OT: Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter for $42 Billion In Cash
- Thread starter nashvegastiger
- Start date
FB algorithmed ads in 2016 to try to help Hillary win. Hundreds if not thousands of examples of this kind of political influencing over the years. Our corrupt government will never go after big techs obvious abuse of its liability exemption. They get too much money from them. It’s pay to play in DC and has been for generations.
You do realize Twitter stock rose 30% within 24 hours of Musk becoming Twitters largest share holder, right?
Elon Musk puts his name on things and millions upon millions of people instantly gravitate. His move instantly raised the profile and profitability for Twitter and its share holders who, at the end of the day, only care about money. So, yes... you’re damn right they’d sale if the stock took a substantial dip due to the actions of Musk.
Let’s put it this way. Do you think season ticket sales for Tampa Bay, for the 2022 season would have remained sold out? Just the same as the previous two seasons, had Brady decided to stay retired?
Last edited:
I'm reading this thread and that is not my takeaway. I couldn't give a damn about any one person's wealth. I do give a damn about free speech and the other freedoms and values included in the US Constitution. Many Americans have fought and died for them because they are worth fighting for. Just look at China, Russia and the other repressive societies to see what happens when a nation doesn't have them. Ukrainians have lived the difference and that's why they are fighting like hell against Russia. They too would rather die than be subjected to overbearing government rule and constraint.
How many years did "fact checkers" allow the Russia collusion disinformation that has been proven false? The only basis in fact there was were one liberal dem mouthpiece quoting another. Also, how is that fact checking on hunter biden's laptop being disinformation working out? How do you justify saying a potus is banned while simultaneously allowing terrorist organizations access? Please address these issues. They were not just random individual posts, but whole topics of discussion that at times accounted for a VERY large percentage of content.
I don't care if you call them fake news. I don't care what you call them. However, it is indisputable that they were either grossly influenced by their political ideology or just grossly stupid- and honestly it doesn't matter which they were about as wrong as you can be. Either way, to rely on a group that history has proven to be utterly incompetent, as a basis of your argument is laughable. Furthermore, anyone defending them is either completely blinded by ideology or likely not capable of forming coherent thought.
LOL, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense or it's wrong. That's the height of arrogance.
What he said makes perfect sense if you've been paying attention, or even if you haven't been. You're just upset that censorship is being challenged, and will lose. You're on the wrong side of history.
This is a poor comparison. Obviously without Brady, the fundamental quality of the team drops, you wouldn't be investing in the same team you invested in the last 2 seasons
If Musk sells all his shares, the fundamental quality of twitter as a business has not changed. So if an investor thought twitter was a good investment at, say, the $39.31 that it was at on 4/1, then they should still think its a good investment at that price on 4/15, Twitter's business hasn't changed.
Sure, I might sell a good amount of it while its overvalued (obviously some already have), and the stock will drop as that happens, but I'll probably start buying back when it gets back down to the price that I considered a good number to buy in at, because Musk's short term flirtation with Twitter/stock ownership doesn't change anything about the actual business. I would be investing in the exact same company with no new information about the quality of its business.
Sell off? yes. Dip, yes. But plummeting and forcing Twitter to sell to Musk? Not unless there's an actual change to Twitter's business.
If Musk bought 9% of coca-cola, then offered to buy it outright, then sold all his shares within a span of several weeks, is Coca-Cola still a stock worth investing in? Of course it is, nothing has actually changed about the business.
Now whether Twitter is a stock worth investing in is another discussion altogether.
Social media could be the blessing if it would stop with the bias against older conservative people particularly Americans
I have
No social media presence and want to keep it that way based on the pathetic treatment of MY KIND of person
will be doing some social media marketing and data analytics very soon in regards to a personal and business be ventures
i gag when I think I have to deal with all the hate and hate crimes the left liberal side of the equation will be throwing out but if you want a pork chop you have got to get down in the mud with the pigs
Social media is a cancer, but it has remarkable similarities to an STD. Several years ago, I made the mistake of donating to and following a Republican candidate. That candidate apparently sold/gave my info to the RNC that then markets the list. I am the odd victim of continued spamming by ‘conservative’ bots. Despite repeated attempts to be removed, I am bombarded by every Republican candidate running for office from coast to coast And get invites to rallies against clouds in the sky. If you really look at what the candidates are saying, the Dems don’t have a monopoly on morons.
