Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (Update: WSJ report details Musk’s relationship with Putin) (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

Elon Musk struck a deal on Monday to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion, in a victory by the world’s richest man to take over the influential social network frequented by world leaders, celebrities and cultural trendsetters.

Twitter agreed to sell itself to Mr. Musk for $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the company’s share price this month before he revealed he was the firm’s single largest shareholder. It would be the largest deal to take a company private — something Mr. Musk has said he will do with Twitter — in at least two decades, according to data compiled by Dealogic.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal. “Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

The deal, which has been unanimously approved by Twitter’s board, is expected to close this year, subject to a vote of Twitter shareholders and certain regulatory approvals.

The blockbuster agreement caps what had seemed an improbable attempt by the famously mercurial Mr. Musk, 50, to buy the social media company — and immediately raises questions about what he will do with the platform and how his actions will affect online speech globally.

Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale

Twitter agreed to be taken over at $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the share price before it was revealed that Mr. Musk had been buying up the company’s stock.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

If Musk does what he claims he wants to do it will be a big improvement and good for free speech.

 

[MT15]

They haven't changed anything on the content moderation yet so all the cries about it are contrived.

So when the head of MMA Global tells Musk exactly why advertisers are skittish, that’s contrived?

It‘s not contrived that there has been an absolute spike in use of hate speech on Twitter since Musk took over. It’s not contrived that Musk himself elevated a really hateful lie about Paul Pelosi that was written by a site that also reported that government officials have been executed and replaced with body doubles. It’s not contrived that the moderation team has been largely fired without replacements.

What is contrived is Musk’s assertion that “activists” are causing the advertising hesitance. There’s just no evidence of that at this point. Advertisers are fairly cautious about their brands. They’re taking a wait and see attitude.

You are leaving out the biggest part of the equation. The government can't tell Twitter what posts from US citizens to censor or pressure them to do so. That's clearly a first amendment issue.

No, I’m not leaving it out. It didn’t happen. Or at least we have no evidence it happened, at this point.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Actually, I showed your hypocrisy as well as the left's hypocrisy. You guys are having a conniption fit about the billionaire Musk now owning Twitter, but I've never heard yall complain about the other billionaires who own media. I haven't complained about other billionaires owning media so no hypocrisy with me, but thanks for trying. Maybe you will do better next time.

The difference between you and me is that I call out bullshirt on both sides. You, and your hero Greenwald, only attack the left. Enough with the intellectual cowardice -- just admit what you are and stand by it. Otherwise, your posts only serve as comic relief.

 

[bird]

You are leaving out the biggest part of the equation. The government can't tell Twitter what posts from US citizens to censor or pressure them to do so. That's clearly a first amendment issue.

So let’s see…posting that there will be a lynching of a black man at 10:00pm is free speech? Posting that Jews need to die is free speech? Posting that a particular politician should be shot is free speech?

Go whine somewhere else. The government never put any kind of heavy hand on Twitter before the idiot known as Elon Musk bought it.

Free speech is not and never has been absolute and you know it.

 

[RobF]

So when the head of MMA Global tells Musk exactly why advertisers are skittish, that’s contrived?

It‘s not contrived that there has been an absolute spike in use of hate speech on Twitter since Musk took over. It’s not contrived that Musk himself elevated a really hateful lie about Paul Pelosi that was written by a site that also reported that government officials have been executed and replaced with body doubles. It’s not contrived that the moderation team has been largely fired without replacements.

What is contrived is Musk’s assertion that “activists” are causing the advertising hesitance. There’s just no evidence of that at this point. Advertisers are fairly cautious about their brands. They’re taking a wait and see attitude.

No, I’m not leaving it out. It didn’t happen. Or at least we have no evidence it happened, at this point.

The thing which cracks me up about the post you're replying to is that it links to a Twitter thread which says 15% of their Trust & Safety team was sacked and nearly a fifth of their incoming content moderation was affected... to claim that's nothing changed.

 

[MT15]

This is just too good not to post it:



Full disclosure: it appears the guy was suspended by an automated system because he changed his name to Elon Musk to do a bit and then changed it back and the automated system thinks he was hacked. They’re trying to reinstate him, but cannot get it figured out, because it is requiring him to sign in to re-activate his account while it still disabled. They’re very short staffed at the moment, when the automated stuff goes wonky they aren’t able to get to it very quickly.

 

[SystemShock]

Where's the outrage on the left for the oligarch Bezoz owning the Washington Post and publishing Democrat talking points?

What about the billionaire Lauren Powell that owns the Atlantic?

What about the billionaire Micheal Bloomberg that owns Bloomberg News?

We've all heard complaints about the billionaires Rupert Murdoch & Sheldon Adelson.

