151–160 of 542 posts
Serious question: Who cares? I am not trying to make a joke or seem edgy. Literally, what group of people is actually impacted by this by first or second order effects of…whatever the hell this story entails? In other words, this is on the front page of hacker news. Why?!
I hate narcissists grabbing established tech for their own gain.
It’s funny that the first paragraph of the letter says they believed it was best for Elon to join the board. Then the second paragraph says that Elon declined to join the board and they believe it was also for the best.
I have seen worse PR releases, I haven't seen worse PR releases from a company of this size and profile. There is some kind of irony in a communication platform offering a presser that contains so little information and so many words...particularly as the platform limits the number of characters that users can communicate. Really earning that $30m/year. I would fuck up an important press release for half that price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A very odd set of events and no explanation regarding Elon's change of mind. I don't know about the regulatory guidelines which would or would not have barred Elon from exercising any sort of control in the board, but my sources from Twitter are telling me that folks were not happy about the prospect of Elon wanting to change Twitter to be in his image and it's likely this that the higher-ups communicated to Musk a…
Elon's companies have a unique and very different culture in comparison to Twitter. Of course, Elon was not set to be CEO, but to your point, the prospect of "Elon-ification" of Twitter was going to upset a lot of employees. The part I don't get: why is Elon still tweeting ideas for improving Twitter and shaking things up?
Maybe he'll use his influence to replace the board with people who are less politically polarized. Maybe his new board will re-write the charter so he can eventually become CEO.
I don't think this game is over.
It’s funny that the first paragraph of the letter says they believed it was best for Elon to join the board. Then the second paragraph says that Elon declined to join the board and they believe it was also for the best.
The first paragraph applied to the time before they performed the background check. The second paragraph applied to the time after they performed the background check. Uh, oh, Spaghetti-Os!
1. Parag is covering his own ass and making clear that the initial announcement was always contingent on a few things and not a done deal.
2. He is heavily implying that being a fiduciary of the company and having to act in its best interests (including, I imagine, not randomly criticizing it in public or promising non-existent features) was the deal breaker for Elon.
A very odd set of events and no explanation regarding Elon's change of mind. A pessimist would think that Elon has decided to go for a "hostile" takeover since he is no longer bound by the percentage holding cap. An optimistic would think that Elon had enough self-awareness to realize it would be an overall distraction for Twitter with little benefit. It amuses me more than it should that the CEO of Twitter has poste…
Did you mean an optimist?
Was this all calculated stock manipulation? It feels like Musk’s modus operandi: 1: Invest in something, 2: Tweet about it. 3: Grossly violate FTC regulation, 4: profit
If you honestly think Elon cares about money/profit at this point, you don’t know jack about Elon.
Matt Levine on point: Twitter’s relatively new chief executive officer, Parag Agrawal: Welcome, Mr. Musk. We’re so glad that you are our biggest shareholder. We have prepared a presentation showing how we are executing on our strategy of being more technically nimble, building new products and growing revenue and active users. Here on slide 1 you can see— Elon Musk: Make the font bigger when I tweet. Agrawal: What? M…
Serious question: Who cares? I am not trying to make a joke or seem edgy. Literally, what group of people is actually impacted by this by first or second order effects of…whatever the hell this story entails? In other words, this is on the front page of hacker news. Why?!
2. Musk being on the board or not, and his actions re. Twitter in general, will have consequences, especially given that he has unlimited money.
3. Up until recently, the liberal-left was cheering for tech platforms exercising their sovereignty and censoring power: “if you don’t like it, build your own Twitter”. They’re having to eat crow. This has major implications for the future of the political debate on regulations/anti-trust etc.