Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (Update: WSJ report details Musk’s relationship with Putin) (3 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.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

By Allah, I do!

People with no kids are not going to care about the future, not in the same way people with kids will. Keynes' statement that "in the long run, we are all dead," sounds very different to a person with kids. I have five, and I want them and their children and grandchildren not to have their economic futures trashed by greedy childless people wanting unlimited freebies.

And who's to say they don't PLAN on having children. Just because i don't have children NOW doesn't mean i may not in 10 years or 20 years, etc. Its not uncommon for people to have children in their 60's these days. Just think they lost their right to vote for so many years.
Back when Walton and Johnson were mostly funny (before Obama was elected, thats when they turned political over comedy) they used to joke about how only people who were land owners should be able to vote because they had more of a stake in the future of this country. The would say that in jest, but i have no doubt they truly felt that way. Its an idiotic idea to pick and choose who can vote based on anything other than citizenship. when you start picking and choosing, thats when you get into Authoritarian leadership. If you want to go down that logical ideoligy, should people with more children get extra votes? shouldn't their voice be heard louder because they have MORE of a stake in the futute to worry about? To even suggest and float that idea is simply dumb.
One of my favorite sayings :
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag"

 

[Snarky Sack]

And who's to say they don't PLAN on having children. Just because i don't have children NOW doesn't mean i may not in 10 years or 20 years, etc. Its not uncommon for people to have children in their 60's these days. Just think they lost their right to vote for so many years.
Back when Walton and Johnson were mostly funny (before Obama was elected, thats when they turned political over comedy) they used to joke about how only people who were land owners should be able to vote because they had more of a stake in the future of this country. The would say that in jest, but i have no doubt they truly felt that way. Its an idiotic idea to pick and choose who can vote based on anything other than citizenship. when you start picking and choosing, thats when you get into Authoritarian leadership. If you want to go down that logical ideoligy, should people with more children get extra votes? shouldn't their voice be heard louder because they have MORE of a stake in the futute to worry about? To even suggest and float that idea is simply dumb.
One of my favorite sayings :
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag"

I'm gonna miss you guys.

 

[Incumbent]

Fascists want to take away voting rights. Musk is a fascist. A growing number of conservatives are fascists. Believe them in what they are revealing about themselves. These aren't simply differences of opinions to be respected or given thoughtful consideration.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I'm gonna miss you guys.

so you disagree with what i said?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting article
==========

A question that has been eating at me recently: Why in the world are conservative boycotts suddenly working?

I mean, in general, politically motivated boycotts rarely work — people get bored or their opponents stage “buycotts” that cancel out their efforts. To the extent boycotts have worked, in recent years it’s tended to be the left using its institutional power against other institutions, like the companies that pressured Indiana into backing off an LGBTQ+ unfriendly religious freedom bill, or the campaigns to get advertisers to pull ads from Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show.


As of this writing, however, Bud Light sales are still down almost 30 percent since Anheuser-Busch decided to partner with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney; at one distributor, the beer is reportedly selling for less than a case of water.

Target recently dialed back its Pride displays, the Los Angeles Dodgers temporarily rescinded an invitation to a controversial LGBTQ+ group, and jurors at an advertising festival were recently instructed to focus on ads that make money, not weighty message advertising.

I have been puzzled and intrigued, and so for a couple of months I’ve been asking smart people in business, academia and media what’s going on.

Over and over, I’ve heard the same answer: “Twitter changed hands.”
Initially, this sounded crazy. The timing is suspicious, I grant, but coincidences happen. And it didn’t look to me as if Twitter was the main vector for attacks on Mulvaney, et al. — they seemed to emanate from conservative sites such as the Daily Wire.

Over time, however, I’ve come around — and what convinced me was watching people try to agree on a Twitter alternative.
First, it was the right fleeing to Gab, Parler or Truth Social, as left-leaning moderators clamped down on Twitter.

Then Elon Musk took over, the moderation skew flipped, and progressives began decamping for platforms such as Mastodon, Hive and Bluesky.

Each time, there was talk about “the next Twitter,” but each successive hype cycle ended in disappointment, with a small number of users migrating but never a critical mass.

Now we have Threads, Instagram’s Twitter substitute, which seems like the most plausible successor so far, having garnered 30 million users in its first day.

