Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (Update: WSJ report details Musk’s relationship with Putin) (2 Viewers)

[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.

 

[el caliente]

The game Second Life is a good example of what the Metaverse will become. Sex dungeons on every corner.

I want to believe.

 

[MT15]

so, what makes you place your trust in Elon? I’m fascinated by people who somehow think he‘s some sort of savior. What makes you think he’s going to do something counter to what he’s done before?

Nobody has said he ruined Twitter, after all he hasn’t really even bought it yet. but it’s certainly possible he will. And it’s not unreasonable to talk about it, this is a discussion board.

I’m skeptical that a billionaire who chooses to troll on Twitter and has his history will be good for the platform. Call me crazy.

 

[el caliente]

so, what makes you place your trust in Elon? I’m fascinated by people who somehow think he‘s some sort of savior. What makes you think he’s going to do something counter to what he’s done before?

Nobody has said he ruined Twitter, after all he hasn’t really even bought it yet. but it’s certainly possible he will. And it’s not unreasonable to talk about it, this is a discussion board.

I’m skeptical that a billionaire who chooses to troll on Twitter and has his history will be good for the platform. Call me crazy.

I am not putting my trust in Elon Musk, I’m taking a wait and see approach to how he will work to improve Twitter. Like you said, the sale hasn’t gone final yet, and there are a lot of hurdles that need to be cleared before the sale does go final. He needs the benefit of time before people can crap on how he handles ownership of Twitter.

He hasn’t given anyone anything to be upset about in regards to changes made to Twitter, so why are we accusing him of making changes for the worst already?

At the end of the day I think part of people’s criticism of Musk is he isn't quiet with his wealth. People don't like to see people more successful than they are, so they don't want to have to see Musk enjoying and doing things with his wealth, but that's exactly what he's doing. I don't have a problem with it; if had Musk money, I'd probably do some ignorant ish as well, but yeah, haters gonna hate.

Now let’s see if Dorsey and others give all that wealth away to charity.

 

[MT15]

So, I disagree with your premise: saying we are concerned about what he will do with ownership isn’t out of bounds. It’s a discussion. I did say that he is saying the right things, it’s just that his history on Twitter sort of belies what he says and he has no experience with running a media site.

Also, there may be some people who feel that way about wealth (don’t like him because he flaunts it) but I think there are actually a whole lot more people who find Musk more appealing and are willing to overlook his faults and foibles because of his wealth. I think history trends easily this way. People tend to idolize people who can attract this amount of wealth. This is part of why it completely breaks their minds. And yes, it works a bit on anyone who has some sort of celebrity, but these mega-billionaires are in their own class, IMO.

And I don’t know why you’re taking digs at Dorsey. He and Musk are more alike than different. Plus his net worth doesn’t make a dent in Musk’s.

 

[SaintForLife]

If he does what he claims, it will be his right as the owner of the company. It is what we have been saying all along.

It will have no effect on free speech because Twitter isn't a part of the government.

It's not part of the government, but the government has been pushing them to censor more and more "misinformation."

Also Twitter, Facebook, & Google pretty much have a monopoly on what is allowed to be said online on their platforms.

Facebook, Google and Twitter CEOs will make another appearance before Congress in March

The March hearing will mark Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's fourth time testifying before Congress since July.

www.cnbc.com

 

[SaintForLife]

I’m just interested if people’s Boogeymen come to fruition. Does the government intervene? Does Elon drastically change the platform? Will we get more bots? Will current Twitter employees find the workplace as bad tomorrow as they found it today?

I like the move myself. Let the wealthy do with their money what they want.

It's not a surprise that many of Twitter's employees are worried about Musk owning Twitter.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's insane to me that people who identify as "liberals" are so authoritarian. It's very hard for Twitter to identify what is disinformation. They have to either be a subject matter expert, or the claim is so untrue it's obvious disinformation. Things like horse pills, hunter's laptop, and lab leak don't fit that criteria.

This world view of protecting "the gullible" via only allowing certain thoughts into public space is so dangerous, and easily abused.

That all changed once Trump was elected. It used to be the Republicans that believed everything from the FBI, CIA, & the military. Now most Republicans are more skeptical of those agencies and for good reason considering their questionable track record the last few years. The Democrats believe most things from those agencies because they worked in unison to try to get rid of Trump as soon as he was elected.

 

[SaintForLife]

This couldn't be any more ironic considering he's describing EXACTLY what's happened the last few years.

 

[Farb]

And exactly why does SFL think that it’s a good idea for disinformation about vaccines, election results and QAnon be given free reign on Twitter?

Free speech?

