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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#511

Post by cmh89 »

sosodev wrote: post #137
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…

I'm very skeptical of the idea that Twitter can become a place where people discuss things with civility. It seems like the mechanics of the conversation encourage outrage.

Civil discussion requires decorum and rules, and Musk and other conservatives view those as "censorship".

It's the same reason none of the reddit clones have ever taken off, turns out most people don't want to participate in a virtual space free of censorship because it just turns into a cesspool

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#512

Post by qwertox »

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…

Let's assume he makes Neuralink happen in the sense of really giving a locked-in person the ability to communicate in real words and sentences.

He now has the network to connect those people directly to the rest of the world, under his umbrella. Sure, he could have just used (old) Twitter's API, and that's what he'll be using, but it won't be "we (as in 'Neuralink') and Twitter made this happen", but "we (my companies)" made this happen.

I also wonder how useful Twitter's infrastructure could be for machine-to-machine communication, where he certainly could have some uses for it with Tesla and Starlink.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#513

Post by pie_flavor »

chamakits wrote: post #161

I understand that he has been publicly combative with all the executives; but is it a practical to fire all those key executives right away? Specially, do they not contain any specifically useful knowledge or experience that you should make an attempt at creating a collaborative transition? Is this how these kinds of acquisitions of public companies happen? Isn’t this effectively freezing all significant activities f…

Elon started out thinking he could work with these people, and then as he prepared to join the board, rapidly became disillusioned, and became convinced that they had no idea what was good for Twitter and the only exec who ever did was Jack. I would recommend looking at some of the text exchanges between Elon and Parag/Jack, they've been published and talked about pretty much everywhere, if you want to understand the vibe shift that basically guaranteed this would be his first act.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#514

Post by boplicity »

fleddr wrote: post #489

As for free speech vs censorship, a lot of people think in absolutes. It should be absolutely possible or impossible to say this thing. And this particular individual should be banned or not. What I think is far more important is the level of amplification. Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game. Twitter rewards the…

This is exactly what good moderation can help with -- promote thoughtful and reasonable content, while making sure that inflammatory commentary gets less attention. I've run an online forum for over a decade; it's not that hard, really, to encourage thoughtful participation, with the right type of leadership.

See what dang wrote:

> please don't post low-information, high-indignation comments, such as flamebait or ideological battle. We want thoughtful, curious conversation on HN.

The problem is that big social media is so large and "open" that they don't want to have any community leadership.

Who is setting the tone on Twitter, or any major social network? Who is acting as a leader, both enforcing quality commentary, and also setting a good example? Nobody. I doubt this will change.

Smaller communities, such as HN, are where we can have reasonable discussion.

A good correllary: many local city council meetings, where almost anyone can have a chance to talk. They're not pretty. But at least the decision makers are there (and held accountable), and limits are set.

Creating an environment where good discourse can thrive is hard. It's like fighting entropy. You can do it. But it's an uphill battle.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#515

Post by [deleted] »

fleddr wrote: post #489

As for free speech vs censorship, a lot of people think in absolutes. It should be absolutely possible or impossible to say this thing. And this particular individual should be banned or not. What I think is far more important is the level of amplification. Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game. Twitter rewards the…

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#516

Post by baggy_trough »

boplicity wrote: post #514
fleddr wrote: post #489

As for free speech vs censorship, a lot of people think in absolutes. It should be absolutely possible or impossible to say this thing. And this particular individual should be banned or not. What I think is far more important is the level of amplification. Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game. Twitter rewards the…

This is exactly what good moderation can help with -- promote thoughtful and reasonable content, while making sure that inflammatory commentary gets less attention. I've run an online forum for over a decade; it's not that hard, really, to encourage thoughtful participation, with the right type of leadership. See what dang wrote: > please don't post low-information, high-indignation comments, such as flamebait or ide…

I set the tone for my feed by choosing who to follow. I then want to see whatever they have to say in chronological order. If I don't like somebody's comments, I stop following them. Why do I need anyone else to interfere with this process?

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#517

Post by [deleted] »

fleddr wrote: post #489

As for free speech vs censorship, a lot of people think in absolutes. It should be absolutely possible or impossible to say this thing. And this particular individual should be banned or not. What I think is far more important is the level of amplification. Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game. Twitter rewards the…

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#518

Post by majani »

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…

This isn't just a white elephant, that title belongs to projects like the unfinished Dubai islands, which "only" cost about $8b. A forced purchase worth $44b for a company that's lost up to $1.5b in a year is a sword of Damocles hanging one inch over Elon's head. It has a very good chance of sinking him financially.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#519

Post by Natsu »

fleddr wrote: post #489

As for free speech vs censorship, a lot of people think in absolutes. It should be absolutely possible or impossible to say this thing. And this particular individual should be banned or not. What I think is far more important is the level of amplification. Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game. Twitter rewards the…

> Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game.

I was just thinking the same thing, that the attention economy is incentivizing people to overdraft their 'weirdness points' [1]

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/weirdness-points

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#520

Post by tasuki »

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 said he was buying it because there were too many bots. Then he said he was not gonna buy it because there were too many bots.

Post reply on HN