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.

 

[J-DONK]

So you believe that prior to the this mass access to information, we in the us were under some authoritarian regime?

Walk everyone through how you took my statement, and got to this conclusion of my opinion. You are the one who espouses that Democracy may not survive without censorship, and moderation. Twitter wasn't around when the swiftboat attack happened, nor some of the other famous examples of misinformation. You understand saying "That is a danger to our democracy when we all have equal say." is not a good look for a freedom loving American?

The press were highly editorialized bc most wanted credible sourced material. Put it this way, this board is moderated. I ve seen some bogus stuff and users removed. Do you think your right were suppressed or that this site is authoritarian? Hell there are laws that suppress certain speech. Are we in an authoritarian government? There are clear distinction between accountability that what one express and publish meets certain standards vs the anarchist trap you are peddling. No one is suppressing Hersh’s free speech. He ultimately created a sub stack to peddle his bs. What the editors and many others have pointed out is that his story is unreliable. And now he has given ammo to the Russians. He did the same with the Syrian sarin gas. Or do you believe that crap that the Syrians didn’t do it?

And there are psychology of disinformation studies you can easily google to find how effective it is. I don’t claim to be invulnerable to it. I’ve posted one recently about how western firms leaving Russia was ultimately one. That is the point of moderation/editors vetting stories and peer reviews. Accountability and reliability. What you advocate is anarchy. The loudest and most shameless gets the biggest microphone. 4chan. That other local site.

I don't advocate for Anachary, but there is a good chance you are spreading misinformation by attacking a Pulitzer winning journalist. Should you be banned if proven wrong? Maybe a disclaimer that you frequently engage in misinformation, and to carefully vet any post you make?

That example perfectly encapsulated the whole debate. You think it's misinformation, because a Pulitzer prize winning journalist didn't meet UriUT's journalistic standards. We have no idea if's true, but censoring the article, and his work would be wrong.

 

[MT15]

Hersh’s piece is being roundly panned by all sorts of people for being sloppy, and twisting facts to come to a pre-ordained conclusion. I have seen several pieces that debunk what he wrote.

A whole lot of people “want to believe” his arguments are correct and they are not thinking critically about his piece.

Instead of just touting what he has written now as true because of something he wrote in the past, maybe we could simply discuss the current work? It should stand on its own, shouldn’t it? Past accolades don’t mean this work is good.

 

[UriUT]

Walk everyone through how you took my statement, and got to this conclusion of my opinion. You are the one who espouses that Democracy may not survive without censorship, and moderation. Twitter wasn't around when the swiftboat attack happened, nor some of the other famous examples of misinformation. You understand saying "That is a danger to our democracy when we all have equal say." is not a good look for a freedom loving American?



I don't advocate for Anachary, but there is a good chance you are spreading misinformation by attacking a Pulitzer winning journalist. Should you be banned if proven wrong? Maybe a disclaimer that you frequently engage in misinformation, and to carefully vet any post you make?

Reading back, I can tell you that I misinterpret what you replied. Sure, that was a mistake and I'd be happy to have the disclaimer that I erred. An effort to be factual may slow down disinformation. What a novel idea.

You do understand that in the 2020 election, approximately 50k votes separate the 2 candidates in Arizona, Wisconsin and GA, right? 2016, I believe 130k across the swing states. You have to understand that when I say disinformation is a danger when we all have an equal say, that is what I refer? equal vote? Not discussions on this board nor how billionaires are funneling millions in dark money. That influencing just enough voters, an illiberal populist may be elected and can harm our democracy. It's rather interesting that you bring up the swiftboat. Clearly in retrospect, that was a lie and a failure of our media to moderate/expose that falsehood. Let's assume that for the sake of arguments, it influenced that election. Now suppose it lead to Trump-like authoritarian like Erdogan or an Orban who upon seizing power destroys the guardrails of democracy. Would you characterize that as a danger to our democracy? Now suppose in the age of social media where the impact is arguably much more meaningful? 1/6 and election denial; covid mask/vaccine hesitancy? Take that Freedom Convoy in Canada as another example. The Canadian government has stated that Russia was likely cultivating that movement.

Russia's Role in the Far-Right Truck Convoy | The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare

journals.lib.sfu.ca

The findings reveal that the Russian state media outlet RT covered the Freedom Convoy far more than any other international media outlet, suggesting strong interest in the far-right Canadian protest movement on the part of the Russian state. State-affiliated proxy websites and content on the messaging platform Telegram provide further evidence of Russia’s strategic interest in the Freedom Convoy. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to infer that there was Russian involvement in the 2022 truck convoy, though the scope and impact remain to be determined.

Now when you say that we should only moderate in the scope of the law, I can only conclude that you want a 4chan or tigersomething model. That is anarchy. The loudest "censors" the other voices whether they are factual or not. No rules. Just brute force. A cesspool of mis/disinformation that if you translate to twitter can destructive. (What was that one pharma company that lost billions from one fake tweet?)

Regarding Hersh, prove me wrong and I'll happily wear the disclaimer that I spread misinformation. That is what I advocate. Thank you pointing that out.

Here: The Syrian sarin disinformation.

Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire

What the legendary reporter gets wrong about Syria's sarin attacks.

foreignpolicy.com

And here: He doesn't believe that we actually killed Bin Laden.

The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

Finally here: He has one uncorroborated anonymous source.

Claim That US Blew up Nord Stream Pipelines Relies on Anonymous Source

Seymour Hersh presents factual background material, but his case for conspiracy is held together by a seemingly omnipotent anonymous source.

www.snopes.com

edit: I refuse to link his original work where he made these claims.

Did I incorrectly present that in any of my posts? My memory has deteriorate, that I admit. But I am certain that I presented the Hersh as factual as possible. Now prove me wrong.

