Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

[Aridas]

This thread is an orgy of cognitive dissonance, Musk evil or Musk a super hero.
A bit like Trump.
Worth a thread, this firewall that gets constructed between opponents and supporters of the big players in this moment in history.

The term for that is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is, in short, the discomfort that arises when one tries to hold conflicting beliefs. Disagreement or polarization would likely be better terms for what you're describing.

With that said, one of the things about cognitive dissonance is that people are motivated to try to make that discomfort go away. There are good ways to do this and ways that aren't so good. One of the easy, but bad ways to try to make that discomfort go away is to seize upon some fallacious rationalization or falsehood and refuse to consider further. Things like scapegoating liberals are commonplace for many on the right as they try to avoid actually facing the difference between their desires and the evidence.

He decided that petty cash was worth spending to allow your voice to have permanent access to a message board.

That theory does not look like it's very supportable at all, all things considered.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

this forum has a pretty restrictive ma and an auto censor.

this forum is an example of the necessity of moderation. and even at that there’s a disturbing number of racists here imo

Pfft. You can still speak your mind here without censure - just have to avoid swear words and overt threats etc. But that doesn't stop you from being nasty and pushing a hateful narrative.

It also doesn't stop you from spewing nonsense and lies, which was the big argument for banning people from Twitter. Anyone can come here and tell us that Fauci tried to kill us with vaccines and mask mandates, or that Biden stole the election, or that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and nobody will lift a finger to stop them. Which means that this forum is less restrictive than Twitter was.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Of course it is pejorative just like being called heterosexual instead of normal or white instead of normal.

Depends on the context.

cisgender

In June 2023, Elon Musk, owner of social network Twitter (now X), stated that use of the words "cis" and "cisgender" on the platform as "targeted harassment" would constitute violations of its hateful content policy, as he considered them to be slurs. The changes came following an interaction between Musk and a gender-critical commentator, who alleged that pro-trans advocates were using forms of the word (such as "cissy", a variant of the pejorative sissy) to insult him following a post in which he rejected the term.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Let us not forget that he fabricated lies about Twitter hiding the "bot problem" from him thus invalidating the deal (and allowing him to back out without a penalty). A lot of the fan boys ate it up, firmly believing that tricking Twitter into exposing its bot problem was the real plan all along.

They didn't just hide it, they refused to reveal the extent of the problem.

What Are Spam Bots and Why They’re an Issue in Elon Musk’s Twitter Deal

Published July 9, 2022

On Friday, the tech billionaire Elon Musk announced that he was terminating a $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. The reason, he said, was an ongoing disagreement over the number of spam bot accounts on the platform. Now, the issue of what constitutes a spam bot account, and how many currently exist on Twitter, is likely to be at the heart of the legal battles between Mr. Musk and Twitter over the fraught deal...

Mr. Musk has been voicing concern over spam bots on Twitter for years. In 2020, he appeared at an event for Twitter employees, and encouraged the company to do more to prevent and remove spam bots.

Since announcing his intention to buy Twitter in April, Mr. Musk has repeatedly tweeted about spam bots on the platform. In May, when Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive, tweeted about how the company detects and fights spam bots, Mr. Musk responded with a poop emoji.

In a six-paragraph letter on June 6, Mr. Musk’s lawyers demanded more information from Twitter, stating that the company was “refusing Mr. Musk’s data requests” to disclose the number of fake accounts on its platform. That amounted to a “clear material breach” of the deal, the lawyers continued, saying it gave Mr. Musk the right to break off the agreement. The next day, Twitter agreed to allow Mr. Musk direct access to its “fire hose,” the daily stream of millions of tweets that flow through the company’s network.

It wouldn't be the first time that someone bought a company not knowing the true state of its affairs. Sellers have a perverse incentive to hide the extent of problems, and the buyer certainly does have a right to call them out on it. Musk's only mistake was not doing the due diligence before making a binding offer. That was certainly stupid of him. But hey, most of us never take a risk and never get anything done (reminds me of when I agreed to pay the receivers for the chattels of the business I was taking over without consulting my lawyer first, and he derisively said it could be "the most expensive fax you will ever send!").

