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

Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#441

Post by cwkoss »

cbeach wrote: post #365

I find it really distracting that the mainstream media writes about Musk in such derisive style. Do journalists find him threatening in some way? Do the leftwing-dominated media resent him for supporting Republicans? Do they think we’re not smart enough to critically appraise Musk ourselves?

It is fashionable to dislike Elon, and many people who call themselves journalists have been coasting for the past 6 years by simply saying whatever is in fashion with little or no investigation. Twitter was the primary seat of that power, so change of twitter is perceived as a threat to their cultural relevance.

There are also a lot of good reasons to dislike Elon. But the media groupthink you're identifying lies mostly in this, IMO.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#442

Post by jackblemming »

koonsolo wrote: post #388

I was a big Elon Musk fanboy for what he was able to accomplish on both Tesla and SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "save humanity". I ignored the crazy things he said on twitter. I think his accomplishments overshadowed his less favorable behavior. But after his tweets about Ukraine, it really started to dawn on me that his "save humanity" was not really save humanity, but ju…

You typically don't become a billionaire unless you choose "whatever makes the most money" as the default choice.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#443

Post by theginger »

bambax wrote: post #353

The reason why Musk eventually bought Twitter, when he did, and at the price he paid, was to avoid having to testify under oath in the lawsuit against him. He was going to be deposed, exposed, and in the end he was also going to lose and suffer the indignity of having to pay a high price for something he fiercely said he didn't want anymore. Better bite the bullet earlier than later. Now that doesn't explain why he w…

I think he has handed people enough rope to hang themselves. It is now very clear if those figures were dodgy the deal was off so everyone involved knew the stakes were incredibly high. He now has access to all the data, all the communications and all the time he wants to prove his case. If it turns out twitter has been misleading everyone then it just takes 1 or 2 people threatened with criminal charges to make deals and everyone turns on everyone and it all collapses with enough evidence for many lawsuits to claw back money. If the evidence isn't there because they didn't mislead anyone then that's also fine, he agreed a fair deal at the time based on accurate information.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#444

Post by ceejayoz »

leobg wrote: post #428
bambax wrote: post #353

The reason why Musk eventually bought Twitter, when he did, and at the price he paid, was to avoid having to testify under oath in the lawsuit against him. He was going to be deposed, exposed, and in the end he was also going to lose and suffer the indignity of having to pay a high price for something he fiercely said he didn't want anymore. Better bite the bullet earlier than later. Now that doesn't explain why he w…

He said exactly why he bought Twitter. Yet you dismiss his reasons out of hand. Don’t even mention them in your analysis. And presents this theory of a very reactive, fearful personality who is motivated by money and has little vision for the future. (People will agree with you. Because the question they ask is: “How is Elon Musk a smaller person than I am?”. They ask that not because they want to understand. But bec…

> He said exactly why he bought Twitter.

He's said any number of things that are either not true or at least misleading over the years. Taking tweets at complete face value with Musk is... unwise.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#445

Post by mark_l_watson »

I have what is probably an unpopular opinion. I would like to see two things happen:

1. more people use and support by generating content platforms like Mastodon where there is some expectation of privacy and openness. I like Mastodon.

2. I also like Twitter, and I would like to see it a more self regulated platform, with some form of effective real ID, probably charging $1 to $2 dollars a month for its use. This might reduce the number of bots, or not. I am also in favor of allowing people I very much disagree with to be on the platform, with some form of no hate speech moderation. EDIT: and no doxing, etc.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#446

Post by dathinab »

koonsolo wrote: post #388

I was a big Elon Musk fanboy for what he was able to accomplish on both Tesla and SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "save humanity". I ignored the crazy things he said on twitter. I think his accomplishments overshadowed his less favorable behavior. But after his tweets about Ukraine, it really started to dawn on me that his "save humanity" was not really save humanity, but ju…

> SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "save humanity".

One think I which people would realize more is that you can't "safe humanity" by populating mars or anything like that.

Even if earth becomes extremely hostile due to climate change, or lets say a catastrophic event like it killed the Dinos it would still be docents if not even hundred of times easier to live on earth then on mars.

Just to double down on it. It is even true if every single tree on earth burned down, the equator regions are frequently over 100C, the oceans are completely dead and no mice can survive on the surface. Even then it would not only be simpler to survive on earth then on mars it also would still be much much more easy to make earth livable again the it would be to do so with Mars...

Or in other words geo-forming/(long term, self sustainable, growable populating) Mars is technologically so far away that implementing faster then light traveling might turn out easier. It's _that_ hard. And SpaceX at most contributes to getting there and nothing more. And sure you have to start at some point. But SpaceX never was about saving humanity it always was about making money. And what provides reliably more money then getting state investment for rockets for a mars mission?

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#448

Post by merely-unlikely »

maxerickson wrote: post #390
julianeon wrote: post #57

In the spirit of trying to be high-information and add value: Where Musk is going, there are no maps. So it's very very hard to project. But we can predict likely developments. At a very high level, it's going to involve: bringing back controversial personalities like Donald Trump; increasing Twitter's commitment to 'free speech'; assuaging skittish advertisers; retaining users who might be concerned, while bringing…

What if he just loses a big pile of money while Twitter twists in the wind because there isn't much of a plan? That seems likely enough really.

If that's the case, it won't be so different from when Twitter was run as a public co.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#449

Post by caeril »

dragontamer wrote: post #380
bambax wrote: post #353

The reason why Musk eventually bought Twitter, when he did, and at the price he paid, was to avoid having to testify under oath in the lawsuit against him. He was going to be deposed, exposed, and in the end he was also going to lose and suffer the indignity of having to pay a high price for something he fiercely said he didn't want anymore. Better bite the bullet earlier than later. Now that doesn't explain why he w…

> If he can simply wait for Twitter to be worth as much as he paid for it, so that he can sell it again and cover his losses, that will be a fairly good outcome. This is a leveraged buyout. That means that $13 Billion was borrowed from Morgan Stanley to make this deal happen, and Twitter is the owner of that debt. Estimates are ~$1.3 Billion / year in interest payments (the most risky $3 Billion is unsecured loans, e…

Firing 1000 engineers who contribute very little value at a total comp of $300-400k will make a meaningful dent in opex.

Eliminating the draconian content moderation policies and reinstating high-engagement accounts ought to boost revenue.

I think you're largely correct that this is a bad deal for Musk, but I doubt it will be quite as bad as it seems, when restructuring is completed.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#450

Post by HWR_14 »

skohan wrote: post #174
mooreds wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think he understands that, as indicated by https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728 That doesn't sound like someone burning Twitter to the ground. Also, many are acting like Musk has free rein in running the company. Yes and no. Beyond needing employees to actually run the thing, he also has loans to pay back ($13B!) and investors to maintain good relationships with. More on that here: https…

It's a good sentiment, but he kind of has to say that right? He just spent $44B taking this company private, if advertisers flee and it starts running at a substantial loss, it could mean financial ruin for him

He only has $24 billion at risk. I mean, he has a lot of his reputation invested, but only $24 billion in actual dollars. The rest is from other investors and debt that the Twitter company itself (and not Musk) actually has.
Post reply on HN