Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?

[Neonmoon 38129]

I would be all for Elon fixing New Orleans. Let's start with the smell

[Eastwood 4394]

Looks like I was wrong, but I also had no idea that the current twitter board had so little stock in the company. That seems like a monumentally stupid position for Twitter to be in. How can you trust a board that has virtually no personal stake in the company’s success? Had I known that, I would have been in the “it’s happening” camp.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

3 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Looks like I was wrong, but I also had no idea that the current twitter board had so little stock in the company. That seems like a monumentally stupid position for Twitter to be in. How can you trust a board that has virtually no personal stake in the company’s success? Had I known that, I would have been in the “it’s happening” camp.

Isn't that the state of most boards of large, public companies?  Does the board of XOM own a large percent? I assume it's less than 1%.

Boards don't exist to only meet the needs of the largest shareholders but also the minority shareholders. If the board owns 70% of the stock, why should they listen or care what smaller shareholders think?

One of the biggest complaints about FB is that Zuckerberg has a lock on the board and voting shares. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I for one welcome my new African American social media overlord

[Brisketexan 105095]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

you hit on a good point.  elon doesn't want complete anarchy on twitter, his beef has been their random and arbitrary enforcement of opaque guidelines.  he wants a clear set of rules with a defined list of consequences.  

 

re: the bots-  TWTR is slow to get rid of bots b/c they're unable to in an efficient way but also b/c they BENEFIT from them.  elon thinks he can monetize tweets so that tweets with higher interactions generate more revenue than low-touch tweets.  he's thrown around ideas of paid accounts for businesses (think customer service) and incentivized tweets per impression (youtube model).  

As someone who literally deals with "rule and defined consequences" for a living (that's what the law is), good luck with that.  It's a pretty time-honored conclusion that the more specific you make a rule, the easier it is to evade by falling just outside that specificity.  The counterpoint is that the more vague and judgment based you make a rule, the harder it is to comply with.  

In drafting a statute, or rule, or policy, the sweet spot is "specific enough to be understood and enforceable, but also broad and discretionary enough to capture most of the conduct you're trying to address."

Various bodies try this with varying levels of success.  Maybe Twitter has missed the mark significantly in one direction or the other.  But the dream of "clear and specific rules that get the job done," good luck with that.

59 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

When you're so rich nobody has ever called you on your dumbest shit.

Fucking seriously.  People actually DIED during Alison due to flooding of underground structures.

57 minutes ago, F250 said:

There was a thread a few weeks ago by the guy that used to run Reddit. He basically said social media platform moderation will always appear arbitrary because sometimes it is arbitrary regardless of the guidelines. The issue is that social media is full of assholes and assholes cause chaos and are a threat to a platforms community. Sometimes the assholes need to be dealt with before the platform sinks regardless of the guidelines.

People are assholes and will exploit every loophole just to see the world burn. You can't stop that without changing how you moderate on a frequent basis without appearing arbitrary.

 

Agreed 100% with the bolded.  If we have a policy of "don't be a fucking asshole," that seems like a pretty good policy.  But when you realize that there are infinite versions of the line between asshole and not an asshole, good luck with that.

Human judgment has a place in matters of human behavior.  How far is too far when it comes to "bad behavior?"  It is literally impossible to craft a universal bright line.  You can't do it with data, or an algorithm, or any other precise mechanism.  It will always live in shades of gray.  Which is why our queries way upthread about "I presume you are okay with banning posters who say 'kill all the jews, they are subhuman scum and all jews must die'" were important.  EVERY sane person agrees that content should be moderated.   It's easy to say "sure, ban calls for genocide."  It's harder when you start creeping into the gray area, like "it's impossible to talk about the flaws in the banking system without talking about the stranglehold the jews have on it" -- are you going to allow that post, or not?  It doesn't call for genocide.  It doesn't even expressly BLAME jews for the banking system.  So, person creating the moderation policy for Elon, what are you going to do with that post?  Or any of literally hundreds of thousands like it, some worse, some not as bad?

Elon wants to give this a whirl, then he gets to give it a whirl.  I wish him the best of luck.  If he cracks the code on how to actually have meaningful moderation, AND to have it pass the general litmus test for "sufficiently moderated to avoid scat and stuff, but not so moderated as to repress speech," then I'll give him mucho respect.  But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that he's going to find that engineering human behavior is a shitload more difficult (and a massively more chaotic system) than it is to engineer batteries and rockets.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

55 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Parag's kind of a badass CEO.  In just 5 months he was able to add 11% of cap (18% of sales executes) to Twitter just for being feckless.