 

[coldseat]

It's funny to me how excited the right wing is with this or how concerned some on the left are. I'm largely indifferent because if Musk destroys Twitter by allowing all of the misinformation and rightwing trolls and attacks, people will just flock to something else that offers better content moderation eventually. But not everything he is proposing would be the worst thing, defeating the spam bots and authenticating all humans among them. Those would be good reforms. Still, count me in the camp as somebody who thinks he bitten off more than he can chew for the reasons below. If this goes badly for Musk, it has the chance to really hurt him financially/personally. Seems like a big risk without much reward as I think Twitter's profitability is limited.

Just days before Musk’s announcement, the European Union came out with a new regulatory regimen that directly challenges Musk’s view of a Wild West social media environment. NPR reports, “Big tech companies like Google and Facebook parent Meta will have to police their platforms more strictly to better protect European users from hate speech, disinformation and other harmful online content under landmark [European Union] legislation approved early Saturday.” The law will require tech companies to “make it easier for users to flag problems, ban online ads aimed at kids and empower regulators to punish noncompliance with billions in fines.”
The E.U., which is not constrained by the First Amendment, can exercise severe controls on social media. NPR explains:

Under the EU law, governments would be able to ask companies take down a wide range of content that would be deemed illegal, including material that promotes terrorism, child sexual abuse, hate speech and commercial scams. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter would have to give users tools to flag such content in an “easy and effective way” so that it can be swiftly removed.

That regulatory structure might pose an insurmountable hurdle for Musk’s vision, forcing him either to leave the European market or comply with its regulatory mandate, which might in turn require changes worldwide. Moreover, the passage of a European scheme might spur progress on reform efforts in the United States, further complicating operation of low-moderated social media platforms.

Musk’s move might also be less than beneficial for Telsa stockholders. Not only does Tesla face new competition from entrants to the electric car industry, but Musk — widely seen as a right-wing gadfly — also could become increasingly unattractive to progressive Tesla customers. Do they really want to buy a car from the new impresario of Trump-friendly social media when they can purchase a comparable product from a company without the Musk baggage?
As a matter of public policy and political sanity, the central issues surrounding social media won’t vanish anytime soon. What is the public’s interest in curbing disinformation? Should platforms that make money by extending user time through mysterious algorithms that radicalize users and can prey on children’s mental health enjoy freedom from liability?

For those who see Musk as either the savior of social media or the devil incarnate, remember that the platform, which has an estimated 436 million users, is minuscule compared to Facebook, which counts its users in the billions (nearly 3 billion in January). Those concerned about the future of democracy and civilized society might want to keep their focus on the biggest player, which for the foreseeable future will still be Mark Zuckerberg.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/26/elon-musk-twitter-social-media-challenges-have-just-begun/

 

[MT15]

Free speech?

Sigh.

 

[el caliente]

So, I disagree with your premise: saying we are concerned about what he will do with ownership isn’t out of bounds. It’s a discussion. I did say that he is saying the right things, it’s just that his history on Twitter sort of belies what he says and he has no experience with running a media site.

Also, there may be some people who feel that way about wealth (don’t like him because he flaunts it) but I think there are actually a whole lot more people who find Musk more appealing and are willing to overlook his faults and foibles because of his wealth. I think history trends easily this way. People tend to idolize people who can attract this amount of wealth. This is part of why it completely breaks their minds. And yes, it works a bit on anyone who has some sort of celebrity, but these mega-billionaires are in their own class, IMO.

And I don’t know why you’re taking digs at Dorsey. He and Musk are more alike than different. Plus his net worth doesn’t make a dent in Musk’s.

First, it’s not a dig at Dorsey. The same people who taught for him to be the anti-Musk can now see that he is/isn’t like Musk with how he chooses to spend his new mint. It doesn’t stop at Dorsey’s philanthropy either, the folks on Twitter’s board also stand to make a few dollars as the buyout will even make their combined 15 shares worth something (I kid).

I believe Elon has the right to prove himself out (as to how he will handle the Twitter take over). There is no reason to say he will or won’t do anything, as he doesn’t even own the company yet. I doubt he will ban all pink haired folks, much like I doubt he will work on an algo that will make conservative speech the top trending speech. Taking a wait and see approach is ideal. I mean, when he took over Tesla he didn’t exactly run it into the ground or make it worse.

Billionaire, Millionaire, thousandaire, they can all go crazy. Obviously to different magnitudes, but mental breakdowns are indiscriminate.

 

[el caliente]

It's funny to me how excited the right wing is with this or how concerned some on the left are. I'm largely indifferent because if Musk destroys Twitter by allowing all of the misinformation and rightwing trolls and attacks, people will just flock to something else that offers better content moderation eventually. But not everything he is proposing would be the worst thing, defeating the spam bots and authenticating all humans among them. Those would be good reforms. Still, count me in the camp as somebody who thinks he bitten off more than he can chew for the reasons below. If this goes badly for Musk, it has the chance to really hurt him financially/personally. Seems like a big risk without much reward as I think Twitter's profitability is limited.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/26/elon-musk-twitter-social-media-challenges-have-just-begun/

The profitability of it all is what gets me. I am sure there is some financial upside there, but I’m not seeing it. Slap a $1.99/month charge on accounts, and you will see folks bolt for the doors.

 

[MT15]

First, it’s not a dig at Dorsey. The same people who taught for him to be the anti-Musk can now see that he is/isn’t like Musk with how he chooses to spend his new mint. It doesn’t stop at Dorsey’s philanthropy either, the folks on Twitter’s board also stand to make a few dollars as the buyout will even make their combined 15 shares worth something (I kid).

I believe Elon has the right to prove himself out (as to how he will handle the Twitter take over). There is no reason to say he will or won’t do anything, as he doesn’t even own the company yet. I doubt he will ban all pink haired folks, much like I doubt he will work on an algo that will make conservative speech the top trending speech. Taking a wait and see approach is ideal. I mean, when he took over Tesla he didn’t exactly run it into the ground or make it worse.

Billionaire, Millionaire, thousandaire, they can all go crazy. Obviously to different magnitudes, but mental breakdowns are indiscriminate.

Yes, he has the right to prove himself. And I have the right to doubt that his motives are pure. Free speech and all, right? Lol. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt from me due to his past activity on Twitter.

What I am alleging about money ruining people is that the money causes the break in their brains. And it’s not like a mental breakdown, it doesn’t incapacitate them, it just robs them of all human perspective. More like a pathology that still allows them to function. The more money/fame, the harder to escape the malignant effects on the human psyche. It’s not like this is solely my theory. It’s fairly observable.

 

[el caliente]

Yes, he has the right to prove himself. And I have the right to doubt that his motives are pure. Free speech and all, right? Lol. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt from me due to his past activity on Twitter.

What I am alleging about money ruining people is that the money causes the break in their brains. And it’s not like a mental breakdown, it doesn’t incapacitate them, it just robs them of all human perspective. More like a pathology that still allows them to function. The more money/fame, the harder to escape the malignant effects on the human psyche. It’s not like this is solely my theory. It’s fairly observable.

More money, more problems. I get you. I’m probably misunderstanding you, are you saying it’s worse when a person like Musk becomes detached from reality than say, when Bryan in NOLA East becomes detached?

 

[RobF]

But not everything he is proposing would be the worst thing, defeating the spam bots and authenticating all humans among them. Those would be good reforms.

But would they?

Those are both difficult to do, and the means of doing them can have unintended consequences, or be ineffective. E.g. what does 'authenticating all humans' mean? That could be anything from 'I am not a robot' style captchas all over the place (i.e. authenticating that the user is a human), to authenticating the identity behind accounts (i.e. authenticating the identity of the specific human), which is both difficult (it requires 'all humans' to be able to prove their identity, and for twitter or providers they use to be in a position to confirm whatever's being provided to do so), and may not be entirely good in practice.

For example, anonymity can be essential for some forms of speech. E.g. LGBT people and activists in Saudi Arabia. Even if Twitter doesn't publish identification (i.e. it verifies the human, but allows them to post anonymously), that still requires the user to trust Twitter, or their provider, to either not keep the information in any form that can be used to link their identity to the account, or to keep it securely.

It's not impossible; for example, Twitter could use a third-party that only confirms the user has been identified, but doesn't pass on the identity to Twitter itself, and that stores the identity information only in some form of non-reversible hash if necessary (e.g. to prevent the same identity information being used for multiple accounts). But that still requires that to be done correctly and for the user to trust that's actually happening.

That is not to say those are necessarily bad reforms. Just that, while in principle they could be good, if done wisely and successfully (big if), they're not necessarily good ones.

 

[wardorican]

It's insane to me that people who identify as "liberals" are so authoritarian. It's very hard for Twitter to identify what is disinformation. They have to either be a subject matter expert, or the claim is so untrue it's obvious disinformation. Things like horse pills, hunter's laptop, and lab leak don't fit that criteria.

This world view of protecting "the gullible" via only allowing certain thoughts into public space is so dangerous, and easily abused.

So is allowing a disinformation super highway.... the gullible are the problem.

We should all be aiming for the truth, with multiple points of views. But too many disingenuous manipulative people are out there that confuse people and make them think that certain things are true.

I think the Russian national security expert said it best (think his name was Clint Watts). Don't censor info, but have a ratings system. Like a consumer reports of information. Otherwise, it will turn into a silly censorship issue and make the lie get further cemented.

 

[wardorican]

It's not a surprise that many of Twitter's employees are worried about Musk owning Twitter.

Why? He's not Republican.

Also, Tesla isn't that different in %.