Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read what Musk says now or years ago he actually is very much for moderation, but not censorship or banning people of the platform. In a way Musk is for something similar to HN point system.
HN is a bad analogy because it has a lot of invisible moderation tools used by the all-powerful moderators, including: - banning - shadow-banning - deleting offensive messages - detaching off-topic threads The only difference with HN is that their rules are different. Everything else is very similar to Twitter.
Elon has decided not to join our board
521–530 of 542 posts
Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't he take out a loan using his Tesla stock as collateral, and use that to fund a purchase of Twitter? That way he'd avoid selling any stock (and having to pay taxes on the sale), although he'd have to somehow fund the interest payments on the loan (which could be done through smaller stock sales, which would incur taxes, but he'd still pay less tax selling to fund the interest than selling to fund the principa…
Rich people do this to buy yachts and sports cars (for I dunno, tens of millions), but borrowing $15 billion? I'm kinda skeptical any banks would bite here. The collateral would be a huge portion of his Tesla stock, enough that a crash in TSLA could put the whole loan at risk.
Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#523Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an entrepreneur, I’ve been following Elon’s progress going back to when he sold zip2. It became evident he was an outlier when his new company merged with then sold PayPal and so I’ve been following him closely since that time - I don’t think there is an interview of his I haven’t watched. Adding all those up, it’s probably over 60 hours of interviews over a roughly 20 year timeline. It’s not just the hours of int…
> he doesn’t give a rats ass about money or profit Is that why he keeps lying on Twitter that SEC has had to go after him?
Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#525Maybe he was going to fail the background check? But that is curious.
You don't "fail" a background check at that level. They get whatever info is in it and decide on what to do about it, I guess. But the decision as to whether to put a 9% shareholder on the board or not is clearly not going to be left to random bureaucratic process. And let's be honest: if the world's richest man had dirt in his past that a mere "background check" would turn up, we'd clearly already know about it.
"And let's be honest: if the world's richest man had dirt in his past that a mere "background check" would turn up, we'd clearly already know about it. "
Exactly. I just find it laudable there's an established process to bring someone on the board and it involves a background check!
Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, the currencies that are built on "trust-less networks" and are resistant to government interferences. But a single person can manipulate the entire currency with some tweets and a bit of capital. cool cool cool. Did Elon profit from that? i.e. He bought at the bottom and sold at the top? Or did he lose along with everyone else in the "dump" phase? Bitcoin: You don't have to trust anyone... except Elon.
> Did Elon profit from that? i.e. He bought at the bottom and sold at the top? That same quarter, Tesla reported almost $500 million in realized capital gains on BTC. And Elon owns Tesla stock. The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#527Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#528Re: Elon has decided not to join our board
#529Earlier 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…