I think he was set up. 
 

This is very plausible imo. 
 

Jack gets frustrated with direction of Twitter. Restricted by board and culture wars in general as public company. Decides to quit. Still has ceo post at Square/Block. 
 

He’s been friendly with Elon for a while and appears to be aligned with him on a lot of social issues…one thing leads to another and boom.
 

The timing of the whole thing coming together is quite suspect. Especially when you consider Jack’s rather blunt comments about Twitter since this bid became public. 

[52-80 19150]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Outside of trolls, I don't think anyone wants absolute free speech on Twitter.  This is why those types of social media sites have failed. The bad actors end up overwhelming people that don't want to see that behavior and those people eventually give up.  Twitter would become a race to the bottom.

Outside of the dramatic im-moving-to-canada minority, people arent going to quit twitter because theres more content they dont like. 

Theyre gonna stay on and rage-post even more. Or, they curate their own bubble and see as little as they did before.

Twitters successful content recipe is cross-linking hashtags, popular tweets and accounts, follows and their likes. 

Im not on Basketball Twitter, but if I view 1 single NBA meme tweet, im exposed to an entire spiderweb of basketball and sports stuff to dive into. And if i click out of it, I pretty much never see sports content again. 
 

The competing platforms did not fail because they had only “one type” of content. They failed because its just incredibly difficult to replace an incumbent - you have to catch lightning in a bottle.  How much “legitimate” complaints have facebook had, and how many people failed trying to mimic them? (Google G+ wasnt short on firepower…)

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

[We’reTexas 1473]

36 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Looks like I was wrong, but I also had no idea that the current twitter board had so little stock in the company. That seems like a monumentally stupid position for Twitter to be in. How can you trust a board that has virtually no personal stake in the company’s success? Had I known that, I would have been in the “it’s happening” camp.

? Twitter has minimum stock ownership guidelines for this reason, which is a standard corporate governance practice. But in general boards should be comprised of independent directors, and they are rarely going to have a material stake in the company. FWIW one of their largest holders literally has a board seat. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

1 minute ago, We’reTexas said:

? Twitter has minimum stock ownership guidelines for this reason, which is a standard corporate governance practice. But in general boards should be comprised of independent directors, and they are rarely going to have a material stake in the company. FWIW one of their largest holders literally has a board seat. 

Not to mention they offered Elon a seat but he declined when he learned of the requirements and expectations. 

[StruggleBus 3922]

6 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Outside of the dramatic im-moving-to-canada minority, people arent going to quit twitter because theres more content they dont like. 

Theyre gonna stay on and rage-post even more. Or, they curate their own bubble and see as little as they did before.

Twitters successful content recipe is cross-linking hashtags, popular tweets and accounts, follows and their likes. 

Im not on Basketball Twitter, but if I view 1 single NBA meme tweet, im exposed to an entire spiderweb of basketball and sports stuff to dive into. And if i click out of it, I pretty much never see sports content again. 
 

The competing platforms did not fail because they had only “one type” of content. They failed because its just incredibly difficult to replace an incumbent - you have to catch lightning in a bottle.  How much “legitimate” complaints have facebook had, and how many people failed trying to mimic them? (Google G+ wasnt short on firepower…)

Is this why my entire twitter feed is butt plugs

[gsoda3 3254]

Human judgment has a place in matters of human behavior.  How far is too far when it comes to "bad behavior?"  It is literally impossible to craft a universal bright line.  You can't do it with data, or an algorithm, or any other precise mechanism.  It will always live in shades of gray. 

That's the thing with Elon he doesn't see shades of gray. He's the ultimate narcissist. He knows what he thinks is right and so everything to him is Black or White as defined by himself. (But to be honest that's probably what makes him so successful also.)

Ftr I'm still not sold he really wants to do this

[Eastwood 4394]

? Twitter has minimum stock ownership guidelines for this reason, which is a standard corporate governance practice. But in general boards should be comprised of independent directors, and they are rarely going to have a material stake in the company. FWIW one of their largest holders literally has a board seat. 

