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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by belter »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #521

So Twitter was at $70 per share a year ago. So what? Jack Dorsey was CEO a year ago, too. The share price was $33 less than a month ago. But, despite an absolutely incredible roller-coaster news cycle, things have been definitely trending down at Twitter ($33/share last month), which was reflected in its share price. The current executive team (and Dorsey) had wasted time focusing on things that didn't matter instead…

A company is not a bag of potatoes in the market to sell at the whims of the highest bidder.

Here is what would be looking after their fiduciary duties:

The company had a loss of 200 million dollars this year. Was only profitable 2 years out of its 16 years of existence. The board should state that Twitter in the hands of Elon Musk, could jeopardize its current unique and somewhat also precarious, place in social media.

The company should ask Elon Musk, to first explain to shareholders what he plans to do with the company, and how it would benefit them. Provide details on shape and form of how his plan would be implemented. Until then, rejecting the offer is looking after their fiduciary duties.

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

#792

Post by Communitivity »

Does anyone else think he is trying to do this so it gets accepted and announced on 4/20?

I worry, because Twitter is a very real outlet for many oppressed people. Matrix technology is good, but nowhere near as widespread or easy to use yet. I worry that Twitter will be bought and Musk turns out to be a far-right or far-left extremist that makes Twitter into a much more biased political platform.

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

#795

Post by paxys »

dm319 wrote: post #643

This thread is hilarious. In the cesspit of a social media website, people accuse Twitter of being a social media cesspit. I've seen people arguing for absolute freedom of speech, except in malicious circumstances, but seem to think that malicious is easy to define. I've seen people ask if there really are any other alternatives to individuals owning huge wealth. Or people saying that doing immoral things is ok if it…

This is exactly what it comes down to.

"I'm a free speech absolutist. Twitter should allow free speech."

So we should allow spam bots shilling Bitcoin scams on every thread? "No, I obviously didn't mean that."

What about obvious phishing attempts promising Nigerian riches? "Those are obviously fake, and we need to keep users safe."

Hardcore pornography? "No, lots of children use the site. Those should be filtered out at least behind some kind of flag."

Explicit threats of violence? Blackmail? "No, all of that is obviously not allowed."

Should I be able to write a script to post a thousand Tweets a second? "No, that strains the infrastructure. There should be a rate limit."

So then we come back to a long list of rules for what should and shouldn't be allowed, and all the absolutism goes out of the window.

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

#797

Post by hintymad »

hintymad wrote: post #546
paganel wrote: post #50

I personally think this is excellent, in the great scheme of things, maybe this will open a real discussion about the real oligarchic nature of the US political and societal life at the top. I mean, with tech titan (and second wealthiest man on the planet) Bezos owning the WaPo, the moment the tech titan (and the wealthiest man on the planet) Musk will put his hands on Twitter hopefully will also be the moment of som…

As much as I don’t like WaPo’s Opinion columns and Twitter’s double standards in content moderation, I don’t think the two companies are puppets of their owners. The staff there have their mostly left-leaning political view point and their own moral standard. I don’t necessarily agree with their view, but it’s their view and their voice nonetheless.

I realized that "left-leaning" is an inaccurate characterization. To me being left means being liberal. To quote wikipedia, "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. " And I subscribe to liberalism.

Twitter and WaPo's staff, sometimes, are nothing but liberal. A liberal wouldn't call anyone who questioned Fauci nazi or anti-science. A liberal wouldn't want to lock someone up or doxx someone just because they criticize Biden government. A liberal wouldn't celebrate the illness of Justice Thomas just because he is a conservative. A liberal wouldn't call someone who criticizes Sharia a xenophobic yet thinks it's totally okay for Khamenei to call for "eradicating" an entire nation and its people. A liberal wouldn't blatantly call Asian parents racists just because they support standard tests and entrance exams by popular schools. A liberal wouldn't call a government Nazi who didn't even try to consolidate power in the pandemic but celebrate another government for consolidating lots of power in the name of handling the pandemic.

Those people do not appear to be liberals. They are radicals.

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

#798

Post by nitestunk »

Communitivity wrote: post #792

Does anyone else think he is trying to do this so it gets accepted and announced on 4/20? I worry, because Twitter is a very real outlet for many oppressed people. Matrix technology is good, but nowhere near as widespread or easy to use yet. I worry that Twitter will be bought and Musk turns out to be a far-right or far-left extremist that makes Twitter into a much more biased political platform.

Twitter is already about as politically biased as they come. Removing its current censorship would improve the platform as an outlet for oppressed people.

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

#800

Post by ksdale »

belter wrote: post #791
gunapologist99 wrote: post #521

So Twitter was at $70 per share a year ago. So what? Jack Dorsey was CEO a year ago, too. The share price was $33 less than a month ago. But, despite an absolutely incredible roller-coaster news cycle, things have been definitely trending down at Twitter ($33/share last month), which was reflected in its share price. The current executive team (and Dorsey) had wasted time focusing on things that didn't matter instead…

A company is not a bag of potatoes in the market to sell at the whims of the highest bidder. Here is what would be looking after their fiduciary duties: The company had a loss of 200 million dollars this year. Was only profitable 2 years out of its 16 years of existence. The board should state that Twitter in the hands of Elon Musk, could jeopardize its current unique and somewhat also precarious, place in social med…

It will be rather difficult for the board to argue that it's satisfying it's fiduciary duty by rejecting an offer with such a high premium so the current shareholders can continue to own a company that's losing money.
Post reply on HN