Probably not the result intended, but it has soured my perspective on both parties/groups equally.
Last edited:
your definition of proof is interesting haha
someone can file a lawsuit all they want. They won't win because the board is under no obligation to sell until they declare the company for sale
They banned him two days after January 6th when he sat in the WH and did absolutely nothing for over three hours while our capital building and all of our lawmakers were being attacked. How he gets a pass on that day from far too many people is one of the greatest mysteries of my lifetime.
For the sake of argument, let's say he is/was a domestic terrorist based on those actions and that was the justification of the ban. Why then were other (foreign) terrorist govt organizations allowed access?
I don't know the answer to that. I am not a fan or supporter of Twitter and don't follow what they do, but in the case of Trump I fully support their decision. Let people follow Trump on his own platform.
You could follow Biden on his platform, “Make America Weak Forever”
Lol lawmakers being attacked? You mean protesters ushered in by capitol police? Police held the doors open after opening them? That was no insurgency, It was Sunday school compared to the blm protests where innocent people were killed, innocent people’s livelihood destroyed by having their businesses burned or looted. Not one single lawmaker has a single hand layed on them, not even a specific threat Or assault that I can find. That 1/ 6 garbage is a desperate partisan witch-hunt to divert from the Russia collusion hoax that is still blowing up in their faces. Dems better get their licks in before November, cause after the mid terms it’s going to be on.
They didn't ban the President of the United States. They banned a pathological lying criminal who brainwashed millions of people into believing something happened that didn't - and they acted on it. It was absolutely the right thing to do to that EX- President.
I agree with everything you said. It just has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a social media company.
Pretty funny for you call someone arrogant. Especially with that last line in what I quoted above. Hello pot, I am kettle.
Even if what you are saying is true, where does it stop? Eventually they are going to come for someone you support. Are you OK with that? This is a dangerous path we are going down. I don't care what Musk's ultimate goal is. I believe everyone has the right to say what they want to as long as it is not illegal. That includes allowing someone to speak who did something you don't like. ESPECIALLY a sitting President! Call Twitter what it is. An arm of the Democrat party. They will do what is needed to help Democrats keep and gain power.
Why can't you just say they did the right thing? If someone on my side of the fence did the same thing, I promise you I would no longer support them and would wholeheartedly be in favor of a private company banning them. Wrong is wrong no matter the party. This bs about Twitter muffling conservative voices is just that. They ban LIARS who have huge followings.
They allowed years of what has been proven to be disinformation about fake russia collusion. Also taking down post about from a major newspaper about hunter biden laptop, which we know for certain is/was his. This is not just about an isolated post by random conservatives. this about years worth of indisputable proof of bias. How on one hand do you allow years worth of russia collusion post that have been proven false, while not allowing a major newspaper post about hunter biden which we know to be true. Please explain that bs?
You're getting sidetracked but are you telling me that if people post about an ongoing investigation, no matter the outcome, they should be banned? How does that make sense? And as far as Hunter's laptop goes, at the time of the story, most news organizations didn't have the ability to verify what was being alleged because they didn't have access to the laptop. Giuliana and the Post were the only ones with access at that time. Plus, with timing that suspicious, why would they want to take the chance on reporting on something that may have turned out to be disinformation perfectly timed to disrupt his father's candidacy? These things are not the same as banning Trump for hypnotizing a huge portion of the population into believing an audacious lie that turned into the worst attack on our Capitol since the War of 1812.
Sounds like Twitter's board just swallowed the "poison pill." The game is afoot. Lol. I hope Musk destroys them.
