It's a private company, they can do what they want and if you don't like it, you can feel free to start your own service from the ground up"
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, if it wasn't a private company we wouldn't be talking aout Musk in rrelation to it as all.
If you want the government to regulate social media just come out and say it. I wouldn't exactly object to it but I hope people who constantly make slippery slope arguments know what they are asking for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do the lefties always say that? It sounds like something said a hundred times a night on Fox News. Then again, it's clear that's your "news" source, so it's not really surprising you would project in this way.
And of course, the entire premise is flawed and you've only responded to take a shot at the "lefties" as is your bent.
Re: (Score:3)
To address something you said at first...speech, as long as it is legal (ie not inciting violence) should be allowed.
Misinformation...is legal speech, and up to the recipient to figure out whether to believe it or not.
No, from a legal perspective, you're wrong. As anyone who has studied communications law will tell you, misinformation that leads to harm is the legal and moral equivalent of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. In other words, it is not legal speech.
Yes, in most cases, misinformation is not (quite) heinous enough for the government to be allowed to commit prior restraint against it and prevent its publication. But that's not the same as saying that there can't be very real legal consequences if m
Re: End of the alternatives (Score:2)
I shouldn't have to defend my internet cred but I know what a 14.4K sounds like.
Re: (Score:2)
What about a 300baud acoustic modem ?
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite that old to use one but I always wanted one. An ISA modem seemed very uncool in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet he's just playing the market (Score:4, Insightful)
Elon hates the SEC. From his point of view they have no problem letting a bunch of suits take out massive short positions and then flood the market with bad news stories and fake reviews in an effort to drive the stock price down and potentially destroy his company. Yet, he is supposed to have to pass everything he says through the nanny lawyer for SEC approval.
It would not surprise me if this is just all an effort to boost the stock price so he can make out like a bandit on his recent stock acquisition. It's essentially out foxing the SEC, and absurdly childish behaviour. I feel his 'twitter poll' on selling tesla stock was a similar thing - so he could cash out a big pile of shares without spooking the markets in the same way as if he'd just dumped them in a regulatory filling like most other CEOs do.
He makes it clear that you're right. (Score:3)
"My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder," Musk said.
Heads I win, Tails you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
He did indeed divulge his intentions to the world and to Twitter stakeholders - he's either going to buy it wholesale or sell his massive amount of stock.
It's essentially out foxing the SEC, and absurdly childish behaviour.
How is out-foxing the SEC childish? Maybe this is the only way to get some reforms to the SEC by demonstrating how their policing is ineffective and lopsided? Aren't short-sellers "out-foxing" the SEC every single day across a massive scale by pumping out fake negative news about whatever companies they are shorting?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He did indeed divulge his intentions to the world and to Twitter stakeholders - he's either going to buy it wholesale or sell his massive amount of stock.
If it was me, I'd tell him to go ahead and dump his stock. There likely isn't enough market support at the current price for him to unload all of his shares without taking a loss. The only real shame is that he's so insanely rich that he's not even going to suffer from an investment gone sour because he threw a manchild tantrum. This is pocket change for him, which really goes to show how fucked up income inequality is in this country.
Hell, if Musk tanks Twitter's stock price, that would probably a good
Re: (Score:3)
I just think he has quite a simplistic view of the situation. I agree with him that short selling is generally destructive, but it's not really the SEC's fault - it's a structural problem with the financial system that needs to be legislated against to fix. SEC is ultimately doing an important job - imagine trying to invest in public companies if the executive team was free to manipulate the stock price however they wanted. He may believe his is being altruistic in his actions, but the rules can't assume al
Re: (Score:2)
It's essentially out foxing the SEC, and absurdly childish behaviour.
Actually, I think he's following a game plan straight out of Warren Buffet's playbook:
"I will tell you how to become rich. Close the doors. Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful." --Warren Buffett
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He is being sued for not announcing his existing stake in Twitter for a couple of weeks, which the suit says allowed him to get the stock cheap. Also, this kind of public announcement is what got the SEC interested last time so he had better be serious and have that cash on hand.
Re: (Score:3)
He is being sued for not announcing his existing stake in Twitter for a couple of weeks, which the suit says allowed him to get the stock cheap. Also, this kind of public announcement is what got the SEC interested last time so he had better be serious and have that cash on hand.
He's not an executive (probably why he didn't want a board position) so he has no fiduciary duty to the company. He can pretty much do whatever he wants with his shares and say whatever he wants. If it didn't work like this you'd have to check what was being held in your pension fund each time you wanted to say anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Making a false tender offer is illegal.
Unless that comes with something worse than a fine, I doubt he cares. I couldn't tell from the link -- what is the penalty for this action?
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. No crime is being committed.
The filing states the offer is contingent on completion of anticipated financing.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... [sec.gov]
Third paragraph under item 4.
"The Proposal is non-binding and, once structured and agreed upon, would be conditioned upon, among other things, the (i) receipt of any required governmental approvals; (ii) confirmatory legal, business, regulatory, accounting and tax due diligence; (iii) the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements providing for the Propos
Re: (Score:2)
He is being sued for not announcing his existing stake in Twitter for a couple of weeks, which the suit says allowed him to get the stock cheap.
Good luck with that. There is a reason he bought 9% and not 10% of the stock before disclosing it.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the threshold for filing a 13G is 5%. However, it's not entirely clear he surpassed that threshold on the date the lawsuit alleges. I'm not sure about the merits of this one, other than alerting the SEC about a missed filing.
An SEC fine would cost him up to a few hundred thousand dollars (if anything at all.) This doesn't compare to the billions he's already made since the stock price appreciated.
Investors claiming damages, or to have missed out on an opportunity to acquire more shares themselves, may
The fool and his money saga continues... (Score:2)
It would not surprise me if this is just all an effort to boost the stock price so he can make out like a bandit on his recent stock acquisition
So to do that, if his offer is not accepted, he's gonna dump his shares, lower the price and allow Twitter to buy back shares cheap?
He's really not a rocket scientist, you know? Just a rocket CEO. Possibly also a Moon CEO. [nih.gov]
Elon Musk (Score:3, Funny)
As a fellow autist I feel like he's my brother because he does the same stupid shit I would do for a laugh if I was a billionaire.
Maybe he can fix social media (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Musk even *have* $41bn to burn? (Score:3)
This is likely another attempt to troll Twitter's director board.
The guy does not have $41bn ready to go on a savings account. Is he planning to dump TSLA stock to pay? Because that would be incredible to watch unfold in real time.
Re:Does Musk even *have* $41bn to burn? (Score:5, Insightful)
He doesn't have to necessarily dump Tesla stock if he can get loans based on the value of his Tesla holdings. This is actually preferable for him from a tax perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
That's still debt that has to be paid... somehow. Unless he magically plans to get a 100% profit out of his purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
hes probly just trolling twiiter execs again.
And pumping Twitter stock in the process as well. When the SEC finally cracks down on the guy it will be biblical.
Re: (Score:2)
lol there are still idiots who think the SEC can do anything to him? you sweet naive idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, do you think the dude is a magician or something? Yes, the SEC can totally do a LOT.
His latest stunt delaying the filing of forms related to buying TWTR stock, at a profit of +$150m USD, might very well do it. A number of Twitter shareholders have already filed a lawsuit over it.
Re: (Score:2)
The maximum fine the SEC could levy for the delay in filing a 13D or a 13G is a few hundred thousand dollars. It's unlikely they would pursue it, failure to file a 13G on time is pretty common.
Not sure the claims in the lawsuit are accurate, btw. Be careful not to make more out of it than is warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
For the filing delay alone, yes, but that's but the cherry on top of a long chain of... financial mishaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to iterate?
AFAIK, no, there are no legally actionable items outstanding relating to Musk and the SEC. And certainly nothing scandalous.
Re: (Score:2)
The SEC was already investigating Musk after his "should i sell 10% of my Tesla stock?" antic last November; he's bound by a SEC settlement dating back to 2018 which basically requires him to get a pre-approval before tweeting shit like this.
You know, back when he tweeted he had secured enough funding to take Tesla private, which effectively defrauded investors.
As for the filing delay, it's not a matter if they even "could". The rules are perfectly clear regarding the need of filing within 10 days, so it is
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The guy does not have $41bn ready to go on a savings account.
a) This is not how all-cash deals work. b) He is likely not alone in going after civilization-destroying SJWs running Twitter and has many silent partners, possibly even Jack.
Civilization destroying? (Score:2)
If Twitter can destroy your civilization then it was already circling the drain. More like the world is changing and you’re scared.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of replying to one of the schizos...
You are correct, an all-cash deal means the receiving party gets cash (i.e. not stocks, bonds or other securities, or equity in the resulting private company.) It does not mean the purchaser needs to have cash on hand.
In fact, it would be in Musk's interests to finance all or part of the purchase price, either solely or with a group of investors. Musk is dealing with Morgan Stanley on this purchase, who are more than able to solely underwrite a loan.
As far as the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This takeover is possible only because current Twitter leadership is under-performing, with Elon having a clear case of how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A collateralized loan still has to be paid - it's not free money. As someone mentioned above, the only real upside to it is that Musk is not tax liable for selling stock options for cash in the process. There're also other considerations at play, such as whether debt total / payments are affected by TSLA value swings, if he used his own company stock as collateral.
Musk would be spending 15-20% of his total net worth in the operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, citation needed?
I recommend moving past denial stage straight into acceptance, but feel free to detour into grief for as long as you need. Read TFA, it even has a link to Reuters article with details.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone here should be happy (Score:2)
"Private companies" are king, right?
(Bwa ha ha!!!!)
Twitter is ... (Score:3)
..it's users, if he changes anything to make it worse (and it is not unlikely) the users will decamp to another platform
It's entire value is in it's user base, and Elon has never been good at pleasing the users of his products as he thinks he knows better
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Elon Unicorn VC (Score:2)
TWIT plays both ways.
Elon can dump his investment on the upside of the market then abandon. And downside he can buy it as it crashes pennies on the dollar as he stomps the bird.
There is no way Twitter is anything but temporary game of poker
And just like a car... (Score:2, Funny)
... Twitter's value will fall off a cliff the moment Musk purchases it.
I just don't get it. (Score:2)
To the left, words are MORE POWERFUL than deeds (Score:3)
I don't think people understand just how philosophically committed the left is to being in command of the language. To them, using the correct words are far, far more important than any acts those words may be attached to. It literally doesn't matter what anything actually is, all that matters is what one says about it.
This offer to buy out Twitter is a torpedo attack on the one thing that matters most to them, the very source of what they perceive is their power over the culture.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same, but so far the gamble would not be paying much. Twitter is about +2% after opening, and kinda holding there.