No. I wouldn't. I don't think any platform like Twitter should be owned by a single person or entity regardless of their opinions or politics. It will lead nowhere good and it's certainly not in the best interest of the platform itself.
Look you can doom and gloom all day but any improvement is better than no improvement. If his involvement ignites a positive change in Twitter why shouldn't he profit from it?
I think he sees profit in it. I also think Elon is wired differently in that he wants to flex on his haters. I don't think he'll get satisfaction from "free speech restoration" but I think he will knowing he caused people he doesn't like and who don't like him lose sleep at night. And I'm not even talking about random users, but journalists and reporters of publications who take shots at him every chance they get. Causing them to meltdown would be worth every penny to Elon.
My opinion is that it's more of a PR thing and an ego thing with profit being the measure of how well he did. He wants to thumb his nose at the people who he doesn't like and doesn't like him. He is just doing it under the cover of "free speech" to score points.
Exactly. 100% this.
He mentioned that very SEC rule on the talk today.
He acquires an influential platform he uses every day if the bid succeeds, and he makes PR gains as a free speech advocate if the bid fails. Either is more valuable to him than <$1 billion.
I didn't say 'free speech', I said 'in a direction more favourable to the right', reflecting the concern I'm seeing on left-leaning sites that a Musk-controlled Twitter would start purging left-wing opinion. My point is about the hypocrisy of people who celebrate perceived censorship on one side, then become aggrieved when they fear that same censorship might fall on them. I did not say free speech was a left or right value, as the present right are just as guilty as the present left, albeit with the left providing the most pertinent example in this case.This is where we are doomed if we don't wise up.
Free speech is now a platform "of the right," when it used to be a platform for all 10+ years ago outside the extreme fringes nobody paid attention to other than to point and laugh at.
I would add to what you said. I think he makes PR gains whether he succeeds or fails. I also think Tesla gets a few more customers from people who might have previously looked at just a couple of more "traditional" US car companies from the PR regardless.
Free speech is considered hate speech to the regime in control of Twitter.
But he is advocating for the values we once held prior to the extreme Overton shifting the past 10 years. If you are not corelating that as being "more favorable to the right" then why even mention that?
Again, irrelevant to the issue raised.
Forgive me but I know nothing about finance. Does this mean he will try and buy more shares in a takeover attempt?
True. The numbers may not have as much personal value to him as the things you listed though I will concede that.
So explain, what you mean "more favorable to the right".
I don't want to catch a ban for politics so all I will say is that his proposals on paper would fling open the doors of misinformation and "alternative facts". Which obviously helps both sides of the political spectrum, but it helps the right in particular given their recent history.
I was interested in those as well.
I think what he means is a lot of people are projecting their behavior onto EM because they cannot fathom the possibility they were the bad actors all along, and the same people now assume that the roles will be reversed because they cannot accept that the roles should never have existed in the first place. It's pretty much impossible for the mob to believe that live and let live, or defend the right to say it, are actual beliefs that people still hold.
"The left" isn't the harbinger of facts and non-misinformation either. So again, what is "more favorable to the right" other than fair practices to both?
Correct.
It just means if the offer is accepted he has already secured the finances needed with other parties. Elon is filthy rich but he doesn't have that kind of Cash on hand. It's tied up in his stocks.
Lmao bruh, the left has outright ignored, buried, banned, or fabricated MAJOR stories that would have influence in our politics, and that's just the last couple years.
I have already covered on how I think money is not the only driving force behind this for Elon.
We're still on the same page. None of us can really say what EM believes in his heart. I believe he is genuine but my belief does not equal fact.
If we go back in time before everyone sat around the tv after work, you'd find countless people tinkering away at interesting ideas, some of which would change the world forever. He reminds me of those people, just on a scale that is borderline unfathomable when you see how much wealth he already amassed.
We are in a sad state of society, when one side believes that only the other practices that.
That quite literally happens now on there, innit.
There are limits to the number of shareholders a company can have before they are considered a de facto public company and then subject to all the requirements that a public company must comply with. I think it's 2000 people in the US. Though to be honest Twitter is large enough that I think it would have to comply with a lot of the requirements anyway, but I'm not an expert in this stuff.
You would give precisely zero shits if it was owned by a lefty progressive.
And they own a lot of interests in our MSM and other online media publications as well. To the point where they were funding loss leaders. Things that make you go hmmm.
Quoted for truth.
I don't think the platform can get much worse than its current state.