So your justification for the laptop is that it could not be verified. Let's just take that as fact even though the post said they had verified it. Did anyone verify there was Trump/Russia collusion? The posts on twitter and all of msm were not just that Trump was being investigated. They were stories/post that Trump WAS colluding with russia, and that there was proof of it. There were MILLIONS of tweets/retweets saying Trump was in fact colluding with russia, not that he was being investigated. We know this was a lie, so there is no possible way twitter, or anyone else could have verified there was collusion between Trump and Russia. Also, twitter or msm didn't seemed to care that might influence an election like hunters laptop did they?
That’s cool and all but what does “overbearing government rule and constraint” have to do with Twitter censoring it’s users? Wouldn’t the government stepping in to regulate a private company be a better example of the overbearance your are advocating dying for than that private company regulating itself?
It’s so funny seeing formerly freedom loving small government conservatives whining about the government not stepping in to expand it’s power and control in a massive way. You are all free to go start your own social media platform and regulate it however you see fit! Embrace the free market capitalism you claim to admire rather than putting your hand out for the government to take something from another and give it to you. No one is forcing anyone to use Twitter.
Maybe I read a different post than you did, but where in that post do you see someone asking the govt to take something from somebody and give it to someone else?
So, the lady who was shot to death wasn’t an ‘innocent person’ being killed? What about the cop? They were in on the plot? How are so many trump supporters being convicted in court? Because Sunday school trips rarely end in convictions. Lawmakers have to die for it to be real? The fact that they tried and failed isn’t enough?
I can’t wait for Elon to start banning people and then everyone who thinks he’s fighting for free speech will be back to hating him like they used to. Guy offered 50k to a kid to delete his account. Seems like he’s for free speech for sure.
Yeah you’re right. I should have clarified that part was more directed at the general sentiment I keep seeing pop up rather than anything PawJourney said specifically.
I don't want more govt involvement, I want the opposite. If they are going to be a partisan organization, which they have every right to do, the should not be afforded(by the govt) protection from liability if they are editing content rather than just providing a platform for content.
There's a million things I could say in response to this but I'm not going down the rabbit hole. Let's just say if there were individuals with huge followings "knowingly" spreading lies, then I support a PRIVATE company removing them from their platform. If they don't like it, they can just take their poison to TruthSocial(lol) where it's a free for all.
There were two people who died at the protest. The lady who was shot to death was a protester. I was not there and don't have all the facts, but if she was "rushing" the capital then I would have shot her. If the capital police had shot the fist person who tried to breach the barricade, then it might have stopped the rest from their stupidity. The other person who died at the protest, overdosed and was crushed by the mob. The rest of the people who died that were there that day either died of stroke/heart attack, or suicide hours or days after the protest.
Also, if that group of idiots had wanted to kill lawmakers there was little stopping them from trying once they got in if that had been their intent. Why were there no attempts made? if they could overwhelm the capital police and exterior entry points, why would they not have been able to enter anywhere else they wanted to? I am not defending their actions. If I had been in charge, there would have been a clear warning given tat anyone who attempted to breach the initial barrier would be shot, and that would have happened. There is no way you should let any group breach a govt building, let alone the capital.
Having said that, people characterizing this as some type of planned coup or takeover are idiots. Why would they all not have been armed if that was the plan? Why did they not do what everyone said they intended to do once they got in the building?
I think the poison pill ends this. And I can't see this working out well for Twitter. Musk could plow a few billion into a new Twitter. And he would have a lot of support.
Happy Thursday!
If Elon Musk gains control of Twitter, FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried would be “excited” to help him decentralize the social network and move it to a blockchain, if that were Musk’s vision, he told me in an interview Thursday.
“Would I be tempted to take part in it financially as well?” Bankman-Fried said. “It’s certainly something I’d consider,” adding that he hadn’t discussed Musk’s $39 billion bid for Twitter with the Tesla CEO.
FTX, a dominant crypto exchange, was co-founded in 2019 by Bankman-Fried, who is worth $24 billion, according to Forbes.
Bankman-Fried imagines a social-media platform that looks something like this: Tweets are automatically added to a blockchain for a nominal fee (up to a cent, perhaps) to generate revenue. Every tweet is added to the network—without regard to Twitter’s usual rules for what’s acceptable. Bankman-Fried’s nuance, however, is that Twitter would then create different versions of its platform with varying levels of censorship.
“As a user, you can choose which website to go to,” he explained.
Bankman-Fried sees this as a way to bridge the divide between a decentralized social network moderated by a single entity and a chaotic platform where hate speech is rampant.
It’s worth noting that some decentralized social media protocols are already being built. Twitter itself is funding a project called Bluesky, where former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sits on the board. The company just named its first employees last month and strives to give people more control and choice over their social media experiences. Other startups are being built, but Bankman-Fried said Twitter has the advantage of its hundreds of millions of users, an audience that others may find hard to match.
My question to Bankman-Fried was this: Could Twitter transform itself into a decentralized platform of this kind? And does it need to be a private company to do that?
If Twitter stayed public, it wouldn’t be impossible, he said, and in the long run he thinks it would add tremendous value for shareholders. But there would also be risk. “You're going to have a more conservative set of actors” on the board of a public company, he said.
So what if Musk takes the company private, I asked him. What happens then?
“I think there's some chance he'll revolutionize social media if he does this,” Bankman-Fried said. His hunch was that Musk shares views similar to his (asked if Musk had reached out to him at all, Bankman-Fried said “I don’t know him well.”)
In fact, if Musk came knocking and asked if Bankman-Fried wanted to work on this project together, he said, “I would be really excited to have a more in-depth conversation with him about what this could mean.”
Of course, Musk’s proposal to buy Twitter will also stir up opposition. Bankman-Fried acknowledged some Twitter shareholders likely have concerns. Some directors have already said the offer is unwelcome, The Information has reported. While he wasn’t aware of any serious counter-offers, Bankman-Fried said he wouldn’t be shocked if one came about—though he’s not currently planning anything himself.
“My best honest guess is that it's going to be messy,” he said. “You're going to see a split opinion, without gigantic majorities in either direction.”
Happy Thursday!
If Elon Musk gains control of Twitter, FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried would be “excited” to help him decentralize the social network and move it to a blockchain, if that were Musk’s vision, he told me in an interview Thursday.
“Would I be tempted to take part in it financially as well?” Bankman-Fried said. “It’s certainly something I’d consider,” adding that he hadn’t discussed Musk’s $39 billion bid for Twitter with the Tesla CEO.
FTX, a dominant crypto exchange, was co-founded in 2019 by Bankman-Fried, who is worth $24 billion, according to Forbes.
Bankman-Fried imagines a social-media platform that looks something like this: Tweets are automatically added to a blockchain for a nominal fee (up to a cent, perhaps) to generate revenue. Every tweet is added to the network—without regard to Twitter’s usual rules for what’s acceptable. Bankman-Fried’s nuance, however, is that Twitter would then create different versions of its platform with varying levels of censorship.
“As a user, you can choose which website to go to,” he explained.
Bankman-Fried sees this as a way to bridge the divide between a decentralized social network moderated by a single entity and a chaotic platform where hate speech is rampant.
It’s worth noting that some decentralized social media protocols are already being built. Twitter itself is funding a project called Bluesky, where former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sits on the board. The company just named its first employees last month and strives to give people more control and choice over their social media experiences. Other startups are being built, but Bankman-Fried said Twitter has the advantage of its hundreds of millions of users, an audience that others may find hard to match.
My question to Bankman-Fried was this: Could Twitter transform itself into a decentralized platform of this kind? And does it need to be a private company to do that?
If Twitter stayed public, it wouldn’t be impossible, he said, and in the long run he thinks it would add tremendous value for shareholders. But there would also be risk. “You're going to have a more conservative set of actors” on the board of a public company, he said.
So what if Musk takes the company private, I asked him. What happens then?
