Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    6,000
    Reaction score
    2,858
    Location
    Madisonville
    Online
    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.




    If Musk does what he claims he wants to do it will be a big improvement and good for free speech.
     
    Musk is involved in a pretty serious defamation lawsuit from a man he falsely identified on Twitter and lied about. His lawyer is as shady as Musk is, evidently.

     
    Here is his somewhat odd deposition. He’s a complete weirdo. Oh he falsely accused a Jewish man who wasn’t even in the same state at the time of being involved in a brawl with Nazis.

     
    X, formerly known as Twitter, will make users to pay post and interact with others, Elon Musk has said.

    The owner suggested that requiring a “small fee” from users to access the site’s central features is the only way to stop it being overtaken by fake and bot accounts.…

     
    X, formerly known as Twitter, will make users to pay post and interact with others, Elon Musk has said.

    The owner suggested that requiring a “small fee” from users to access the site’s central features is the only way to stop it being overtaken by fake and bot accounts.…

    Wait I thought he said he could and would get rid of bots? Whatever he has done has made it far worse anyway.
     
    The Supreme Court refused to hear Musk's appeal of an appeals court ruling that said Musk's settlement agreement with the SEC, to have his tweets approved by his lawyer before posting, does not violate his 1st Amendment rights.

     
    guess this can go here



    I actually looked into that - it doesn't "void the warranty" but what it says is that if you don't use carwash mode it voids the warranty as to carwash damage to those items that carwash mode is designed to protect. In other words, it's considered damage caused by the carwash and not covered.
     
    I actually looked into that - it doesn't "void the warranty" but what it says is that if you don't use carwash mode it voids the warranty as to carwash damage to those items that carwash mode is designed to protect. In other words, it's considered damage caused by the carwash and not covered.

    Soooo. If I insure car washes for liability (damages to customer autos) could they possibly be held liable by the truck owner?
     
    Soooo. If I insure car washes for liability (damages to customer autos) could they possibly be held liable by the truck owner?

    Not necessarily - that kind of liability only follows negligence. If the car wash was functioning as it is supposed to and there's no basis to allege that it was hazardous based on some ill-operation or lack of maintenance, then there's no liability.

    Plus most carwashes have pretty clear disclaimers about car damage.
     
    Not necessarily - that kind of liability only follows negligence. If the car wash was functioning as it is supposed to and there's no basis to allege that it was hazardous based on some ill-operation or lack of maintenance, then there's no liability.

    Plus most carwashes have pretty clear disclaimers about car damage.
    Yeah, I've seen those disclaimers. They basically say, wash at your own risk, lol.
     
    “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.




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


    How it started ⬆️

    How it’s going ⬇️

    1714783419651.png
     
    How can someone have made so much money, and be so stupid about this kind of stuff?
     
    How it started ⬆️

    How it’s going ⬇️

    1714783419651.png
    Do you think that Musk saying something stupid on X somehow negates how free speech on has vastly improved since he bought Twitter?

    You haven't said much about the Twitter Files that showed the coordination between the government and Twitter and the vast censorship. After seeing how bad it was, its silly to try to link Musk's stupid post to Musk somehow failing to improve free speech on X.
     
    What you see is Musk actually proposing a law that would violate the First Amendment. And because it’s Musk, SFL defends Musk. He sees no hypocrisy evident. 🤣🤷‍♀️
     
    Do you think that Musk saying something stupid on X somehow negates how free speech on has vastly improved since he bought Twitter?

    You haven't said much about the Twitter Files that showed the coordination between the government and Twitter and the vast censorship. After seeing how bad it was, its silly to try to link Musk's stupid post to Musk somehow failing to improve free speech on X.

    I think that Musk saying something fundamentally anti-free speech aptly demonstrates that his version of “free speech” is viewpoint specific - which isn’t actually free speech.

    I wasn’t talking about X - I was talking about Musk. I haven’t seen quantitative analysis of the relative degree of free speech on the platform. I don’t necessarily think it needs to be a free speech platform, as I have said on numerous occasions. And that applies the same to pre-Musk Twitter as it does to X.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom