371–380 of 542 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would those changes be outside the FTC's "comfort zone"? I am also confused. Perhaps foregoign Ad-tech revenue would be against the supposed fiduciary duty?
That's really only an issue if enough of the shareholders decide to sue or you're straight up abusing your position (i.e. embezzling). Otherwise, you can always make some stuff up about it being a long-term strategy. But, fundamentally, making a bad call isn't a violation of fiduciary duty (unless there's documents saying you know it will tank beforehand and you do it anyway).
Reading between the lines and the PR speak a little bit: 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 fo…
To my ear, the most simple reading is (1) the board seat came with conditions (2) Elon didn't accept them.
Twitter management undoubtedly has unresolved tensions, tense status quos, factions...
As always with online forums, anyone hitched to the "free speech absolutist" wagon loses eventually. That clears the way for the other camps to gain influence.
Elon's stock purchase has already upended truces, created a rally within previously defeated camps and a circling of wagons within previously superior camps. These are probably where the conditions came from.
Great drama.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are fixes to this though. Limit the time the tweet is editable, and postpone publishing tweets until that timer has run out. Or show a history of what the post has looked like.
Or just make edit button append text at below tweet, immediately visible in contrast to next tweet in chain.
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…
An optimist would think he's going to take it over. Look at his track record. Tesla and SpaceX are industry defining achievements. Fixing Twitter isn't as hard as that.
Current evidence suggests Musk is both capable of building industry defining electric car and space tech companies and incapable of "fixing" his own tweets to the extent that they stop getting him into trouble and losing him board seats.
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…
Companies are beholden to shareholders, by law. Such is the way of public companies without founder super voting shares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
What do the employees have to do with it? The company serves the shareholders, not employees.
Is it ironic that a text image is used by Twitter to bypass character limits on a post? This has to be a usability nightmare for differently abled people.
There is decent alt text on the image, but I can’t speak to how well Twitter works with a screen reader in order to access it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in online forums, people seem to think "fiduciary duties" are much stricter than they actually are. It's as if CEOs are dragged into a fiduciary court and forced to justify raising salaries, lowering prices or whatnot. Irl, fiduciary duty is more about not stealing or cheating shareholders. There isn't a whole lot of legal activity where officers are sued for grey area fiduciary violations.
"In the U.S. legal system, a fiduciary duty describes a relationship between two parties that obligates one to act solely in the interest of the other. The party designated as the fiduciary owes a legal duty to a principal, and strict care must be taken to ensure that no conflict of interest arises between the fiduciary and the principal." Musk could never put someone elses interests ahead of his own. Impossible.
Look at actual example/precedents of fiduciary duty vuilatuons. The real ones. Not the pseudo-legal theory.
So many people are freaking out over Elon Musk's involvement in Twitter, but it's really not a big deal: 1. 10% is not enough to force the CEO to force the developers to implement obviously bad functionality. An edit button is a sensible thing, a button to delete the tweets of other people is obviously a bad thing. They aren't going to drop the 'w' from Twitter just because he says so. Get a grip on reality. 2. The s…
The whole country is second order twitter users due to the popular media relying on it extensively as the source of significant amounts of their "reporting".