191–200 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter has operated for 16 years and public for about 10, explosive growth of their userbase is in their past and monetization strategies have already been implemented for years. There is no reason to believe it has the potential for such growth.
Then why were they holding the stock the day before Musk got involved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Correct. Hence the term poison pill. Now nobody else will be interested…
>Woke means broke I guess. That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered. It's also very well possible that after talking to Elon through private conversations that you were not part of, they fundamentally disagree with his value and the direction he wants…
Who would believe that? They’ve had years to prove it and as they stock market has doubled in value their stock has been cut in half.
Share holders should sue. It’s time to trick their world and either drive the stock price to a few bucks or force then board to do their fiduciary responsibility and sell the company.
It’s a great offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Woke means broke I guess. That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered. It's also very well possible that after talking to Elon through private conversations that you were not part of, they fundamentally disagree with his value and the direction he wants…
I for one prefer that my communication-medium not have "values". For obvious reasons.
>that my communication-medium
Twitter is first and foremost a publishing platform, you should not rely on it as a private communication medium. None of the chat apps I know censor stuff, so use them instead.
Use Twitter for public communication if you want, but since it's in the public domain you can't complain too much if there is content moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Woke means broke I guess. That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered. It's also very well possible that after talking to Elon through private conversations that you were not part of, they fundamentally disagree with his value and the direction he wants…
> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Correct. Hence the term poison pill. Now nobody else will be interested…
He can buy one of those other competitors used by right-wing folks. Hell, if "free speech" is so important to him and to everyone else he wants to rescue he can just tweet to use those other platforms. It's certainly cheaper.
And then the board and executive get sued for failing to maximize shareholder value. It's literally a violation of federal law.
I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Vanguard, for example, has just had its range of further investment lim…
I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Correct. Hence the term poison pill. Now nobody else will be interested…
Their stock price was over $70 in the trailing 12 months.
Even with Elon's offer they are still worth 10 NFL teams combined.
I can find zero credible evidence to support your position. Please short the stock :)
I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Vanguard, for example, has just had its range of further investment lim…
I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Correct. Hence the term poison pill. Now nobody else will be interested…
b) Twitter's stock price is now $45, peaked at $77 only last year and is profitable. Not sure where you get this ridiculous idea the company is unsellable.
c) There are plenty of free speech competitors to Twitter. None are even remotely successful. Because as Reddit also showed far more people want a moderated experience more than those that don't. And Twitter is a business first and foremost.
d) Musk is offering shareholders a premium as the stock is today. But as I mentioned even just last year it was significantly higher. And so I can't imagine shareholders would have an issue about them turning it down if they believed Twitter was still continuing to head in the right direction as it is now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They'll need to pay taxes on the realized gains The bulk of the holders of stock in most public companies are institutional investors that don't need to pay taxes on the realized gains.
Why don't they pay taxes on realized gains?
The private analogy is a professional gambler. You don't pay taxes for winnings on each bet. You pay taxes on what you have cashed out at the end of the year.
Tax on individual sales is only a thing for individuals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people…
>Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? No. But you immediately made this into a Camp A vs. Camp B problem when in reality there could be a million different reasons for the Twitter board to not want to get acquired means you weren't trying to discuss this specific situation, you were looking to turn this into a debate on "wokeness". That's why I said you weren't discussing in good…
Up to you to take him at his word however he has stated otherwise.
"It's important to the function of democracy, it's important to the function of the united states as a free country and on many other countries and actually to help freedom in the world more broadly than the US.
You know I think this there's the risk, civilizational risk, uh is decreased if twitter, the more we can increase the trust of twitter as a public platform and so I do think this will be somewhat painful and I'm not sure that I will actually be able to to acquire it.
I mean I could technically afford it um what I'm saying is this is not a way to sort of make money you know..
It's just that I think, my strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization"