|
We could only be so lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
If Elon (or anyone else) want to throw his/her money away, that is their privilege. I must say that I don't understand his recent decisions - both his decision to go forward with the Twitter purchase, and his gutting of the company after the purchase.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: decision to go forward with the Twitter purchase,
To be fair, he tried quite hard to back out of the whole deal. But then, after accepting that he couldn't exit, he entered kamikaze-mode.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
modified 29-Nov-22 6:05am.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: both his decision to go forward with the Twitter purchase
He did not want to go through with the purchase. The legal process/Courts were making him honor the contract. He had no choice really.
Now, as I have said before, he is sinking the ship, one way or another. Twitter is finished.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: The legal process/Courts were making him honor the contract
AIUI, there was a clause in the Twitter purchase contract that allowed him to cancel, on payment of a (large) fee. Musk didn't want to go through with the purchase, but also didn't want to pay the cancellation fee. He apparently decided that ownership of Twitter was the lesser of the two evils.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
He mus have had very bad lawyers. At 44 billion, his lawyers should have told him not to by this crock of vaporware...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
You assume he'd've listened to them when it could have mattered.
Elon ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ed himself, because early on when he wanted the deal and Twitter's management was opposed he forced the issue by offering well over the current market price and agreed to waive all due diligence - which otherwise would have allowed him opportunities to find an excuse to say no and make it stick.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
I read an editorial that suggested Musk's plan, since he couldn't back out of the Twitter purchase, was to find evidence of malfeasance on the part of Twitter management, and sue them. While I don't see how he'd recoup $44B from that, this sounds like something he'd do.
Regarding Apple, they are already the target regarding their practices, so Musk may be dog piling. Or maybe he believes there is collusion between the former Twitter management and Apple.
Or Musk may simply have a screw loose.
All of the above are not mutually exclusive. 
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: was to find evidence of malfeasance on the part of Twitter management, and sue them.
The point of that was so he could use it to invalidate the purchase contract because the due diligence would then be fraudulent.
BryanFazekas wrote: they are already the target regarding their practices, so Musk may be dog piling
He just attacks people that do not agree with him.
BryanFazekas wrote: have a screw loose.
Perhaps megalomania.
|
|
|
|
|
Apple's hypocrisy definitely needs to be exposed - Musk is just crazy enough to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Are the lights still on over there??
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Errr... Twitter usage is actually up since Musk took over.
|
|
|
|
|
Ya, but do they have any programmers left to work on it? 
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
No idea if they have enough now... but even the biggest Twitter fanboy has to admit that they were WAY OVER-STAFFED when Musk took over.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with Musk like so many people here apparently do.
I try to live by the mantra of cleaning my doorstep before I clean others. I don't always succeed at this but I do try.
So, you can hate on Musk all you want until your heads explode, or you can chill out, and worry about more important things.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with Musk as a person. And never had.
I do have a problem with the deeds people with enormous power who do bad things. Such as opening the gates to hate speech and misogyny. Such firing people with the "wrong" opinions. And being arrogant about the whole thing.
Most of all, as my original post indicates, I am fairly certain that he is destroying his own fortune. And I do find that interesting, to observe. And if I am wrong, it still is interesting.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: Such as opening the gates to hate speech and misogyny. Such firing people with the "wrong" opinions. And being arrogant about the whole thing.
Those are 3 very interesting sentences all in a row. If you look through the eyes of the 10's of thousands of Twitter accounts "permanently" suspended by the previous regime simply for the mistake of questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks, canceling in-person school or mentioning the contents of a certain person's laptop it takes on a whole different perspective. Just saying...
|
|
|
|
|
At least he drew the line at Alex Jones...
Paul Sanders.
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal.
Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: If you look through the eyes of the 10's of thousands of Twitter accounts "permanently" suspended by the previous regime simply for the mistake of questioning
Rather certain that the bans were put into place after they did it repeatedly and ignored the warnings that twitter sent to them.
So more of a matter of stupidity, ignorance and/or arrogance. On the user's part.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: they did it repeatedly and ignored the warnings that twitter sent to them.
So?
Twitter and Facebook have already admitted that the US DOJ pressured them to advance the official government narratives that COVID did not come from a Chinese lab, masks and social distancing were very effective, lockdowns were essential and safe, children would not be harmed by missing in-person instruction and that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.
Pretty much every one of these narratives has proven to be false yet anyone (including scientists, doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, etc...) who questioned any of these narratives and didn't cow to the US DOJ / Twitter insane censorship was kicked off. Nobody should be OK with this scenario. Nobody!
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: Twitter and Facebook have already admitted that the US DOJ...
Even if true none of what you said has anything to do with what I said.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it does.
When social media (directed by the government and/or political parties) censor public discourse in the US the public will rebel. As they should...
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: censor public discourse in the US
Twitter is not "public discourse".
It is a company.
If someone wants to carry a sign up and down on a public sidewalk then they can. But they don't get to do the same thing inside a store because the store is a company. The company is free to decide what and who has access the store.
That isn't new. Read up on how Hearst used his newspapers.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Twitter is not "public discourse". It is a company.
You're wrong for 3 reasons:
First, and most importantly, as you see in the "Twitter Files" being released over the last few weeks and as I mentioned in my post - the US government (DOJ and others), the DNC and the Biden campaign all had their hands in the process of Twitter's censorship. It wasn't just a company...
Second, due to the scope and ubiquity of modern social media it can easily be argued that their moderation cannot be political in nature. Imagine if cell phone systems (AT&T, Verizon, etc...) decided they would only carry traffic for specific political parties or refused service to specific candidates. Whether you like it or not there are rules in place to stop this and Twitter is not above those rules.
Lastly, all I said was that "people will rebel". Surely you don't think Twitter is some kind of official institution that the general public MUST accept and use... right? We're still allowed to make our own choices... right?
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: First, and most importantly, as you see in the "Twitter Files"
Sigh...and a retail store must a have business license. And they cannot advertise graphic porn in the window even if they want to. And there are many other things they must follow as well.
fgs1963 wrote: Second, due to the scope and ubiquity of modern social media it can easily be argued that their moderation cannot be political in nature
You can desire that. But it is not part of the US Constitution. There is however a way to modify the Constitution so get busy if you feel that is viable.
And it still ignores that my original comment that they were banned after ignoring the policies of the company whose service they were using.
fgs1963 wrote: Lastly, all I said was that "people will rebel"
No you said the following
censor public discourse in the US the public will rebel.
And as I said and continue to say it is not "public".
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
