881–890 of 1001 posts
My prediction is that Elon will have sold a majority of his stake in Twitter soon, netting him a huge gain before the dust settles. And he’ll likely get a small symbolic fine again for his blatant market manipulation.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fate of the company after it has been taken private doesn't matter as far as "fiduciary duty" is concerned.
(To be clear, Musk is a shitshow, but a cash-out is a cash-out. How to balance those things is above my pay-grade.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read some Matt Levine, he's way more articulate and makes finance quite fun. But if I were to take a stab at it: The market has been so weird recently that stock splits - which according to previous theoretical belief do not create shareholder value - have in fact increased the share price for extended periods. So issuing stock for whatever reason (high price, poison pill) could be seen as shareholder maximizing. One…
Stock splitting isn't dilution. It is the equivalent of breaking a $10 bill into 2 $5 dollar bills. Dilution is just printing more $10 bills aka inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that it’s at a share price premium for 90%+ of the lifetime of the stock since IPO, yes. Most shares were bought below the price Musk is asking.
Today's price and the 'expected' future price is all that matters. The 90% lifetime price history is not relevant. All transactions of this nature are based on future value. The offer is only an 18% premium at a time when many tech stocks are being hammered due to extrinsic reasons. It is not a serious offer.
Some points from the All in Pod. 1. The Twitter board of directors has become a status thing. It's like a country club. They don't have real skin in the game; they don't own much stock. They're not aligned with the shareholders. It's about status and cultural power. 2. Why should we believe that the company will become more valuable when the stock price is where it was way back in December 2013? Compare to how the S&…
Why should a company be forced to carry, host, and service the speech of others? If Twitter is a monopoly, apply anti-trust laws to it and break it up. If Twitter isn't a monopoly, then they should every right to decide what their service does, as long as it's within the law. If you don't like the current laws, change them. I am totally, 100% opposed to privately owned companies being forced to carry speech that they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about the hardest content problems on the internet. Look at any of Elon Musk's (or anyone in crypto's) popular tweets and you'll see a flood of incredibly obvious bots that poorly mimic his account, spamming some shit coin or advertising a BTC address. Also, you're really understating how good Tesla self-drive is. It's not full self-drive but it's a real achievement.
> Also, you're really understating how good Tesla self-drive is How good is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At which point in history could any person blurt out a brainfart and have thousands of people around the globe hear it and react instantly again? Usenet, for several decades already. Good NNTP servers had nearly perfect spam filtering and the trolls were handled individually by each user in killfiles. If Google had kept the simple original web interface from around 2004 we might not have had all these issues. GPT-3…
Usenet was much, much smaller and quite certainly not a statistical representation of society (people who could afford, access and understand the thing). Most modern problems with social media started emerging when the general public started using it. Specialist communities like IRC channels, Hacker News, certain subreddits or webforums still work quite well, because let's face it: It is not the general public there.
And even in specialist communities there is a certain degree of moderation needed in order to keep it in order.
In the offline worlds individuals for which (reasonable) moderation is needed are kept in check by society (either through social pressure or physical force).
Very seldom they are the beginning of societal changes but usually they are just unpleasant (e.g. "I hope you and your loved ones get murdered because...") people which most others avoid if they can.
I'm very sure I would leave any platform where their kind is allowed to run wild and so would many of my family and friends.
Facebook is a very good example: Most people are boring and nice enough. Those who are not (ranging from annoying to vile) spoil the fun for everybody else.
People leave (in part) because they don't want constant conflict and not every opinion is worth to be heard.