Yet the service still feels distinctly Instagram — vibe happy, image-centric, influencer-driven, quite different from the epigrammatic exchanges that made Twitter so distinctive.

Nor do I think it will replicate what was for so many people the central attraction of Twitter: a concentration of powerful public intellectuals and politicians that gave insiders a place to schmooze and outsiders a shot at shaping elite consensus (or at least watching it form in real time).


Mostly it empowered the progressive left. Yes, there were exceptions, notably Donald Trump. But progressives are the ones who spent almost a decade steadily policing Twitter discourse through a combination of cancellation mobs and agitating for more stringent (and left-leaning) moderation policies.

Although Twitter had started as an ideological free-for-all — “the free speech wing of the free speech party” — over time, the more tech-savvy, more numerous and better-networked young progressives set the rules of the debate.

And because Twitter was the hub of a 24-hour ongoing conversation among a lot of powerful and influential people, that had real-world effects…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/10/conservative-boycotts-twitter-social-media-progressives/

 

[el caliente]

shirt, people want another 4 years of this?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

shirt, people want another 4 years of this?

That 45sec clip extended his original 40sec answer:

Biden says Musk relationships with other countries 'worthy of being looked at'

U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday he thinks Twitter boss Elon Musk's relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at.

www.reuters.com

Weird, right?
His answer begins at the 20sec mark. I found his answer a rational response to a question he did not expect.

 

[MT15]

That 45sec clip extended his original 40sec answer:

Biden says Musk relationships with other countries 'worthy of being looked at'

U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday he thinks Twitter boss Elon Musk's relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at.

www.reuters.com

Weird, right?
His answer begins at the 20sec mark. I found his answer a rational response to a question he did not expect.

Thanks I didn’t even watch it. I knew it was probably from a completely biased source. Biden is actually doing a good job, and that just breaks people‘s brains.

 

[MT15]

It’s amazing to me that this man even exists. I cannot fathom his moves with Twitter. Makes zero sense.

 

[MT15]

Lol:

 

[SystemShock]

shirt, people want another 4 years of this?

As compared to...?

 

[Lapaz]

shirt, people want another 4 years of this?

Biden has always spoken slowly. He was pausing to decide the best words to use. That is more common with older people, but otherwise there was nothing wrong with what he said. I’ll take this any day over someone talking like a spoiled brat, and spouting lies continuously. So I definitely would prefer 4 more years of that type of press conference over the type we would get from Trump.

 

[MT15]

had to look to make sure what thread this is. It’s the “X” thread, lol:

 

[UriUT]

Biden has always spoken slowly. He was pausing to decide the best words to use. That is more common with older people, but otherwise there was nothing wrong with what he said. I’ll take this any day over someone talking like a spoiled brat, and spouting lies continuously. So I definitely would prefer 4 more years of that type of press conference over the type we would get from Trump.

I want to point out that Obama does this also when asked a question he was unprepared to be asked or don't know the answer. They both understand that their words will be perceived as policy, so they slow down, and think cautiously for the the correct response. A contrast to the gibberish that trump displayed when asked about CO2 pipelines from chucks post the other day.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I want to point out that Obama does this also when asked a question he was unprepared to be asked or don't know the answer. They both understand that their words will be perceived as policy, so they slow down, and think cautiously for the the correct response. A contrast to the gibberish that trump displayed when asked about CO2 pipelines from chucks post the other day.

Actually, had that been Obama the over/under would have been a minute.

 

[MT15]

It just keeps getting better:

 

[CoolBrees]

How about that new CEO huh?

Not checking to see if there were outstanding trademarks. And if they existed that the owner would sell. Cause neither Meta or Microsoft can be strong armed.

So now you either pay BOTH a ton to have it or rebrand for the second time in two days.

Nice work!

 

[LA - L.A.]

Lol:

Musk is trying so hard to be a real life super villain/evil genius, but he's just an insecure, not so bright, buffoon with way too much money and influence. A year ago a friend argued with me vehemently insisting Musk was a visionary.

I pointed out that every successful business venture that Musk was involved with was primarily started and made successful by his partners on those ventures. I also pointed out that the more control Musk gets over a venture, the more that venture struggles.

My friend recently told me, "Musk really is an idiot and a petulant child, isn't he?"