641–650 of 1001 posts
We've suspended your Twitter account for violating Twitter's rules against attempted hostile takeovers of Twitter.
Your account will remain suspended until you withdraw your bid to purchase a majority stake in Twitter. After you withdraw your bid, your account will remain suspended for a period of 1 week. Further attempts to interfere with the ownership or policies of Twitter will result in permanent suspension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you want to cash out with a 20% bump and be out of the stock during a huge tech equity downturn when the stock was over 60% higher last year?
Rookie mistake: the fact that a stock was once higher is no indication whatsoever that is "worth" that much. That was then, now is now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have this recurring fantasy in which some Satoshi figure creates a decentralized global bulletin board, such that anybody can post and view anything anonymously and untraceably, and nobody - not the U.S. government, nor the CCP, nor the Mossad, nor the NSA - can stop it short of dismantling the whole Internet and starting over. Nobody can blame anybody, because nobody can stop it. Not because I think such a thing i…
This already existed, it was called Freenet[0], and it was just as much of a trash dumpster as one might imagine. I have no idea if it still works. The fact of the matter is that such a system absolutely would not scale. USENET crumbled under the weight of early 90s AOL subscribers; imagine even a fraction of today's Facebook or Twitter users moving to a similarly open system. It would be absolutely unusable chaos. T…
sum[user_i in users](opinion(user_i)•engagement(user_i))
It's the second factor that causes all of the problems. But much like fast-food companies get a large fraction of their revenue from a small fraction of their customers, social media companies have trouble disempowering highly engaged users when functioning as a profit-oriented business.
It's interesting to consider what would happen with a "less moderated" messageboard where an individual's daily engagement is capped (supposing you solve the multiple account problem). It doesn't seem likely that we'll see that any time soon, though.
Twitter has around 8,000 employees. I fully understand and respect the high level of technical skills needed to operate and manage such a highly available service, BUT I still can't for the life of me figure what the other 7,950 employees do.
> I still can't for the life of me figure what the other 7,950 employees do. Management. Hey, it's important. They're people-persons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gave a try to Twitter's Ad platform recently. Mother of god, they've built a giant machine behind the curtains. It has terrible UX, but I could, if I wanted to, target a U.S. Military retiree that likes creole food, located in Boston, enjoys watching Golf and uses iPhone 11 Pro with an older iOS version 14. The profiling of users, and the ad-tech machinery is insane . There is a auto-bidding machine, detailed analy…
> It has terrible UX, but I could target a U.S. Military retiree that likes creole food, located in Boston, enjoys watching Golf and uses iPhone 11 Pro with an older iOS version 14 So, it's got lots of categories you can target. But...what evidence or guarantees are there of accuracy of the targeting?
I must say, it has been a very positive ad experience – receive compliments, 10% retweets, and had several long form conversations with strangers on Twitter messages. Really fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I was a member of Twitter's board, Musk's history of erratic public behavior, SEC settlement, and openly hostile attitude towards the company's employees would be more than sufficient to justify my belief that his controlling ownership would not be in the interest of the current average shareholder. That opinion would also be consistent with how "fiduciary duty" is interpreted by US regulators: companies are not r…
It doesn't have to be complicated. The shareholders should have a right to decide through a proxy vote on whether to accept the offer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely he'll withdraw offer and sell his stake, causing share price to drop and all shareholders losing real and potential gain.
The poison pill was mostly developed at a time when the alternative was him selling all the company assets and leveraging the company to load it with as much debt as possible then give out as large a dividend as he could before selling off the stock leaving the company insolvent and everyone out of work. So imagine a company taking $100 million in debt, giving all that out as a dividend then the stock price tanking t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) yes, though would be an expensive troll and (2) no - offer was non-binding and very conditional (due diligence, financing, etc.)
Thank you! Why would it be an expensive troll if no money is changing hands?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a completely ridiculous narrative to think that musk is interested in anyones free speech but his own. We should all be more aware of when the narratives billionaires pitch about themselves become perceived to be objective reality.
While I don't dispute that Elon is first in Elon's mind, I (perhaps in ignorance) have no reason to believe that he wouldn't take a principled stance and apply the standard he wants for himself to all. That's certainly what he's claimed. I don't find the assertion that billionaires inherently lack integrity a compelling argument. In the spirit of honest inquiry, do you know of any reason specific to Elon that I shoul…
There’s a pretty significant area of scholarly research in business and entrepreneurship that criticizes “mythicization” of successful individuals.
What those scholars argue, basically, is that media as well as business researchers take the words of successful people as inherently true and important. The result in, say research on entrepreneurs, is that what successful entrepreneurs think is meaningful is reported as de facto true and important. The critique is not of them saying it - it’s of others accepting it as valid based on the heuristic that successful people must be right. It’s a critique of the resulting research for not being objectively defensible, but instead just reinforcing societal norms as reality.
In my comment, my criticism isn’t of musk it’s of others. Believe me, musk, you, me, everyone tells stories about our selves and our beliefs from our own perspectives. It’s how other evaluate and use those stories as objective rather than subjective that can be problematic.
C.f,, the other comment replies I got