“I think there's some chance he'll revolutionize social media if he does this,” Bankman-Fried said. His hunch was that Musk shares views similar to his (asked if Musk had reached out to him at all, Bankman-Fried said “I don’t know him well.”)
In fact, if Musk came knocking and asked if Bankman-Fried wanted to work on this project together, he said, “I would be really excited to have a more in-depth conversation with him about what this could mean.”
Of course, Musk’s proposal to buy Twitter will also stir up opposition. Bankman-Fried acknowledged some Twitter shareholders likely have concerns. Some directors have already said the offer is unwelcome, The Information has reported. While he wasn’t aware of any serious counter-offers, Bankman-Fried said he wouldn’t be shocked if one came about—though he’s not currently planning anything himself.
“My best honest guess is that it's going to be messy,” he said. “You're going to see a split opinion, without gigantic majorities in either direction.”
Two things. At the point trump was banned, there was no way to know if, or how much election fraud had taken place. Just to juxtapose Trump being banned, you don't think allowing a Iranian govt terrorist organization access knowingly spreading lies is a problem based on your criteria? Honestly, my biggest problem is not that they banned trump. It is the rest of the content they have allowed or not allowed clearly based on political ideology. This is the part you won't address bc there is no justification for it. You keep moving the goalposts not to have to admit the truth. First your argument was about being able to verify content, and now about knowingly false info. Hunter Bidens laptop was surely not knowingly false info bc it was in fact true and accurate info.
You apologists are ridiculous. What do you think they would have done if they had found Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi? No attempts you say? LMAO
I'm probably going to regret wading into this convo but will say that content moderation has proven to be very dangerous. Things like the lab-leak theory for COVID were previously banned but are now proving credible theories. We have to allow discussion and people to challenge conventional wisdom.
So if they were earnestly looking for her or other lawmakers, why did they stop? They had the whole building to themselves right? Why were there no confrontations? the answer is because that is not what there intentions were. Just look at all the stuff posted while they were inside. It posts of them sitting at desks in the capital smiling. It is not posts of them frantically searching the building with guns drawn looking to execute some type of coup. Would it have made them happy to make Nancy uncomfortable? Sure it would have, they don't like her.
Are you seriously telling me that despite an all out effort to find lawmakers in that building, not only were they not successful in not killing one, they couldn't even find ONE? You can't be that stupid. I guarantee you, just me by myself could have found at least one lawmaker in that building. Somehow however, thousands of people intent on a coup could not find a single lawmaker in a building full of them.
Yeah I think that’s the question right? Is what they do in terms of censorship editing content or is platforming/deplatforming that content? Are they more like a newspaper, editing what is said, or more like a paper company or printing company deciding who they want to sell paper to or print for? It’s an interesting question that I’m sure we will all continue to discuss for some time.
I would just like to see people think more about the principles of what they believe vs they are proposing rather than the tribalism where people just want whatever will make the other side mad regardless of the implications in the broader scheme of their beliefs. Not talking about you specifically here btw. You seem to have a handle on that.
I’m left leaning on most things and also not a fan of censoring and banning people on social media FWIW. Not a Twitter user personally, but if it was my company I wouldn’t censor any more than I was legally required to. I just don’t think Twitter actually owes anyone anything in terms of a platform or some sort of pseudo free speech rights. And I definitely don’t think the government needs to step in and declare them a monopoly or regulate them like a utility or anything along those lines.
OMG, Your pretzel logic takes so many turns I feel like a Twizzler. But to your first point, what the hell do you mean there was no way to know??? It was absolutely known that there was no significant fraud UNLESS you've been conditioned to disbelieve every single government agency, election official and Secretary of State because a special needs cantaloupe told you to! We knew the election was fair and accurate - even Trump's Director of Homeland Security's CISA said it was the cleanest election in history. Scary how easy it is to make people disbelieve every single source of truth and instead go along with the fact-less ramblings of the biggest liar in American political history. C'mon man!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
I am not saying this is Trump fraud, waste and abuse in action…- Latest: southerncaltiger
-
-
-