I’m on mobile, so I can’t dig for it right now, but Elon had posted a tweet breaking down how the board’s lack of stock made them vulnerable. It was shockingly small. Their biggest holder on the board has 0.26%. By comparison, Jack Dorsey has around 2% and that was after being divested of large portions.

[rage-a-holic 4382]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

elon caught a lot of flak for getting involved with the stuck miners in thailand.  looks like he wants to explore submersible technology again...

All those kids were miners too? Crazy.

[gsoda3 3254]

All those kids were miners too? Crazy.

Haha Little bodies fit in tight spaces ya know

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

11 minutes ago, rage-a-holic said:

All those kids were miners too? Crazy.

Haha Little bodies fit in tight spaces ya know

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

32 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

 

That's the thing with Elon he doesn't see shades of gray. He's the ultimate narcissist. He knows what he thinks is right and so everything to him is Black or White as defined by himself. (But to be honest that's probably what makes him so successful also.)

Ftr I'm still not sold he really wants to do this

 

If you listen to how twitter and other sites moderate, suspend or ban people, you realize it's definitely not a black and white world. They take into account the history of the person posting and interpretation what is being said. People can talk in code and feign ignorance when pointed out how a reasonable person interprets their message. Not to mention how do you moderate in a world of 100s of languages and dialects.

Moderators also admit it's not perfect and 2 moderators can come to different conclusions. It's also impossible to appeal every decision to a single person to apply the rules.

The best explanation about moderation that I've seen is when Rogan had Jack Dorsey and an other Twitter exec on to discuss it. Rogan had on some jackass that refused to honesty discuss moderation but the Twitter folks made sense and didn't claim to be perfect. In fact they claimed the opposite.

 

EDIT: I also don't understand why he wants the headache in owning a social media platform. Does he think that being Zuckerberg is a fun role? Zuckerberg is trying to distance himself from social media.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Nice Guy Eddie

[workswithseed 2100]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If you listen to how twitter and other sites moderate, suspend or ban people, you realize it's definitely not a black and white world. They take into account the history of the person posting and interpretation what is being said. People can talk in code and feign ignorance when pointed out how a reasonable person interprets their message. Not to mention how do you moderate in a world of 100s of languages and dialects.

Moderators also admit it's not perfect and 2 moderators can come to different conclusions. It's also impossible to appeal every decision to a single person to apply the rules.

The best explanation about moderation that I've seen is when Rogan had Jack Dorsey and an other Twitter exec on to discuss it. Rogan had on some jackass that refused to honesty discuss moderation but the Twitter folks made sense and didn't claim to be perfect. In fact they claimed the opposite.

Damn, Tim Pool. How was he wrong on this? He wasn't being dishonest here.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Damn, Tim Pool. How was he wrong on this? He wasn't being dishonest here.

 

The guy in the cap refused to have a conversation. Throughout the entire video, he will raise a point. The woman on the right would address what she knew, and the guy would move onto a different topic. He wouldn't acknowledge anything she said.

And he also thought he scored a victory every time the woman wasn't on top of every detail of any random Twitter suspension that he raised. "My friend, Joe Bob, was threatened on Twitter, why didn't you ban that other account?"  That's akin to asking a mayor why an individual person received a parking ticket but the mayor is unaware of it.

[52-80 19150]

14 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

EDIT: I also don't understand why he wants the headache in owning a social media platform. Does he think that being Zuckerberg is a fun role? Zuckerberg is trying to distance himself from social media.

Just cuz you own the house doesn't mean you have to personally mow the lawn

[MonkeyDoughnut 10232]

39 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not to mention they offered Elon a seat but he declined when he learned of the requirements and expectations. 

When they decided to limit him to 14.9% max ownership... yeah there was no way he was going to accept that. It was a clear sign they did not want anything to do with him.

Also another possibly sign that Elon / Dorsey might be up to something. Dorsey likely wanted to be able to add crypto capabilities (payments/transactions/wallets) into Twitter and the board was against it, Elon would be the perfect person to see that vision.  We'll know soon enough if Twitter goes private and soon after looks at a partnership with Block.

