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

Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#241

Post by molticrystal »

Just to verify that I understood the concept I looked up the definition of "hostile takeover" from various places, its common theme is taking over a company without approval of the board.

The actual offer states [0]:

>As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.

Which means he is asking for approval, which seems to contradict the headline and the quote from Mirabaud Equity Research which was used to make the headline more sensational as they were quoted saying “This becomes a hostile takeover offer which is going to cost a serious amount of cash”.

If the board disapproves of the offer and he acquires a larger stake of ownership, that would be more inline with what a hostile takeover is.

[0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#242

Post by TimPC »

Twitter and Facebook should either be forced to accept regulation around banning and denial of access to their content or should be forced to remove accounts of government officials and government utilities. It’s somehow become the defacto standard that government can release updates on social media at faster rates than any other channel of communication that they use and that people can be banned from accessing that communication. I think it’s disingenuous to say Twitter is not a public utility given the way it is used by government offices and politicians to communicate. Especially given the way Twitter had actively worked to facilitate that.

Barring a legal requirement for government to share all information to citizens on other channels at the same pace as they do on Twitter, being banned from Twitter prevents access to information that one is legally entitled to. That is clearly unacceptable.

I think Twitter should be able to moderate content as a private entity. But they’ve knowingly created a situation where outright banning is a powder keg and I feel like they’ve mostly lost the right to do so. They should have a good case for making accounts read only but they are definitely causing huge problems when they ban someone.

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#243

Post by tailspin2019 »

As much as I very much admire the output of Elon's various ventures, I'm not sure of the value of this move, either for him or Twitter.

I think Twitter often brings out the worst of his character (or perhaps "reveals"?)

I wonder if he might be too emotionally invested in how Twitter operates for this to be a good move, given his numerous Twitter-led controversies. I worry about the motivations behind him trying to do this.

But I could be wrong. And to be fair, I can think of worse owners...

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#244

Post by themitigating »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #105

From observing various internet forums, including this one, I noticed that people from the "first world" countries don't know the value of free speech and often take it for granted. Sometimes even coming to such views as "free speech is dangerous" and that "we should limit free speech" (by blocking the views I don't like). Understand this: limits on free speech are far more dangerous to society than allowing fringe e…

did this transition happen because extremists were able to spread their ideas?

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#246

Post by shmageggy »

motohagiography wrote: post #222

Imo, he's taking responsibility. If as an individual you can deploy the most money in the world, what do you do with it? Twitter became a negative-sum game of people competing to debase themselves in service of narrative in exchange for nothing but the approval of others who had already done the same. Unlocking that negative cycle can release a lot of captive value for everyone. The best way to do that is to connect…

> I remember Musk offered to solve world hunger but the NGO people who said they could do it flaked when (pen in hand) he offered to cut them a cheque.

I hadn't heard about this, but looking it up now, it seems that your account isn't accurate. According to these articles he asked the UN to detail how they would spend the money and they did.

https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-solve-world-hunger

https://fortune.com/2022/02/15/elon-musk-5-7-billion-donatio...

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#247

Post by HeckFeck »

ss108 wrote: post #58

> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial I don't think we have evidence to support this. Pursuant to the last major thread on the topic, I was thinking further about it, and realized that the vast majority of progress civilization has made has been under conditions much more regulated in terms of which ideas may propagate. We've never had a situation where fake news can and does spread the way it does t…

> The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it.

Who will decide which speech will be forbidden, and on what basis will the decision be made? How accountable will this person or body be, and to whom? Will it work transparently or in secret?

How will it enforce its decisions? Who will be bound by them? What punishment will be appropriate for those who utter forbidden words?

The praciticalities of censorship-enforcement are as nightmarish as the "ethical" arguments for it.

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#248

Post by bambax »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #105

From observing various internet forums, including this one, I noticed that people from the "first world" countries don't know the value of free speech and often take it for granted. Sometimes even coming to such views as "free speech is dangerous" and that "we should limit free speech" (by blocking the views I don't like). Understand this: limits on free speech are far more dangerous to society than allowing fringe e…

In most of Europe, the governments regulate free speech, and it works okay.

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#249

Post by thepasswordis »

Can anybody make a good argument as to why Twitter (in its current form) isn’t a major detriment to society?

If Twitter poofed out of existence today, it would be a major win for this planet. People talk about a frightening future with a human hostile AI that wants to destroy humanity. That exists, it’s twitter.

Elon buying it, even if he runs it into the ground is a good thing. Getting rid of some of the hostile AI is a good thing.

Re: Elon Musk makes $43B unsolicited bid to take Twitter private

#250

Post by HPsquared »

TimPC wrote: post #242

Twitter and Facebook should either be forced to accept regulation around banning and denial of access to their content or should be forced to remove accounts of government officials and government utilities. It’s somehow become the defacto standard that government can release updates on social media at faster rates than any other channel of communication that they use and that people can be banned from accessing that…

If this was enacted, they'd probably just change the effect of a ban such that banned users can view "utility" / "government" content (but no other?)

Also, can't unregistered users see that information anyway?

Post reply on HN