 

[dirtywick]

Pfft. You can still speak your mind here without censure - just have to avoid swear words and overt threats etc. But that doesn't stop you from being nasty and pushing a hateful narrative.

whoa, first off do you think i'm being nasty roger?

second, you can go to the abandon all hope and the list of banned members and see what they've all been edited, censured, and banned for and it's way more than making threats and defeating the auto-censor.

It also doesn't stop you from spewing nonsense and lies, which was the big argument for banning people from Twitter. Anyone can come here and tell us that Fauci tried to kill us with vaccines and mask mandates, or that Biden stole the election, or that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and nobody will lift a finger to stop them. Which means that this forum is less restrictive than Twitter was.

i don't even think that's true at all, most of the people you're maybe referring to were banned for an unrelated breach of tos and told everyone it was about their free speech since those kind of people don't really question what they say.

but what you're saying is they were banning scamming grifters who used it to lie to make money. and elon had a problem with that, bought the platform, and reinstated rules so that scammers and liars were welcome. is what makes it less restrictive than here and was a really important win for free speech on the internet.

 

[jeremyp]

He decided that petty cash was worth spending to allow your voice to have permanent access to a message board.

He decided that $44 billion - which is not petty cash even for Musk - wasn't worth spending on Twitter but the Twitter's lawyers pointed out too a judge that he had signed a contract.

Musk did everything he could to get out of the deal.

 

[jeremyp]

He bought it because his ego drove him to sign a bad contract to buy it.

It was actually a very good contract - for Twitter's previous owners.

 

[jeremyp]

It wouldn't be the first time that someone bought a company not knowing the true state of its affairs.

Musk specifically waived the right of due diligence when he signed the contract. Twitter's lawyers must have thought Christmas had come early when her did that.

He also misrepresented the bot problem and falsely claimed Twitter had lied about it in SEC disclosures.

 

[Darat]

Musk specifically waived the right of due diligence when he signed the contract. Twitter's lawyers must have thought Christmas had come early when her did that.

He also misrepresented the bot problem and falsely claimed Twitter had lied about it in SEC disclosures.

Well to be fair he is an expert on that....

 

[Roger Ramjets]

He decided that $44 billion - which is not petty cash even for Musk - wasn't worth spending on Twitter

$44 billion not even petty cash for Musk?

The reality was a lot more complicated that you make out.

Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

On April 20, Musk disclosed that he had secured financing provided by a group of banks led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, Société Générale, Mizuho Bank, and BNP Paribas, for a potential tender offer to acquire the company. The funding included $7 billion of senior secured bank loans; $6 billion in subordinated debt; $6.25 billion in bank loans to Musk personally, secured by $62.5 billion of his Tesla stock; $20 billion in cash equity from Musk, to be provided by sales of Tesla stock and other assets; and $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors...

Two days after announcing his bid, Musk registered three holding companies under the name "X Holdings" in preparation for his takeover. Tesla shares fell 12 percent on the day after the acquisition was announced, amid smaller declines in the broader markets. Musk incurred a $21 billion paper loss that day.

Clearly Musk did not have $44 billion in cash lying around.

"But he had plenty of Tesla shares he could sell!", you retort.

Not quite. He needs most of those share to retain control of the company. It's pretty clear from those numbers that it wasn't easy for him to scrape up that money.

And to make matters worse, Twitter wasn't worth $44 billion.

Elon Musk’s $44 billion Twitter purchase is ‘one of the most overpaid tech acquisitions in history

Ives argued that Twitter’s fair value is just $25 billion, meaning Musk overpaid by some $19 billion. And although it took the Tesla CEO months to complete his acquisition of Twitter, the real work is just beginning.

“As we have discussed, the easy part for Musk was buying Twitter, the difficult part and Everest-like uphill battle looking ahead will be fixing this troubled asset,” Ives wrote.

Twitter hasn’t exactly been hitting its stride in recent quarters. The company missed analyst earnings estimates in the second quarter and saw its revenue decline 1% to $1.18 billion...

CFO Ruth Porat said during the company’s earnings call that YouTube’s revenue decline “primarily reflects further pullbacks in advertiser spends.”

Since Twitter earned nearly 90% of its revenues from advertising in 2021, Musk clearly has his work cut out for him to get the company running on all cylinders. But he could drastically improve the firm’s profitability by cutting staff...

Musk put out a statement on Twitter on Thursday attempting to clarify the reasons behind his acquisition of the company, arguing that he hopes to create a “digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.”