[wildcat09 29349]

Here's Elon's creditors:

Quote

Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. (“MSSF”), Bank of America, N.A. (“BOFA”), Barclays Bank plc (“Barclays”), MUFG Bank, Ltd. (“MUFG”), Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (“CS”), BNP Paribas (“BNPP”), Citibank, N.A. (“Citi”), Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch (“DB”), Mizuho Bank, Ltd. (“Mizuho”), Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), Société Générale (“SG”), and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

It will never not be funny to me that Bank of America refers to itself as BOFA. Also, good to see Deutsche Bank involved in an honest transaction for once.

[workswithseed 2100]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The guy in the cap refused to have a conversation. Throughout the entire video, he will raise a point. The woman on the right would address what she knew, and the guy would move onto a different topic. He wouldn't acknowledge anything she said.

And he also thought he scored a victory every time the woman wasn't on top of every detail of any random Twitter suspension that he raised. "My friend, Joe Bob, was threatened on Twitter, why didn't you ban that other account?"  That's akin to asking a mayor why an individual person received a parking ticket but the mayor is unaware of it.

They stayed on the trans issue on the platform, they talk about Lauren Southern getting a strike for saying "a women isn't a man." Though they talked about Ben Shapiro saying the same thing wouldn't be, because it's not targeted harassment, it's a strike if that was the case. It's a double standard,and that's what the big huff is about Elon buying Twitter, it's a double standard.

[gsoda3 3254]

here we go.  TWTR just got halted for news.

[We’reTexas 1473]

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:

I’m on mobile, so I can’t dig for it right now, but Elon had posted a tweet breaking down how the board’s lack of stock made them vulnerable. It was shockingly small. Their biggest holder on the board has 0.26%. By comparison, Jack Dorsey has around 2% and that was after being divested of large portions.

Oh yeah, I saw that too. His point was irrelevant. Directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders and they take it seriously, and there are always strike suits in these deals. I can guarantee you that when Twitter received the bid their outside counsel promptly read them in on their duties and liabilities. My earlier concerns about SL were that sponsors tend to not give a shit about formalities and that they would dig in to protect their own position. 

[We’reTexas 1473]

7 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Serious question for your friend, what is the need for 7,500+ employees? What are they all working on?

Hell if I know. I wouldn’t disagree that there’s a lot of bloat at public tech companies. But my point wasn’t that they had any issue with Elon, just that if Twitter isn’t competitive with all-cash comp folks will leave. 

[gsoda3 3254]

it's official.  $54.20 in cash

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

it's official.  $54.20 in cash

Huge win for shareholders.

[DalTxHornFan 3101]

Done deal.  Hope he moves HQ to Austin.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3826370-twitter-agrees-to-44-billion-musk-buyout-wrapping-a-rapid-takeover-saga

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Here's Elon's creditors:

Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. (“MSSF”), Bank of America, N.A. (“BOFA”), Barclays Bank plc (“Barclays”), MUFG Bank, Ltd. (“MUFG”), Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (“CS”), BNP Paribas (“BNPP”), Citibank, N.A. (“Citi”), Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch (“DB”), Mizuho Bank, Ltd. (“Mizuho”), Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), Société Générale (“SG”), and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

It will never not be funny to me that Bank of America refers to itself as BOFA. Also, good to see Deutsche Bank involved in an honest transaction for once.



Wait I thought this was a straight cash homie deal

[52-80 19150]

I'd very much like to gloat and brag about owning 44/55C, and 40/60C call spreads... except i got donkeyhammered by action in gold and crude oil today

[52-80 19150]

7 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Serious question for your friend, what is the need for 7,500+ employees? What are they all working on?

For a comp Snapchat employs 5,600

[Dr Fear 1268]

4 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Wait I thought this was a straight cash homie deal

ZH says "Mr. Musk has secured $25.5 billion of fully committed debt and margin loan financing and is providing an approximately $21.0 billion equity commitment. There are no financing conditions to the closing of the transaction"

['stache 21802]

I don't tweeter so I don't really care, but it'll be fun to see how his approach to moderation plays out. Every alternative that has tried to go full "free speech" has run into issues. If it becomes a 4chan type system where anything goes, well that'll be fun for him and his investment, lol.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I don't tweeter so I don't really care, but it'll be fun to see how his approach to moderation plays out. Every alternative that has tried to go full "free speech" has run into issues. If it becomes a 4chan type system where anything goes, well that'll be fun for him and his investment, lol.

I doubt he will go "full free speech", but it would be cool to have an "amnesty day" where everyone banned gets their account back until they fuck around and find out again. 