And btw, censoring comes in many forms. As I've alluded, there is reverse censorship. How is that different from asking Twitter to moderate...such as a disclaimer that Hersh has ONE uncorroborated source? Or how Fox News censors by picking the most emotion provoking topic to influence their viewer's beliefs? And practically most mainstream media has an editor that "censors" what to publish what to take out etc.

 

[MT15]

Here is a thread about the Hersh piece that was useful for me:

 

[UriUT]

Here is a thread about the Hersh piece that was useful for me:

Made my point more eloquently!

 

[MT15]

I also find this guy has good takes on a lot of things. A short discussion about the Hersh article:

 

[MT15]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Twitter chief executive Elon Musk rallied a team of roughly 80 engineers to reconfigure the platform’s algorithm so his tweets would be more widely viewed, tech news site Platformer has reported.

A disgruntled Musk called for an emergency effort after a tweet he sent during Sunday’s Super Bowl game failed to achieve as much engagement as a tweet from Joe Biden, interviews and internal documents reviewed by Platformer have revealed.

The effort was sparked when a tweet from the president, who has 37m followers, generated nearly 29m impressions while a similar tweet from Musk – who has 128m followers – generated little more than 9.1m impressions.

A Twitter employee and cousin of Elon Musk, James Musk, posted urgently in the company Slack at 2.30am the following Monday morning, asking all employees who can code to participate. “Any people who can make dashboards and write software please can you help solve this problem,” he wrote. “This is high urgency.”

Engineers then deployed a new algorithm that artificially inflated Musk’s tweets by a factor of 1,000, ensuring that more than 90% of Musk’s 128.9m followers see them. Many who do not follow Musk are also being served his tweets in their feed through the “For you” tab of the app’s home page, which curates tweets from a number of accounts, including those a user is not following…….

Elon Musk reportedly forced Twitter algorithm to boost his tweets after Super Bowl flop

A tweet from Joe Biden garnered triple the impressions than Musk’s game time post, sending Twitter engineers scrambling to boost their boss

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Twitter chief executive Elon Musk rallied a team of roughly 80 engineers to reconfigure the platform’s algorithm so his tweets would be more widely viewed, tech news site Platformer has reported.

A disgruntled Musk called for an emergency effort after a tweet he sent during Sunday’s Super Bowl game failed to achieve as much engagement as a tweet from Joe Biden, interviews and internal documents reviewed by Platformer have revealed.

The effort was sparked when a tweet from the president, who has 37m followers, generated nearly 29m impressions while a similar tweet from Musk – who has 128m followers – generated little more than 9.1m impressions.

A Twitter employee and cousin of Elon Musk, James Musk, posted urgently in the company Slack at 2.30am the following Monday morning, asking all employees who can code to participate. “Any people who can make dashboards and write software please can you help solve this problem,” he wrote. “This is high urgency.”

Engineers then deployed a new algorithm that artificially inflated Musk’s tweets by a factor of 1,000, ensuring that more than 90% of Musk’s 128.9m followers see them. Many who do not follow Musk are also being served his tweets in their feed through the “For you” tab of the app’s home page, which curates tweets from a number of accounts, including those a user is not following…….

Elon Musk reportedly forced Twitter algorithm to boost his tweets after Super Bowl flop

A tweet from Joe Biden garnered triple the impressions than Musk’s game time post, sending Twitter engineers scrambling to boost their boss

www.theguardian.com

He’s just like Trump, isn’t he?

 

[SystemShock]

... so Twitter's still around?

 

[el caliente]

Did the "Never Elon" crowd ever find a new social media platform to communicate on (since Elon's purchase of Twitter)? I keep seeing people on Twitter complaining about how bad Twitter has become since Elon purchased the platform, I am thinking perhaps they didn't get the memo about the new social media site where likeminded individuals are now communicating.

 

[SaintForLife]

What a surprise/sarcasm off

 

[el caliente]

What a surprise/sarcasm off

This should be exciting. Nothing more entertaining than watching two dudes with small pecker energy going after each other.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

What a surprise/sarcasm off

Free market at work.

 

[MT15]

What a surprise/sarcasm off

Please specify exactly how this is doing something illegal or unethical.

Are you implying that corporations are not allowed to make their own decisions about their advertising? Is organizing boycotts now somehow illegal? Are people no longer allowed to state their opinions? Or point out when somebody needs to be investigated?

LOL, this never fails.

 

[Maxp]

Is that the new George Soros? I've been wondering who the new boogeyman was going to be once the million year old Soros croaks.

 

[SaintForLife]

Please specify exactly how this is doing something illegal or unethical.

Are you implying that corporations are not allowed to make their own decisions about their advertising? Is organizing boycotts now somehow illegal? Are people no longer allowed to state their opinions? Or point out when somebody needs to be investigated?

LOL, this never fails.

None of what you assumed in the above post is accurate. He has the right to do it, but it shows the campaign against Musk after he bought Twitter was leftwing astroturfing rather than a grassroots movement.

You guys acted like Twiiter would fail, crash, turn into a Nazi/racist forum. Not much changed except for reinstating some banned accounts.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Did the "Never Elon" crowd ever find a new social media platform to communicate on (since Elon's purchase of Twitter)? I keep seeing people on Twitter complaining about how bad Twitter has become since Elon purchased the platform, I am thinking perhaps they didn't get the memo about the new social media site where likeminded individuals are now communicating.

Those people sound exactly like the ones on Facebook who were posted all the time on Facebook how they were gonna delete Facebook, but never do. I never really used Twitter, but once he went on his crazy tour on Twitter, i have since deactivated my account.
At least Zuck doesn't get on Facebook and personally attack people he disagrees with... could you imagine..