“That is why I bought Twitter. I didn’t do it because it was easy. I didn’t do it to make more money. I did it to try to help humanity..."

But hey, never the let facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In another sense it was chump change in that it made no noticeable difference for Musk personally

 

[Roger Ramjets]

whoa, first off do you think i'm being nasty roger?

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the collective 'you', ie. any poster on this forum. And when said "You can" and "that doesn't stop you" I meant that any poster can be nasty and tell lies without moderation here.

second, you can go to the abandon all hope and the list of banned members and see what they've all been edited, censured, and banned for and it's way more than making threats and defeating the auto-censor.

I can dredge up a thousand nasty and/or factually incorrect posts that didn't get people banned too. But I won't. Nor will I ask for moderation. Instead I will call them out as I see them. That's how free speech works!

i don't even think that's true at all, most of the people you're maybe referring to were banned for an unrelated breach of tos and told everyone it was about their free speech since those kind of people don't really question what they say.

So you are saying Trump was banned for 'unrelated breach of tos'?

but what you're saying is they were banning scamming grifters who used it to lie to make money.

One man's scamming grifter is another man's hero. Who are we to say that Trump should be banned just because the description fits?

and elon had a problem with that, bought the platform, and reinstated rules so that scammers and liars were welcome. is what makes it less restrictive than here and was a really important win for free speech on the internet.

Real scammers are almost always bots, which Musk is doing his best to purge. As for lies, free speech doesn't just apply to statements that have been verified 100% accurate (if that is even possible). And who's to say they are lying anyway? If the person truly believes what they are saying is true...

Talking about scammers, my elderly neighbor was almost scammed out of $10,000 a few days ago, by a caller claiming to be from the phone company. Luckily she asked me for advice and I told her to ring the bank immediately (at 8pm) to block her account. They had accessed her bank account and made the transfers which would have gone out overnight.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In another sense it was chump change in that it made no noticeable difference for Musk personally

Evidence?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Evidence?

That's your evidence that Musk had to change anything about his lifestyle?

The base assumption is that nothing happened if we have no information of a change.

It would be up to you to show that he could only afford to fill his caviar pool half full after the takeover

 

[dirtywick]

well theres your problem. you can’t tell a lying scammer when you see one and can’t decide whether or not that’s something that is bad or heroic. here’s a hint: lying and scamming is bad.

and that’s not even what he was banned for either, but that’s besides the point.

 

[jeremyp]

You're not even reading other people's posts properly.

$44 billion not even petty cash for Musk?

I wrote that $44 billion was not petty cash even for Musk. Note the location of "even" in the sentence. You've completely reversed the meaning by moving it.

The reality was a lot more complicated that you make out.

Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

Clearly Musk did not have $44 billion in cash lying around.

"But he had plenty of Tesla shares he could sell!", you retort.

No I don't retort that. He manifestly did not have plenty of Tesla shares he could sell. He had plenty of Tesla shares but something like 90% are pledged as collateral on personal loans. Furthermore, every time he sells Tesla shares, he gets taxed and the price of the rest is potentially dented.

This is why he had to saddle Twitter with a debt that is crippling it.

But hey, never the let facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?

Says the poster who can't even get a quote from a previous reply right.

 

[dirtywick]

could it be possible that musk isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and completely over leveraged himself assuming unsustainable growth and does everything he can to pump the stock to delay an inevitable collapse of a financial house of cards?

nah, right? kind of makes you wonder. but nah. too out of character

 

[The Great Zaganza]

could it be possible that musk isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and completely over leveraged himself assuming unsustainable growth and does everything he can to pump the stock to delay an inevitable collapse of a financial house of cards?

nah, right? kind of makes you wonder. but nah. too out of character

He is smart enough to know that the US government doesn't want its EV Global Champion to crash& burn no matter what he does, and will bail him out every time, including effectively banning foreign competitors through tariffs.

Corporate Socialism is the only true Safety Net.

 

[ZiprHead]

He is smart enough to know that the US government doesn't want its EV Global Champion to crash& burn no matter what he does, and will bail him out every time, including effectively banning foreign competitors through tariffs.

Corporate Socialism is the only true Safety Net.

Trump certainly wants to discourage electric cars.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump certainly wants to discourage electric cars.

Except for Tesla