Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon has decided not to join our board

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 542 posts

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#281

Post by PixyMisa »

mike_d wrote: post #216
Consultant32452 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this was a polite way of saying they couldn't agree on terms of his board position. For example, he would probably have been restricted on the kinds of tweets he could make. He recently started a poll asking if he should turn Twitter HQ into a homeless shelter because so few people show up. They would certainly not want him doing that if he's on the board.

There is no agreement on terms. As a member of the board you are required by law to always do and say what is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. Someone probably sat him down and explained that he doesn't hold a majority of voting shares at Twitter, and that the company and other investors wouldn't put up with his shit. With a 75% majority, the other shareholders could vote to nullify his shar…

> With a 75% majority, the other shareholders could vote to nullify his shares and make them worthless.

The SEC would be extremely interested in such an attempt.

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#282

Post by dragonwriter »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #117
dragonwriter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those beliefs occurred at different times (one is past tense, one is present tense.) And only two significant events are cited as happening between them: a background check and Elon deciding not to join the board. Either the basis of the change in belief is “whatever Elon wants is best”, that implies a background check problem.

Or that the CEO always believes what the majority share holder believes at the time they hold that belief.

Musk is not majority shareholder.

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#283

Post by bloqs »

mlindner wrote: post #266
DoctorOW wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comment isn't referring to spam bots, but the bot networks used for astroturfing.

The "bot networks used for astroturfing" are a much used fiction of pro-Musk and anti-Musk people alike. They basically don't exist. Upvote bot networks exist certainly however.

There is plenty of evidence they do, can you prove the contrary?

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#284

Post by basisword »

drusepth wrote: post #267
basisword wrote: post #218

Not a surprise if you’ve read any of Musk’s tweets this past weeks. He sounds unhinged. He’s like Kanye West. Occasionally says and does great things but more often than not is tweeting nonsense that could damage the company/brand. You cannot have a board member polling users as to whether or not HQ should be converted to a refugee for the homeless. The uncertainty and stress nonsense like that must cause for employe…

>You cannot have a board member polling users as to whether or not HQ should be converted to a refugee for the homeless. Other companies have successfully introduced homeless shelters into their office space; it's not necessarily a wild or bad idea. There's probably an important distinction to make here in that the trolly poll was (likely) disingenuous, which is the real issue wrt representing the company, rather tha…

I think that even if the poll is genuine the issue is polling users of the product before you have spoken to your employees.

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#285

Post by mlindner »

dmix wrote: post #164

> Actually the strange thing about Musk’s 9.2% stake is that he disclosed it on Schedule 13G, which suggests that he is not planning to do activism or join the board. The ordinary way to disclose an activist stake of more than 5% of a company is a Schedule 13D; you are eligible to use the shorter and less informative 13G only if you have “not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect, of changing o…

Your information is out of date. He submitted a 13D later.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922...

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#286

Post by DoctorOW »

mlindner wrote: post #266
DoctorOW wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comment isn't referring to spam bots, but the bot networks used for astroturfing.

The "bot networks used for astroturfing" are a much used fiction of pro-Musk and anti-Musk people alike. They basically don't exist. Upvote bot networks exist certainly however.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246561/

> Here we analyze 14 million messages spreading 400 thousand articles on Twitter during ten months in 2016 and 2017. We find evidence that social bots played a disproportionate role in spreading articles from low-credibility sources. Bots amplify such content in the early spreading moments, before an article goes viral.

I would also be interested in finding more studies that relate to what percentage of scientific research Americans thoughtlessly write off as "fiction" and the corresponding media diets.

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#287

Post by sillysaurusx »

nickysielicki wrote: post #245
perihelions wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- "CEO of Twitter has posted an image of text (from the iOS Notes app?)" At least he made the effort to include accessible alt-text. (Interestingly, the accessible text differs *slightly* from the picture-of-text version -- different draft revisions? Even social media CEO's don't seem comfortable with this workflow). edit: here's a diff with highlighting: https://i.imgur.com/R9wf2H5.png I'm relying on Verge's transcr…

These are widely different tones and messages, if you have the other for context. Especially the bit about how “we’re still in control”. Seems obvious that a takeover is imminent.

Oh wow. I was honestly annoyed the conversation was a tangent about alt text. Then you all found evidence that he withdrew for takeover reasons. Time to eat some humble pie. (I also have blind friends, and suddenly feel terrible about diminishing the importance of alt text.)

What an interesting mistake. There must have been three or four messages. I wonder if the CEO acted alone or as a part of a team.

Talk about “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#288

Post by smsm42 »

polski-g wrote: post #268
smt88 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An optimistic would think that Elon had enough self-awareness to realize it would be an overall distraction for Twitter with little benefit. Assuming Musk did take over Twitter, he wouldn't need to be much of a distraction. He could dictate a few rules (don't moderate Twitter, don't ban anyone, etc.) and then leave the company to function as it did before. I think what he doesn't realize is that reducing moderation…

So he wants to return it to 2014 Twitter? Oh the humanity!

TBH I'd be also fine with returning to 2004 Twitter.

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#289

Post by outsomnia »

braingenious wrote: post #135

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?!

If you look at it in the context of Musk 2024 you should probably care about it, given what trump did with twitter.

Re: Elon has decided not to join our board

#290

Post by londons_explore »

voidfunc wrote: post #39
axg11 wrote: post #9

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…

My bet is on the plan to purchase more of Twitter until it is all his. Honestly, he's probably a better suitor or steward for Twitter than any of the other dreck they've run out there since 2014.

Being on the board would also prevent him starting a competing service right?
Post reply on HN