I'm sure 99% of them would fuck it up.

[52-80 19150]

lets see if all the 'im leaving if elon buys it' folx hold good to their word.

['stache 21802]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I doubt he will go "full free speech", but it would be cool to have an "amnesty day" where everyone banned gets their account back until they fuck around and find out again. 

I'm sure 99% of them would fuck it up.

The question is where his line will be? Trump will certainly be back with his lies and manipulations which is really all this is about. What about actual threats? How will he interpret them? When the klan reforms and uses the platform is that "free speech" enough or will he find it dangerous like a rational person? I'm more interested in the train wreck potential at this point.

[gsoda3 3254]

14 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Wait I thought this was a straight cash homie deal

shareholders of twitter get paid $54.20 per share in cash vs $50 in cash plus $4.20 worth of TSLA stock for example.  that's what all cash deal means.  doesn't refer to the financing.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10232]

This isn't a "free speech" play, its a crypto/banking play. Elon's not dropping 10's of billions because he cares so much about free speech or Twitters alleged bias.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

The question is where his line will be? Trump will certainly be back with his lies and manipulations which is really all this is about. What about actual threats? How will he interpret them? When the klan reforms and uses the platform is that "free speech" enough or will he find it dangerous like a rational person? I'm more interested in the train wreck potential at this point.

Twitter before Musk: Absolute trash with bannings.

Twitter after Musk: Absolute trash with less bannings.

 

[Longhornlove 4813]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I for one welcome my new African American social media overlord

This is hilarious, heads exploding coming to television and social media near you.

['stache 21802]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Twitter before Musk: Absolute trash with bannings.

Twitter after Musk: Absolute trash with less bannings.

 

Oh there will be bannings based solely on his opinions and not discernable facts and science or reasons. That's dangerous, but whatever, he can fuck it up however he sees fit. How users respond will also be interesting.

[wildcat09 29349]

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

lets see if all the 'im leaving if elon buys it' folx hold good to their word.

It won't happen unless he seriously fucks with moderation policies.

ETA: or starts charging users.

Edited April 25, 2022 by wildcat09

[52-80 19150]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The question is where his line will be? Trump will certainly be back with his lies and manipulations which is really all this is about. What about actual threats? How will he interpret them? When the klan reforms and uses the platform is that "free speech" enough or will he find it dangerous like a rational person? I'm more interested in the train wreck potential at this point.

yes, there is a very real risk that twitter will devolve into an argumentative playground where people argue with each other using 140 characters or less.

[Vegas64 673]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Oh there will be bannings based solely on his opinions and not discernable facts and science or reasons. That's dangerous, but whatever, he can fuck it up however he sees fit. How users respond will also be interesting.

Exactly this. He bought it, he can do with it what he wants. That's the whole premise of "free market capitalism" and "if you don't like it, feel free to start your own (or buy it)" as a retort to criticism.

I am very curious to see what changes and where Elon can take Twitter. I wonder if he has some transformational ideas that are half or semi-baked that he's ready to implement that he's been sitting on if this has all been one manic, impulsive purchase.

['stache 21802]

Just now, 52-80 said:

yes, there is a very real risk that twitter will devolve into an argumentative playground where people argue with each other using 140 characters or less.

Lol, I get it, my only interest is that it will be a completely different type of arguing that could be far more dangerous, but time will tell. Free market and all. 

[wildcat09 29349]

2 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Exactly this. He bought it, he can do with it what he wants. That's the whole premise of "free market capitalism" and "if you don't like it, feel free to start your own (or buy it)" as a retort to criticism.

I am very curious to see what changes and where Elon can take Twitter. I wonder if he has some transformational ideas that are half or semi-baked that he's ready to implement that he's been sitting on if this has all been one manic, impulsive purchase.

Having ideas for how to improve twitter and this being an impulsive purchase aren't mutually exclusive.

[Longhornlove 4813]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

They stayed on the trans issue on the platform, they talk about Lauren Southern getting a strike for saying "a women isn't a man." Though they talked about Ben Shapiro saying the same thing wouldn't be, because it's not targeted harassment, it's a strike if that was the case. It's a double standard,and that's what the big huff is about Elon buying Twitter, it's a double standard.

[gsoda3 3254]

after the twitter acquisition you think elon has tree fiddy left over to buyout this board?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

transformational ideas that are half or semi-baked