Musk offers to buy Twitter


Every time I see folks talk about "self-made" rich people, I keep thinking about Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech at a university commencement where he states he doesn't believe in the self-made man, talking about how much help he got, and how important it is to give back to the community that helped make success possible.

I may not see eye-to-eye with him on politics, but he's not wrong here. I just don't think we can assume those with wealth are going to be thinking in those terms, and will "play nice" with the rest of society. Musk being a prime example.
 
Every time I see folks talk about "self-made" rich people, I keep thinking about Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech at a university commencement where he states he doesn't believe in the self-made man, talking about how much help he got, and how important it is to give back to the community that helped make success possible.

I may not see eye-to-eye with him on politics, but he's not wrong here. I just don't think we can assume those with wealth are going to be thinking in those terms, and will "play nice" with the rest of society. Musk being a prime example.
He's always been as genuine as they come IMO, even when he was serving I had a ton of respect for him.
 
This was an interesting read

The thing is, most of the platforms can be tweaked far more to one's liking by just making use of provided tools. So to me the problem seems less user preference per se than the need --still hotly debated in some quarters, apparently-- to moderate content and ditch dangerous lies, conspiracy theories, harassment or abusive suggestions etc.

I mean there are people who won't bother with the tools, or who congregate at a site that permits exactly the kind of trash most people would rather not encounter. Those are who are complaining about Twitter right now.

Not sure why anyone worth having a conversation with would object to removal of stuff like that. And not sure why Musk wants to encourage its return. From a few official statements, I think the European Union also wonders, and has suggested Musk cannot just do whatever he likes and expect the results to be tolerated in Europe.

So yes, there still are some norms, and they're not far removed from common sense mixed with a little empathy for other people's humanity. Musk won't be able to just revert Twitter back to the very bad old days when its initial permissiveness pretty much (and pretty quickly) produced usage that demonstrated a need for content moderation.

Really I think the right's objections lately to Twitter as "censorious" reflects on the fact that Twitter has been growing all along into a more attractive place for people to swap ideas and information without being harassed or abused while so doing. And that is thanks to the newer moderation principles and better tools for users to shape their feeds as they wish.

People who want to barge in and disrupt that flow of ideas with garbage and endless trolling are having more trouble doing it on Twitter, and it annoys them because the ideas-traders include a lot of powerful politicians as well as mass media, niche interests experts, journalists and bloggers. And so what? If outliers and extremists want to trade ideas with movers and shakers and topic specialists, then how about bringing something to the table besides regurgitated memes and insults?

It's no wonder some of the Twitter staff were crying at the news Musk's offer had been accepted. They really had transformed that place for the better from how it was even four or five years ago.
 
The Financial Times is reporting that Musk can walk away from his deal to acquire Twitter by paying only a $1 billion fee. Likewise, Twitter may back out for same penalty. This is only around 2.27 percent of the deal value. Usual penalties run around 6% of deal value...

Meanwhile Tesla stock took a grand slide of around 12% (more than $125 billion) on Tuesday as investors homed in on concerns about how Musk was going to wrap deal financing, and realized it might involve Musk dumping a bunch of his own Tesla stock to raise funds. Musks' paper loss on today's Tesla lurch will have been around ten billion bucks.

Maybe the glitter is already falling off the toy in the buyer's eyes, who knows.
 
But they do allow this because the dominant voice there is right-wing, yet any mention of LGBT or race and we’re not allowed to talk about it.
Having visited MacRumors for years now, the only obvious bias I have found is a diametric opposition to logic or common sense. That may include the things you mention, but a whole host of other issues, as well. Just like many other Apple users, I was excited when the M1 Pro/Max were announced. I was looking forward to @Cmaier's insightful commentary. We were forever robbed of that because the MR forum moderators decided to suspend him, and they did not deign to allow him back until much of the buzz was over. I said at the time that suspending @Cmaier from MacRumors was like banning the Pope from the Vatican.