What about the billionaires Donald and Samuel “Si” Newhouse who own Advance Publications? Advance owns newspapers in 25 cities and towns across America and is the country’s largest privately-held newspaper chain. Conde Nast, a unit of Advance Publications, publishes magazines including Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Vogue.

What about the billionaire Cox Family that owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and a number of other daily papers among its many media investments.

What about the billionaire John Henry that owns The Boston Globe?

What about the billionaire Joe Masueto who owns Inc. and Fast Company magazine?

What about the billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman who owns US News & World Report and the New York Daily News?

What about the billionaire Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu who owns the largest stake in the New York Times?

There are 15 total on this list but the article is from 2016.

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

While a billionaire secretly funding a lawsuit to take down a news outlet may be a new way of using money to influence the media business, billionaires have long exerted influence on the news simply by owning U.S. media outlets.

www.forbes.com

What about Carlos Slim? LOL

You are really missing the mark here. The issue is not that a billionaire owns a media outlet, the issue is which billionaire owns the media outlet. I am not going to be outraged that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, because the WP has a level of journalistic integrity; Fox, Newsmax, OAN, they can't even spell integrity, which is the reason you do hear about Rupert Murdoch & Sheldon Adelson, but not the others.

Talking points are not a problem either; propaganda (foreign and domestic), gross misinformation, lies, hate speech are.

Twitter is not like any of the media you list; the media you list, the edit themselves, and correct themselves for the most part. Their content is not created by any Jack or Jill with a phone.

Your big outrage is that you want to read hate speech, foreign propaganda, and wild conspiracies on Twitter. You may get your wish. But be prepared for Twitter going the way of "Truth" Social and Parlor... then again, that just may be your jam.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Elon "Free Speech" Mush (the "h" is not a typo!) strikes again:



Also hilarious...

 

[MT15]

Lol

 

[zztop]

I'm completely shocked by this. Who could have guessed he would use his 100 million followers to influence things?

Elon Musk recommends voting for Republicans in U.S. midterm elections

Elon Musk, the world's richest person, on Monday urged Americans to vote Republican in Tuesday's U.S. midterm elections, throwing his weight behind Democratic President Joe Biden's opponents just days after Musk took control of Twitter Inc.

www.reuters.com

 

[MT15]

Or that he would be so arrogant as to think everyone is waiting for him to make this pronouncement. Typical narcissist.

 

[bdb13]

Will probably have about the same impact as every other celebrity endorsement.. which is next to nothing.

 

[MT15]

Will probably have about the same impact as every other celebrity endorsement.. which is next to nothing.

I would hope that‘s the case. But the legions of replies after his tweets saying stuff like - you’re brilliant, we love you etc. is a bit unsettling. Hoping they’re all foreign or bots or both.

 

[DaveXA]

I would hope that‘s the case. But the legions of replies after his tweets saying stuff like - you’re brilliant, we love you etc. is a bit unsettling. Hoping they’re all foreign or bots or both.

The impact will be marginal because most voters supporting him and his positions already made up their minds. The damage is already done imo. Not sure it's a red wave, but a lot of Republicans are gonna win tomorrow.

 

[bdb13]

The impact will be marginal because most voters supporting him and his positions already made up their minds. The damage is already done imo. Not sure it's a red wave, but a lot of Republicans are gonna win tomorrow.

House to the Republicans is all but inevitable.

Will be surprised if Dems hold onto 50 in the Senate.

 

[MT15]

So it appears Musk has a pattern of pushing false info:

 

[MT15]

Bloomberg saying it’s not going to reimburse its journalists for the ~$100 to keep their blue checks.

 

[MT15]

He just keeps showing who he is, lol

 

[SaintForLife]

What about Carlos Slim? LOL

You are really missing the mark here. The issue is not that a billionaire owns a media outlet, the issue is which billionaire owns the media outlet. I am not going to be outraged that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, because the WP has a level of journalistic integrity; Fox, Newsmax, OAN, they can't even spell integrity, which is the reason you do hear about Rupert Murdoch & Sheldon Adelson, but not the others.

Talking points are not a problem either; propaganda (foreign and domestic), gross misinformation, lies, hate speech are.

Twitter is not like any of the media you list; the media you list, the edit themselves, and correct themselves for the most part. Their content is not created by any Jack or Jill with a phone.

Your big outrage is that you want to read hate speech, foreign propaganda, and wild conspiracies on Twitter. You may get your wish. But be prepared for Twitter going the way of "Truth" Social and Parlor... then again, that just may be your jam.

My post about the billionaires owning media was in response to Saul:

https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/elon-musk-and-twitter-reach-deal-for-sale.198338/post-351409

You sure do claim to know a lot about what I want. I don't want to read hate speech, foreign propaganda, or conspiracy theories, but I also don't need the government or social media protecting me from it. You can block or mute someone on Twitter.