Trump's Truth Social Is Going Public (wired.com) 229
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Former president Donald Trump'sTruth Social, a shameless Twitter clone, is set to become a publicly traded company as soon as next week. Shareholders of Digital World Acquisition Corp. voted on Friday to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group, the company behind Truth Social. The vote is a culmination of a years-long saga attempting to merge Trump Media with a publicly traded company in what's known as a SPAC deal. The company will trade under the ticker DJT once it goes public. [...] Truth Social looks nearly identical to Twitter, with some key distinctions. Instead of "tweeting," users post a "truth." A "retweet" is called a "retruth." Unlike many right-wing Twitter clones, the site functions well, has remained mostly online, and actually appears to have a somewhat active user base. But since launching in February 2022, after Trump was kicked off of mainstream platforms for inciting violence during the January 6 riot at the Capitol, the company has been mired in controversy.
Ah-ha. (Score:3)
Does this mean /. is going to start running political stories again?
Re:Ah-ha. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean /. is going to start running political stories again?
Start?
Re:Ah-ha. (Score:4, Insightful)
well for right wingers, anything vaguely reality based, like climate change is "political", but other than that, they stopped running actual politics articles ages ago.
Re:Ah-ha. (Score:4, Informative)
like climate change is "political"
Politics is about "policy".
Addressing climate change will cost trillions. We will need revenue policies to decide who will pay and action policies to decide how and who will spend the money.
You can't say, "Give us ten trillion dollars or your money, and you're not allowed to ask why because this isn't about politics."
they stopped running actual politics articles ages ago
Slashdot regularly runs articles about unions, gender balances, regulation, corruption, economics, and elections. All of those are political.
You're a straw manning (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the right wing routinely threatens to shut down the government and routinely complains about the deficit and national debt while racking up both when they're in control.
Politics is about policy but back when newt Gingrich took over the Republican Party in the 90s he put a stop to that. He called it the contract with america. It was a policy to block anything positive that would improve the lives of Americans so that they could blame their opposition on the ever worsening conditions of the average american.
You can find several examples of Republicans openly admitting they wanted a government shutdown because they were counting on voters blaming the economic meltdown on Joe Biden and the Democrats.
The Republican party is only interested in obtaining money and power for themselves and if you're paying even a little attention there's no shortage of evidence to prove that. It's why they're constantly obsessed with culture War bullshit that doesn't have anything to do with improving your life but a lot to do with telling you who to be pissed off at
Re: (Score:2)
How to deal with climate change is in fact political. I agree it's happening but I disagree with the approach many politicians want to take in dealing with the issue. Most of what we are actually doing is wealth redistribution and much of it amounts to pissing in the wind with regards to actually making a noticeable difference in climate change.
Not to mention, most the people screaming the loudest are also the worse contributors to climate change. In my eyes, that makes many of these people complete hypocri
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a a candidate for the 2024 election, and that's a fact. Trump has expressed support for various policies, and that's a fact. Facts might not be political, but talking about them can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Dealing with climate change is political, but it's existence is only political to people who's politics is denial of objective reality. But read and thread here on climate change and you'll still find people who can't cope with reality and find all sorts of excuses why it's not real.
This issue of whether or not climate change is "real" is an irrelevant sidecar in the real world. All that matters is policy. I've yet to hear a single politician or activist express a coherent one.
Re: (Score:2)
This issue of whether or not climate change is "real" is an irrelevant sidecar in the real world.
Hahahahaha, spoken like a person who believes politics trumps reality.
All that matters is policy
King Canute had his throne dragged to the beach so his subjects could see that he lacked the power to command the tide to stay out. It appears you have not learned the lesson there.
Sea levels will rise regardless of policy. That is reality.
Weather will get more extreme regardless of policy.
Patterns will change causing
Re: (Score:3)
The second best known is Greta Thunberg, who intermixes support for Hamas with climate change advocacy.
Is she supporting Hamas or denouncing Israel for their actions in Palestine? I've only heard of the later and there's a massive difference between those two stances even if some don't want to admit it.
I don't avidly follow Greta or anything though so maybe there's something I haven't heard about
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope. You're weasel wording. Again.
Climate change is a fact. Facts are not political unless you're politics involves denying facts.
You cannot "both sides" your way out of this. The globe is warming and that is causing the climate to change. Carbon dioxide has a well known and undisputed absorption spectrum. This has been known since the 1800s, as has the consequence.
Only one side is denying an indisputable fact.
Re: (Score:2)
> Greta Thunberg, who intermixes support for Hamas with climate change advocacy.
What?
All I can find are quotes like this “the world needs to speak up and call for an immediate ceasefire, justice and freedom for Palestinians and all civilians affected” https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu]
Do you have any thing that shows she supports Hamas? If not why the rhetoric?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
When someone points out that you look like a deluded fool, the correct response is to quietly move on, not double-down.
You have no idea how ridiculous you look here, do you?
Re: Ah-ha. (Score:2, Insightful)
Youâ(TM)re literally a moron and your sarcasm is accidentally true ALL the time on here. Thatâ(TM)s what makes your entire life an embarrassment.
Re: Ah-ha. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out that you're an idiot doesn't make him wrong, or your posts any less absurd.
If only you were capable of learning...
Re: Ah-ha. (Score:2, Troll)
Gee, what are the odds that smart educated people are right more often than uneducated hillbillies?
Are you professionally stupid or is this just how you spend your leisure time?
Re: Ah-ha. (Score:3)
Supporting the workers isn't really all that leftist. It's only leftist if the strategy is based on some sort of reworking of the traditional employer/employee relationship. Simple worker protections aren't left or right wing. They are progressive (as opposed to conservative), but progressive does not mean left and conservative does not mean right; those concepts are captured on the liberal/authoritarian axis, not the progressive/conservative one.
Tariffs and protectionism aren't right wing either. Foreign p
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean /. is going to start running political stories again?
Although DJT is a political figure, he's not actually running the company. "Truth Social" is a tech company (even if its raison d'etre is politically motivated), so it makes sense for it to be covered in a news-for-nerds site.
Eh, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
a shameless Twitter clone
Unlike threaded mastodons, which are the soul of originality, lol!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I don't consider Twitter that original. It just had a very tiny bit of originality that happened to be just the right bit.
Mastodon, though, isn't a Twitter clone. It's got a very different networking system. Which is a part of why it's having trouble gaining more users. I think it's a better networking system, as there's less central control, but it requires more commitment from the users. (I as this as someone who hasn't used either, so don't take it too seriously.)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I don't consider Twitter that original.
Oh, it's not ... it's just a deliberately crippled (in post length) multi-user blog. (That bit was clever though, gotta admit.)
But then it wasn't me complaining about something being a Twitter clone, lol!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't consider Twitter that original.
Twitter (e.g. handing everyone a megaphone and milking the ensuing chaos for all its worth) is something most people reject out of hand as a bad idea.
It is as original as thinking you can fly by jumping off a building while frantically flapping your arms and shouting "I am a shitbird". Everyone's thought of it, few are dumb enough to have actually tried.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible most people reject that idea, but a whole bunch of people thought it was in fact a great idea. So great that they though it was a paradigm shift in the way the web works, and so called it "web 2.0".
Quite a few people even had the idea earlier. Slashdot, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a Twitter clone, I think, never used it, or even twitter my problem is the word shameless, news stories are "shamelessly" bias, the word shameless makes it sound bad, that is not what good reporting should be, unfortunately unbiased news stories a few and far between.
Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a massive grift. The site is making 3 million a year on 52 million in expenses, yet somehow is valued in the billions. That's like worse than most of the dot-bomb era shams. The owners are going to be doing a lot of scamming and promotions (I expect crypto to be on the thing by July) to hold the value up until they can sell out and leave the new buyers with an empty bag.
Come November, win or lose, it will have lost ALL its raison d'être and will drop to a penny stock if it hasn't already.
Re:Easy targets (Score:5, Informative)
Can't imagine what the ads will look like after this. I mean people were already getting scammed with Trump Bucks thinking it was legitimate currency. https://www.forbes.com/sites/t... [forbes.com]
Re: Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit spent $804 M to make $713 M.
Truth spent $52 M to make $3 M.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is Truth is actually losing LESS money then Reddit? So from your own post, Truth is less in the hole then Reddit. Good to know.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn’t matter. This is so that he can cover his obligations to the court in New York right now, this moment. He owes something like $450M right now, and if he fails to pay up by Monday, they’ve said they’ll seize his real estate holdings in New York (e.g. Trump Tower) beginning Monday. Under the terms of this grift, he personally owns 60% of the merged company, which is worth $5B in total, so he suddenly has $3B more on paper than he did before. His hope is probably that he can stake those shares to cover his obligations, keeping him from being forced to sell his real estate holdings.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't he just stake his properties to cover his obligations? Or put up those properties as collaterals for a loan?
LOL.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Trump could pay off the judgement using his properties but Trump's ego will never allow that to happen. Trump has filed intent to appeal. To stop seizure during the appeal, Trump has to put up the entire amount plus interest. Normally a bonding company does that; however, those companies do not take real estate as collateral for many reasons.
The main reason is real estate is not always easy and quick to sell especially since most of his properties are commercial in nature and in the millions. If it was a $200K home that would sell quickly on today's market; a golf course not so much. By the time the bonding company could sell a property, it may be less than what they paid for it. Some of his properties are also encumbered in different ways. He does not own some of them outright as they have mortgages. Business partners own stakes in others. Some properties like condos require the approval of the building's board before sale. Bonding companies prefer cash or assets that could be sold quickly.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, his problem with a surety bond is worse than that. He whined to the NY Court of Appeals that no one would touch him. And he lied to the NYCA. This is on top of the way he abused Judge Engoron, his staff, the State's AG, the judge's wife, his son, and the court appointed monitor (a former judge herself) because he couldn't be trusted. And his brownshirts took out their anger on whomever he indicated displeased him, a weapon that did not go unnoticed by the NYCA. He knew damn well if he whined about someone, his brownshirts would go after them right on cue.
What he did not do was submit the documentation that shows he went to bond companies, and their official replies. So it is not even clear he tried.
A bond that big is usually parceled out among bonding companies so the risk is dispersed. If he is telling the truth (remember this is the former alleged president we're talking about here), then he is saying that the 30 or so bonding companies he claimed he approached wouldn't even take a slice.
It may be they are gun-shy of dealing with someone who cooked his books. So even if he offered collateral, they'd all have to go do their own appraisals because no one trusts anything he says....well, I guess the Maga-Dolts do, but they find a two-bit lying grifter from NYC speaks to their anger at petulantly not getting their own way.
It is still possible that some foreign government (say, Saudi Arabia or Russia) could front the money, suitably hidden behind some entity and his whining up until the last minute is just to see if the NYCA will blink. Or one of his gullible rich friends will. But no one is going to front him that much money without expecting payback. They will own a piece of him, maybe all of him. And this becomes a national security threat, should he ever become an alleged president again. Of course he would be even without someone fronting him the money.
Re: (Score:2)
It is still possible that some foreign government (say, Saudi Arabia or Russia) could front the money, suitably hidden behind some entity and his whining up until the last minute is just to see if the NYCA will blink. Or one of his gullible rich friends will. But no one is going to front him that much money without expecting payback. They will own a piece of him, maybe all of him. And this becomes a national security threat, should he ever become an alleged president again. Of course he would be even without someone fronting him the money.
NY placed a monitor on the Trump Organization so the government will know at least that the money did not come from his current businesses.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Informative)
Trump doesn't understand the law, and he has a team of lawyers that do his bidding rather than give him proper advice if it's contrary to Trump's wishes. Trump wanted to insult the judge before the judge made a judgement, and the lawyers went along with this colossally dumb idea likely increasing the amount of damages. Trump tells a lie to the courts and the lawyers step up and defend the lie. Good lawyers tell their clients to sit down and shut up.
As such, Trump refuses to admit that this is not just politics, refuses to admit that it's not a witch hunt, and thinks in his typical manner that he just has to keep appealing and that his appointed supreme court will eventually save him. However that is not how the system works - some properties WILL be taken out of his control, though not sold off right away and instead be on hold until all appeals are over. Despite claiming that he has $500m in cash he's not using that so far (either he lied again or is just being stubborn like many of those with cognitive decline). We will see how this four dimensional chess game works out on Monday.
Note that even for the lesser amount in the E Jean Carrol case, Trump got a bond that was fully collateralized (the insurance company keeps the property if he doesn't pay up), plus paid a premium to do so ($91m surety bond for $83 million judgement). There are cheaper ways to do this without the large premium though, but maybe other companies didn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole unless the pole was made of gold.
Re: Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Informative)
All true and informative. What no one seems to be pointing out, is that the judgment imposed by the court is an *insane* amount of money. This is a clear violation of the 8th amendment to your Constitution. Whatever you think of Trump, this is an activist judge exceeding his authority.
