Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Just another bro going through mid-life crisis. |
Anonymous
You didn’t think Musk was serious about that, did you? World hunger doesn’t personally affect him so he doesn’t care. If this deal goes through (and it’s still far from a sure thing), he is going to make a mess of Twitter. |
Anonymous
| The environment of Twitter will become as racist as his Tesla factories. |
Anonymous
Opportunity here for twitter to be replaced with something better. |
Anonymous
You mean the invisible hand of the market? The left doesn't believe in that. The government regulation and oversight are the only solutions. |
Anonymous
Like Truth Social? |
Anonymous
Doubt that will be the one but who knows? |
Anonymous
Someone could probably snap that up for 44 dollars instead of 44 billion. |
Anonymous
Especially true with Vanguard holding 10+%. What kind of premium will they demand? |
Anonymous
They don't get a premium. All shareholders must be treated equally. |
Anonymous
You think Musk is planning to buy Twitter just to shut it down? Of course not. Musk wants to make tweaks to Twitter to suit his preferences, but doesn’t seem to have thought them through very well. For instance, his plan to make the algorithm open-source so everyone can see why tweets appear or don’t appear on their timelines. This could hurt twitter’s ad revenues significantly if marketers can figure out how to get their tweets bumped up in timelines without paying Twitter for it. Relatedly, yes, I know Musk once said he wanted to do away with ads on Twitter. But he’s backed away from that suggestion, and reality is that he hasn’t articulated how he would replace ad revenue, which makes up nearly 90% of Twitter’s revenues. Second, adding an edit feature could significantly discourage people from interacting with other users’ Tweets. Would you be comfortable liking or commenting favorably on a Tweet and having your endorsement associated with your user name (for which you have limited privacy) if the author of the tweet could later edit it to say something completely different? A whole bunch of tweet with limited interaction by other users would be a completely different experience that doesn’t reflect how people like to use social media today. As for Musk’s so-called free speech platform, a significant part of why Twitter started cracking down on false/misleading, abusive and otherwise inappropriate content was because (1) they were losing a lot of users over the lack of moderation, (2) they risked running afoul of European content regulations, and (3) there were concerns that the US government would take it upon itself to regulate the space if the platforms didn’t regulate themselves. Musk will run into a lot of legal issues if he lets Twitter become the kind of Wild West it was before. |
Anonymous
DP. The point is, this deal still has to go to a shareholder vote. If Vanguard says they will vote against any deal that values their shares at less than $62 a share, that could be a big problem for Musk. That said, Vanguard typically follows management recommendations so it seems unlikely they would be activist in this case. |
Anonymous
You overestimate people caring. |
Anonymous
I think you underestimate people caring. |
Anonymous
| The question is why did Musk not snag the RW alternative to Twitter for $44 and make it be actual RW fantasy better alternative instead of spending $44B on twitter? |