Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 2:42 PM UTC

Ferrotin wrote: post #38

elicash wrote: post #13

He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor, and the same day joined the board after discussion that had been in the works for weeks. This is strike two on misleading investors. I haven't seen analysis on whether it was illegal, but I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board even if it succeeded in keeping him from buying up more stock. With him on the outside, maybe he causes more trouble than on th…

Shareholders like him on the board, and they would be even happier if he were running the company, because an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable.

Post by freshpots » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 2:42 PM UTC

Overtonwindow wrote: post #49

Ferrotin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders like him on the board, and they would be even happier if he were running the company, because an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable.

More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices. Twitter has become a liberal vacuum that, as a liberal, has gone way too far to the left in silencing voices. It's not a private company, it's a public company, and I hope Elon turns it around into a true, free speech town square, instead of just an echo chamber for blue checks.

Post by ariedro » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

jdrc wrote: post #95

rednerrus wrote: post #89

I know it's not popular but I like the fact that he's annoyed and did something about it.

I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never ends well

Post by sorry_outta_gas » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #67

bmitc wrote: post #31

I am beyond tired of billionaires, who get to treat companies, public sentiment, and politics, and thus a fair portion of government and policy, as their personal sandbox. Greed and oligarchy are ruining America.

Agreed but I'm not sure how we can change it at this point. Our lives in the US are way too good for revolution. This move by him is strictly about not letting Twitter ever block his accounts. He can pump & dump and mislead investors for billions that will make him a lot more money than his Twitter stake cost.

Post by incomingpain » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #83

incomingpain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment actually applies to Twitter right? Without Section 230 Twitter would be liable for every evil thing that is said on their platform. What Section 230 does is create a category in which you are not liable for the content on the platform but they specifically setup limited rules for what can be censored. A…

You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it does is allow companies to do some moderation without legally liable as publishers for all content they host. Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by removing the liability that moderation would bring in an offline context.