Yes it is insane the for years, Donald Trump cheated people of out $355M. Every penny of the money was calculated from what Trump had cheated others with his lies. The judge did not pull figures out of thin air.
Re: Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Informative)
It's not insane given the value of the fraud, the value of what he erroneously claimed his properties was worth, and the amount that he claims to have. You expect a tiny slap on the wrist? The amount was based on a formula - part of it is direct damages, another part is punitive. Given that it's a formula done by a judge it's likely a fairer amount than if Trump had asked for and gotten a jury of angry New Yorkers.
In testimony a bank expert claimed Trump saved $168 million in interest through his fraud. That's just *interest* *saved*, the loans themselves were vastly larger than that.
Of course it's an insane amount, Trump was making up insane numbers, and his properties are worth an insane amount of money. MAGA needs to wake up and stop thinking that this is a political witch hunt since he was being investigated long before he became president. This is all happening NOW because investigations were mostly on hold (but simmering) when he was in office. Trump's hope is that he get reelected so that he has another 4 years of avoiding all his civil and criminal legal obligations.
The eight amendment does not list an upper limit on fine, and does not define "excessive". For a man who claims to be so immensely rich, who ludicrously claimed that Mar-a-Lago alone is worth over $1 billion, and the very large amount of loans he took out based on his erroneous valuations, this fine is not excessive. But the appeals court will have a look and decide.
Re: (Score:2)
>Can't he just stake his properties to cover his obligations?
generally, no.
Bonding companies generally need liquid collateral, as they have to pay within ten days or so if the appeal fails.
You just can't sell real estate worth tens or hundreds of millions quickly for full price.
So to use the real estate, he would need some with the interest owned by himself or an entity subject the judgement (as opposed to, say, a 40% interest), and a lender willing to take a junior mortgage (which in turn would mean tha
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Interesting)
This is so that he can cover his obligations to the court in New York right now, this moment. He owes something like $450M right now,
The grifter just stated on Friday he has $500 million in cash [theguardian.com] despite whining he can't find anyone to put up money for his bond, but rather than put up the money he'll spend it on his failing campaign while RNC donors foot his legal bills.
Also on Friday, multiple outlets reported that Trump’s new fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee directs donations to his campaign and a political action committee that pays his legal bills before the RNC gets a cut.
Why do you think he worked to put his grifting family member at the head of the RNC [yahoo.com]?
His hope is probably that he can stake those shares to cover his obligations, keeping him from being forced to sell his real estate holdings.
The judge won't allow it, guaranteed. He has to put up bond by Monday [reuters.com].
He must post cash or a bond within 30 days of Engoron's formal entry of the order on Feb. 23 or risk the state seizing some of the Trump Organization's assets to ensure James can collect. Thirty days end on March 25.
And yes, the prosecutor is looking at seizing properties for the payment, particularly 40 Wall Street [forbes.com]. Does that name sound familiar? It should. It's the building he told the world [youtube.com] was the tallest in downtown Manhattan the day of the 9/11 attack after the twin towers were destroyed. Which is of course what was important on that day.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden has not touched west of US-31 of michigan in 12 years
And Republicans don't campaign in major metro centers, this is not new or unique.
If we are actually tired of this selective game of obsess over the 9ish swing states every 4 years then join me in calling for a national popular vote and ditch the Electoral College. Make every persons vote count, enfranchise the minority party voters in every state to have something to contribute towards, make the one office the entire country chooses actually fully democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
"lot of grievance out there", yes and we are all tired of hearing them whine about it. They say they do not want anything handed to them, but they are lying to themselves. That is precisely what they want. And they are stupid enough to believe that bozo. Remember when he said he was going to bring back the coal industry. He didn't but he also did nothing to help those coal miners. At least he can change the track of hurricanes with a Sharpie.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:4, Insightful)
He testified under oath he had $400 million in cash to cover the bond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Informative)
Link please. I havent seen that in any of the articles (the ones from reliable sources) that I’ve read.
Page 35 (34) "We have a lot of cash. I believe we have substantially in excess of 400 million in cash, which is a lot for a developer."
https://s3.documentcloud.org/d... [documentcloud.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They are locked by the terms of the merger, but the stockholders could vote to lend Trump money or other means, or allow him to sell early , and those stockholders are for the most part Trump fans. I doubt it could ever happen by Monday though.
The stock itself could not be used to cover much even if he could sell it since no one would want it, especially stock from a person convicted in court for lying about valuations. The buyers of these stocks are Trump fans, not general investors, so there's no real m
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, he can't even put these up for collateral. They are completely useless for 6 months.
Re:Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting point on the later bit. Apparently, DWAC shareholders cannot divest shares until at least six months after the IPO, unless there's an exemption. Trump will own more than half the stock and needs a lot of cash to appeal the NYC court ruling much sooner than that. There's a theory I saw that Trump can't use his properties as a bond for the appeal because the issuing insurer(s) would want an independant valuation, which would then be shared with the court - essentially not only confirming his guilt if he has indeed over-inflated their value, but by exactly how much. Cashing out a lot of his Truth Social stock ASAP would get him out of that problem, so watch this space on that exemption. If granted, that'll tell you all you need to know about how above board all this is, assuming the ticker isn't already enough for you.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a theory I saw that Trump can't use his properties as a bond for the appeal because the issuing insurer(s) would want an independant valuation, which would then be shared with the court.
While no one is going to trust Trump's valuation, the main reason is that insurers generally do not take real estate as collateral especially the nature of Trump's real estate. It might be one thing for the insurer to accept a $200K home in a decent neighborhood as collateral as that could be sold quickly. A golf course is not an easy or quick sale. Trump has mortgages and business partners on some of his properties so those are also not easy sales.
Re: Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:3)
Even aside from the issue of accurate validation,, Trumpâ(TM)s properties are likely already mortgaged to the hilt. Thatâ(TM)s not particular to Trump, itâ(TM)s sensible business practice. Property gives you access to credit, so you take advantage of that credit to obtain money to grow your business. Mortgaging your property is the ordinary profit maximizing thing to do.
But what you canâ(TM)t do is leverage your property *twice*. So even bonafide real estate billionaires donâ(TM)t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Owners get rich, everybody else pays them (Score:2)
It's a meme stock, I haven't seen anyone try to convince people it's a stock worth owning. People are allowed to invest in stupid shit they believe in, and the professionals are allowed to profit from their fervor, distasteful as those of us looking on may find it.
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump wins he will may try to destroy rival social networks, in the name of truth or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My god where can't wait to by shares /sarcasm.
However this is not unusual, may tech companies don't a profit.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Its an old story I do believe tesla makes a profit now the point still stands its not unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise, anything that has the former alleged president's fingers on it always has odor of corruption.
I suspect it's money laundering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a massive grift. The site is making 3 million a year on 52 million in expenses, yet somehow is valued in the billions. That's like worse than most of the dot-bomb era shams. The owners are going to be doing a lot of scamming and promotions (I expect crypto to be on the thing by July) to hold the value up until they can sell out and leave the new buyers with an empty bag.
Come November, win or lose, it will have lost ALL its raison d'etre and will drop to a penny stock if it hasn't already.
The big D is getting a $3 Billion payout when Trump Social goes public. Assuming the stock value holds at or above IPO -he has a 6 month restriction on selling his portion.
That is 6 times the total fines he is facing in NY.
He is laughing all the way to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us how that goes for you. I'd love to know how much you put in at what price o what date/time and the same for when you sell (or technically, buy back the shares).
Censorship free? (Score:2, Interesting)
I look forward to hearing Bernie Sanders account on this new platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem will take care of itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the stock market is not for the naive and inexperienced. If someone is stupid enough to want to pay extra money to a crook and thief for a product that promotes right wing crap, I say 'let them'. They will lose the money. And like all things that Dumbo touches, he'll bring it to the ground eventually, so the money will be lost either way.
Re: (Score:2)
For that reason, I wonder if it will work - setting up a trading account takes a few days, and you have to have some money. Who will this tactic reach that hasn't already given all they want to give by clicking a link in a fundraising email?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it will, if not raise the amount of money he's trying to get, at least cause a bunch of suckers to part with some. A surprising number of people have a kiddie-grade trading account and own a handful of shares of something already.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the Trumpers know that if they give Trump money, they will have less. But clearly buying Trump stocks before he inevitably wins means they will have more, I've heard on Truth Social that that's how stocks work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its all a game, Trump is moderately successful billionaire with a public hobby, short circuiting the liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
>you get a tax advantages of a 1B dollar loss that might have cost 52 Million
No.
