• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

kookbreaker said:
The only thing I’ve seen is some MAGA hats referencing some investigation congress did that somehow proved collusion to not but ads on Twitter.
Click to expand...

I think that's what they're going with, but I don't see even if collusion between businesses absolutely, definitely, verifiably happened, how that would be illegal.

If I decide I'm never going to buy auto parts at this store for reason Y, and you - separately, independently - decide to never buy from the same store for the same reason, that's fine. But if we're both talking at a bar or something about reason Y and decide together that we're never going to buy anything from that shop again....that's wrong? Illegal? Bad? "Collusion"? I don't get the reasoning. I don't merely think it's incorrect, I struggle even to make sense of the logic.

I get why businesses colluding to do things like fix prices or gouge customers - decisions they make about their own products or services that impact the people who have to give them money - is bad. But deciding not to buy from a particular vendor?

Has anyone else done this before? If I decide right now to set up a company to sell hot dogs in bulk to institutions (like schools, prisons, hospitals, other companies' cafeterias, etc) and after a month no nearby institutions or companies have made contracts with me, can I just take every organization above a certain size in my area court for not buying the hot dogs I'm offering? Help me make sense of this.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Perhaps she is a good speaker but not a good actor so when she is saying something she doesn’t believe….
Click to expand...
Probably. I had that problem, snorted with laughter when the CFO was lying, badly, to a client.
 
catsmate said:
Probably. I had that problem, snorted with laughter when the CFO was lying, badly, to a client.
Click to expand...

Similar to when I’ve had the MD literally kick me under the table because I was saying something that she didn’t want to be in the minutes at a board meeting.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
On the bright side, Tesla is probably in not too much better of a position.
Click to expand...

Tesla is in a much better position than Twitter.

  • Tesla does not have debt with interest payments of more than its biggest ever profit
  • Telsa has many assets that can be sold to bail it out if necessary
  • Tesla can fire its chief executive because he doesn't own a majority of the shares
 
well i think tesla is in a much better position than twitter, for one they offer a product that people are willing to buy. but i think the stock is overinflated due to musk and they got this albatross around their neck where they keep him on board due to fear the stock will correct without his cult of personality or a much slower decline as the public's belief in musk fades.

i don't think you can look at either and think it's a company headed in the right direction, but at least with tesla there's something there. twitter is toast.
 
dirtywick said:
well i think tesla is in a much better position than twitter, for one they offer a product that people are willing to buy. but i think the stock is overinflated due to musk and they got this albatross around their neck where they keep him on board due to fear the stock will correct without his cult of personality or a much slower decline as the public's belief in musk fades.

i don't think you can look at either and think it's a company headed in the right direction, but at least with tesla there's something there. twitter is toast.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think Tesla is in good shape, only that it is in better shape than Twitter.
 
It just sucks that bankers can lose billions with no consequences whatsoever, when even a cursory analysis would have shown that Twitter was never worth the price.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It just sucks that bankers can lose billions with no consequences whatsoever, when even a cursory analysis would have shown that Twitter was never worth the price.
Click to expand...

FTA

Thanks chiefly to the legacy Twitter LBO debt, Barclays senior M&A team were informed last year their annual compensation would shrink by 40% over the previous year. The cut was so severe that almost a quarter of the bank’s 200-plus managing directors quit once they had collected it.
Click to expand...
 
aaannnndddd World Bank pulls its advertising from X because of, you guessed it, their ads showing up on a racist account's comment section.

The World Bank has ceased all paid advertising on Elon Musk's social media platform X, which was formerly Twitter, after a CBS News investigation found promoted advertisements from the organization showing up under a racist post from an account that prolifically posts pro-Nazi and white nationalist content.
Click to expand...

But, but, but X has put in controls that allow advertisers to control their content and where it's placed, you say? Well, shockingly it appears the controls aren't as effective as advertised:

"The World Bank Group had already reduced its paid marketing on X while working with the platform to implement the strongest safety protocols X offers for our content," a spokesperson for the World Bank told CBS News on Friday, adding: "This latest incident is entirely unacceptable, and we are immediately ceasing all paid marketing on X." Source
Click to expand...

Shocking.
 
Last edited:
In other words, a Musk run business completely failed to deliver on its promises - I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. :rolleyes:
 
As long as Musk continues to allow the Fifth Declension of the Mesosphere to photosynthesis (AKA: is an open-door for all kinds of bigotry) then I am ticketyboo.

/s
 
TBH, I suspect that this lawsuit is going to have a big negative effect on advertising too, regardless of what he does with placement. The notion that you can be sued if you ever stop, ought to be a deterrent for any potential new advertisers.

It's also a stunt that may backfire with larger corporations, who can probably afford risking to pay the lawyers to deal with a SLAPP attempt more than being associated with an increasingly unpopular bellend. As in Musk is making the entire platform problematic to be associated with, not just the placement on the platform.

In fact, if he starts running his mouth off too much about any corporation that can actually afford it, he can be counter-sued for actual business defamation. Yeah, there is such a thing as counter-suing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom