Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

Post by mcintyre1994 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:43 AM UTC

sakopov wrote: post #689

axg11 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pushback is simple: Twitter stock price was higher than Musk’s offer for most of 2021. We are in a downturn affecting the entire tech industry, and it’s likely that prices will return to previous levels at some point. Elon’s offer is a lowball and Twitter can bring more value to shareholders with or without Elon.

It seems a little funny to me that people flock to the idea that Twitter's market cap in a fed-fueled stock market when literally everything was moving up is some kind of true valuation for Tiwtter. If anything Twitter is likely trading at or very close to its fair value now then it was last year when retail was throwing money into anything.

Post by mcintyre1994 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:45 AM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #709

4khilles wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Twitter profits matter to shareholders after they divest?

The parent believes, based on Elon's own claims, that part of his plan of raising the money is to get some existing shareholders on board, essentially having them finance the deal, obviously by promising them a stake in the future private company. They are also assuming an existing shareholder would only do this if they believe the future private Twitter would be a more profitable endeavor for them, which Musk's comm…

Post by ahtihn » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:54 AM UTC

_3u10 wrote: post #287

mschuster91 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value does a platform have when people are fed up with those who complain about "I want free speech" and leave for greener pastures? Just look at Facebook. It's widely seen as "boomer garbage" that's only used as a least-common-denominator resort for communication by the target group these days, and conspiracy crap groups and peddlers of propaganda are a huge part of the reason. Platforms and societies that fail…

Would you be ok if Trump was setting mod team policy? Like is this a we need a speech dictator even people I disagree with is better than chaos point of view? Or is this a my point of view should be enforced on everyone and platforms should not be allowed to publish things I disagree with point of view?

Post by Seanambers » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 9:05 AM UTC

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #810

cloutchaser wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. He could probably borrow $43bn against Tesla shares in a few weeks at the most. He doesn't have to sell any Tesla shares.

Tesla has a rule that you can only borrow 25% of the value against the shares. From Money Stuff: > Or Musk could borrow more against his Tesla stake. Tesla’s own policies prohibit Musk from borrowing more than 25% of the value of his shares, which is barely enough to buy Twitter, even ignoring the fact that he has already used at least some of that capacity. Of course he’s in charge of Tesla and its board is famously…

Post by rgallagher27 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 9:09 AM UTC

chippiewill wrote: post #800

ehsankia wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To think that a company that has failed to create self-driving for nearly a decade could solve "content moderation", one of the hardest problem on the internet that every single of the big companies (who btw hire the best talent) have been struggling with, is truly a shocking statement to me. If all Google and Facebook couldn't solve it, why could a Tesla engineer of all people...

The idea that an AI engineer for self driving could be trivially retasked to content moderation is fairly laughable as well. That's not to say there aren't overlapping skill sets, but the AI tech involved is quite distinct (although there is overlap, I believe some of the latest perception research is trying to adapt transformers from NLP to replace CNNs). Many of my colleagues are AI/ML engineers working on the self…