Or, at least not unless you're on an accounting system in which you were taxed on that $3B in income.
The loss on final sale is as compared to the initial cost basis, not any intervening value.
Re: (Score:2)
For that reason, I wonder if it will work - setting up a trading account takes a few days, and you have to have some money. Who will this tactic reach that hasn't already given all they want to give by clicking a link in a fundraising email?
It already worked, they bought into the SPAC which bought into Trump.
Personally, the only question I have is whether the investors thing they're investing in some amazing businessman, or if they're investing in a grifter hoping to get in on the grift.
Either way, I suspect the SPAC merger is the grift, he can use the shares as collateral to take out loans for other purposes and then start stripping assets when the price tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is stupid enough to want to pay extra money to a crook and thief for a product that promotes right wing crap, I say 'let them'.
They already did, and it didn't end well. For them [nbcnews.com]. Why would anyone think this will be any different?
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They will lose the money."
The big money won't be coming from people investing in what they think is a viable business; it will come from those investing in what they think is a viable head of state.
The true mark is the one that thinks they are in on the con.
That's fine unless it's money laundering (Score:2)
I'm sure there's also going to be a ton of retirees spending a ton of money buying shares who are going to lose their shirts. If you go the Reddit you can find several forums dedicated to bitching about old fo
Naming opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Naming opportunity (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Naming opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just Another Grift (Score:5, Interesting)
Straight from 1984 (Score:3)
Calling a post a "truth" is an attempt to poison the English language.
Re: (Score:2)
None of them read 1984 and it's likely on their ban/burn book lists.
Blatant branding and "PR" propaganda without subtly is all they seem to know.
What happened to the Lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump supposedly diluted two of his co-founders from 8.6% to less than 1% [businessinsider.com].
Which raises three questions. First, is this merger really going forward with ~8% of the shares (and the share structure) unaccounted for? Second, what the hell did those co-founders think was going to happen going into business with Trump? Third, what the hell do these investors think is going to happen going into business with Trump?
Trump will net $4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When I see Trump's "Truth" I autocorrect to Pravda (Score:3, Funny)
I can't be the only one.
So much ree ree. (Score:3)
pool on what the shares \ company value will be (Score:2)
This might actually have a chance (Score:2)
Normally, you'd think that Truth has no chance going up against Twitter. You'd be wrong, but not for technical reasons... The fact is that Twitter has done a horrible job keep third-party developers happy for over a year now.
1. Their servers are unstable and break randomly all the time. Don't look for notificationis on their network status page, because you won't see it.
2. Their documentation says one thing, the implementation does something else.
3. Their documentation is full of broken links.
4. All the mai
This will end badly (Score:3)
Remember when reddit users in droves put the short squeeze on GameStop short sellers...
An opportunity to buy puts against Donald J Trump's stock as therapy is going to be hilarious.
Get your wallets ready to trash Trump.
So... (Score:2)
Wait and see ... (Score:3)
We'll have to wait to see how things turn out.
From The Guardian [theguardian.com] (and other sources):
Ahead of the announcement, Digital World’s stock price was $44, suggesting the new company will debut with a value of more than $5bn.
Trading in Digital World has been particularly volatile – and its shares sank by nearly 14% after Friday’s vote – raising questions about how Trump Media will fare on the stock market before Trump can sell any of his stake.
He will not be able to cash in this stake straight away, however, as key shareholders in the company are unable to sell stock for six months after the merger.
Also noting The last time a Trump company went public it didn't go well for investors [nbcnews.com]. Trump made money but the company -- a casino -- went bankrupt:
Donald Trump’s social media company could go public as soon as next week, paving the way for a potentially huge windfall for a former president who raked in tens of millions of dollars the last time one of his companies was listed on a stock exchange.
That previous, decades-ago experience, however, did not end well for the company or its investors. While a 2016 Washington Post review found that Trump made over $44 million, the company — Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts — lost more than $1 billion and ended up in bankruptcy.
Do children learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think comic-book exaggerated super villains and super heroes were vapid childish entertainment then I thought maybe they taught some morality like fables used to do; a modern replacement.
Now, I've seen the world become more vapid and childish where it appears half the population can't even tell the difference between villain and hero even when the villain proudly tweets pictures of himself as Thanos.