As has been pointed out by others, MR's primary motivation is traffic; not news, not reviews, not engaging dialogue. That requires them to drive clicks and engagement as much as possible. That also means that they give everyone a voice. In theory, that sounds great, the problem arrises when everyone then believes that what they have to say is important and they need others to know it. This philosophy also works under the assumption that everyone is posting in good faith. If you spend any time there, you will know the opposite happens. As was the case with @Cmaier, he doesn't suffer trolls and malcontents. Those who pretend to be asking an honest question, repeatedly divert attention away from answers that don't fit their pet agenda, and then continue to beg the question. When called out on their antics, the moderators are alerted, and the fool wins while hiding behind forum rules.

MR has its uses, volume helps in some ways. I needed a specific type of cable for my LG UltraFine, and scouring that forum allowed me to find it. However, the benefits are outweighed by a vitriolic environment. This forum has become a refuge for those of us who want a civil debate, with sensible rules and moderation, without having to worry about pointless tribal warfare, particularly when a pernicious troll decides to come out from under its bridge and promote their false narrative.

There are also simple structural issues with the MR forums. The chief moderator is a Windows user, prefers Microsoft products, and doesn't own a Mac. I have yet to figure out the logic in giving such a person a perch of authority. Also, there's simply no kind way to say this, but trying to drive traffic as high as possible lends to individuals from the bottom-half of the IQ scale to make their opinion known. I've gotten into a number of roundabout circular debates, only to realize it was pointless, because I was arguing with someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to be holding an argument about highly technical topics. I know my own limitations, which is why I appreciate the thoughts of folks here who are more knowledgeable than I am. Sometimes wisdom is knowing when to say nothing.

I realize this isn't directly related to Twitter, but it is related to the quality of open debate. In that, I am thankful to be a member here.
 
The Financial Times is reporting that Musk can walk away from his deal to acquire Twitter by paying only a $1 billion fee. Likewise, Twitter may back out for same penalty. This is only around 2.27 percent of the deal value. Usual penalties run around 6% of deal value...
I can see Musk backing out, but not the board. If the board does, then Must could continue with his take over, it will just be a hostile one at that point.

With the EU communicating to Musk, that he must abide by their terms of free speech
Twitter takeover: EU and UK warn Elon Musk must comply or face sanctions

I wouldn't be surprised if the quick acceptance of his terms took Musk by surprise. For the major shareholders they're about to make a lot of money and the board I'm sure will receive a very nice golden parachute. Its a win for everyone but Musk.
 
I had thought the Twitter board would care much more about the idea of Twitter as an evolving place to have discussions, find new sources of information, discover more about the world, than to cave so readily to Musk, even granted the perils that trying to fend off a hostile takeover could present.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should feel quite disappointed, actually. I mean QUITE disappointed.



Twitter was founded 16 years ago. It’s not on the cusp of anything other than becoming more of a shit show that has to be moderated under a failing revenue model. I have no idea what Musk plans to do but it’s days of being a pleasant place to learn about the world are long gone. It probably also inspired the mentality of all you need to know is the headline and don’t bother reading the article.

I do think taking it private is a good move but in a general sense, that general sense being Wall St has way too much say in how companies are run now and their only goal is making themselves richer in the short term. I think it’s extremely ironic though that Musk is doing it as he has used Twitter, possibly more than anybody else, to increase his stock wealth with his regular musings.

But this is also reminding me of the early "Who knows. Maybe it won’t be so bad." Trump skeptics and we all know how that turned out.
 
I can see Musk backing out, but not the board. If the board does, then Must could continue with his take over, it will just be a hostile one at that point.

With the EU communicating to Musk, that he must abide by their terms of free speech
Twitter takeover: EU and UK warn Elon Musk must comply or face sanctions

I wouldn't be surprised if the quick acceptance of his terms took Musk by surprise. For the major shareholders they're about to make a lot of money and the board I'm sure will receive a very nice golden parachute. Its a win for everyone but Musk.


I think we’ve lost the concept of how much $1 billion is. Musk could knock his wealth down to that and still be doing fine and inexplicably have that back up to $50 billion within a year. He’s also not part of the billionaires who like to one up their billionaire friends with high end assets. Instead he likes to use his wealth to control industries. So losing 10s of billions means nothing to him. He accomplishes as much by Tweeting regularly. “Nice yacht but I control public opinion.”
 
days of being a pleasant place to learn about the world are long gone

But Twitter is where Hans the photographer of lichens and mosses hangs out, and even with all my news junkie hoard of online subscriptions, the odds of my ever having bumped into his art in those venues are close to nil.

By that I mean to point out improvement of tools for users to create a more pleasant Twitter ambience by their own lights. I don't expect a social media site to be a ready-made silo for anyone's interests alone, but I appreciate the extent to which Twitter in recent years has made it much easier for individuals to shape their view of the platform, while still allowing for exploration of the platform's vast offerings of skill and talent in thousands of general interest categories down to very niche specialties.

No one knows yet how much or even if Musk would mess with those tailoring options, never mind what he'll do about moderation guidelines. It's clear that with respect to the latter, Twitter has reduced opportunities for malevolent characters to threaten or harass other users, whether or not those users engage with the toolsets available to them. I'd hope Musk would retain those limits on user provided content.

The platform's reach is global (where access is not suppressed) and some of the "free speech" yearnings (or demands?) on this side of the Atlantic are not matched in guidelines established within the European Union.

That Twitter found it necessary to enable user tools to mute or block commentary on the site suggests that even in a global ambience currently taking account of EU constraints, there's enough "free speech" opportunity to make it quite clear the venue's not as restrictive as some users (or banned users?) have long been suggesting.

Musk's own or relayed complaints about lack of "free speech" on Twitter are ludicrous even in the context of American corporate operations, and well he knows it. As the site's new owner, if the deal goes through, he or his designated executives will decide what content to host on the site, just as Twitter's current management does. Just as Trump's Truth Social platform can do. But, this stuff may not be something Musk bothered thinking about in detail, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

I do think taking it private is a good move but in a general sense, that general sense being Wall St has way too much say in how companies are run now and their only goal is making themselves richer in the short term. I think it’s extremely ironic though that Musk is doing it as he has used Twitter, possibly more than anybody else, to increase his stock wealth with his regular musings.
Yep. Some of his "musings" will probably land him in hot water with the SEC even if he does go on with the deal and so come to regard the site as his private playground. It's public-facing and there are consequences for public speech.

But this is also reminding me of the early "Who knows. Maybe it won’t be so bad." Trump skeptics and we all know how that turned out.

No kidding.
 
Here is a refresher.

1 million seconds is just over 11.5 days.

1 billion seconds is 31.7 years.

This reminds me of somebody who said how long it would take the average earner to make $1 billion. I don't remember what it was but I believe it was in the multi-thousands of years.
 
But Twitter is where Hans the photographer of lichens and mosses hangs out, and even with all my news junkie hoard of online subscriptions, the odds of my ever having bumped into his art in those venues are close to nil.

By that I mean to point out improvement of tools for users to create a more pleasant Twitter ambience by their own lights. I don't expect a social media site to be a ready-made silo for anyone's interests alone, but I appreciate the extent to which Twitter in recent years has made it much easier for individuals to shape their view of the platform, while still allowing for exploration of the platform's vast offerings of skill and talent in thousands of general interest categories down to very niche specialties.

No one knows yet how much or even if Musk would mess with those tailoring options, never mind what he'll do about moderation guidelines. It's clear that with respect to the latter, Twitter has reduced opportunities for malevolent characters to threaten or harass other users, whether or not those users engage with the toolsets available to them. I'd hope Musk would retain those limits on user provided content.

The platform's reach is global (where access is not suppressed) and some of the "free speech" yearnings (or demands?) on this side of the Atlantic are not matched in guidelines established within the European Union.

That Twitter found it necessary to enable user tools to mute or block commentary on the site suggests that even in a global ambience currently taking account of EU constraints, there's enough "free speech" opportunity to make it quite clear the venue's not as restrictive as some users (or banned users?) have long been suggesting.

Musk's own or relayed complaints about lack of "free speech" on Twitter are ludicrous even in the context of American corporate operations, and well he knows it. As the site's new owner, if the deal goes through, he or his designated executives will decide what content to host on the site, just as Twitter's current management does. Just as Trump's Truth Social platform can do. But, this stuff may not be something Musk bothered thinking about in detail, which shouldn't surprise anyone.


Yep. Some of his "musings" will probably land him in hot water with the SEC even if he does go on with the deal and so come to regard the site as his private playground. It's public-facing and there are consequences for public speech.



No kidding.


Wouldn’t Hans’ photos be better served on Instagram? One of major social media’s strangleholds is users being too lazy to try other services no matter how bad it gets. “It’s like 98% bullshit now, but I still come for the 2% that isn’t.” People are far too reliant on one-stop shops. I remember back in the day when I liked an artist I would go to their site and as a bonus I wasn’t exposed to articles on the fall of modern civilization and as a result I didn’t leave the site depressed about life when all I wanted to do was get tour dates.

This is a laziness of both content creators and viewers. Just about every podcast I listen to the hosts have said something like “The only reason I go on [insert social media here] is to post information about our show. If it wasn’t for that I’d kill the account.” usually followed by a story about how the last personal experience or opinion they posted got relentlessly attacked by trolls. Its like everybody decided the shittiest neighborhood in town is the only place to do business.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t Hans’ photos be better served on Instagram? One of major social media’s strangleholds is users being too lazy to try other services no matter how bad it gets. “It’s like 98% bullshit now, but I still come for the 2% that isn’t.” People are far too reliant on one-stop shops. I remember back in the day when I liked an artist I would go to their site and as a bonus I wasn’t exposed to articles on the fall of modern civilization and as a result I didn’t leave the site depressed about life when all I wanted to do was get tour dates.

This is a laziness of both content creators and viewers. Just about every podcast I listen to the hosts have said something like “The only reason I go on [insert social media here] is to post information about our show. If it wasn’t for that I’d kill the account.” usually followed by a story about how the last personal experience or opinion they posted got relentlessly attacked by trolls. Its like everybody decided the shittiest neighborhood in town is the only place to do business.

Hans could decide that for himself, and maybe he does have an IG setup... I'd not see that because (obviously, to readers of this forum by now) I have preferred Twitter, viewing it as a launchpad for exploration of other sites I learn about on that platform. There's a difference between a launchpad and one-stop shopping...

I just bumped into an opinion piece in today's NYT that expresses a lot of what I have come to know about Twitter, and says it far better than I could do. I suppose the piece is paywalled but here are the link and excerpts.


A couple of weeks ago, a former colleague of Mr. Musk’s at PayPal, Keith Rabois, called me dumb on Twitter after I suggested that eliminating moderation policies would be bad for Twitter’s business. This is not a particularly sophisticated criticism, but neither is it harassment.

However, I’ve also received rape threats, anonymous letters to my home address, threatening comments about my family and all manner of misogynistic pejoratives that are not printable in this newspaper for my stated positions on everything from abortion to hiring practices at start-ups to who the next James Bond should be. I don’t even have to write anything particularly provocative for this to happen; I once got a violent threat for a column I wrote about why I disagree with the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the Consumer Price Index.

These are not uncommon experiences for women and minorities who speak in public, on Twitter and beyond, and I’ve suffered far less harassment than others. It happens all the time. Twitter’s current moderation policies can’t completely prevent it, but they are designed to mitigate it. Twitter requires its users to comply with a terms of service agreement that bans certain types of speech — harassment, in particular. It also has moderation policies in place to combat disinformation. The value of these measures isn’t always apparent to powerful people such as Mr. Musk because if you’re a white man on the internet, you’re far less likely to get a rape threat, and you’re also heavily insulated from the possibility of real-world violence.

All of this is a moral and ethical case for keeping moderation policies in place, but what’s more baffling about Mr. Musk’s crusade is it’s hard to see how eliminating them would be good for the business. Right now, Twitter’s demographics skew male. If Twitter wants to further scale up its business and increase profitability, which is ostensibly its goal, it needs to expand its reach. Making the platform a hostile environment for women and minorities isn’t conducive to expansion, unless you believe your most valuable audience is white men who skew conservative and that they exist in ever larger numbers — and demographic trends indicate that they do not.

When people feel entitled to harm others because hateful rhetoric is normalized online, it increases the ease with which conspiracy theories metastasize into acts of violence. A platform that spreads that kind of rhetoric and takes a laissez-faire approach to disinformation doesn’t just create an unpleasant experience for users; it can get someone killed.

The company’s revenue is currently very advertising-dependent, and in my experience as a former media entrepreneur and newspaper editor in chief, advertisers generally don’t like to promote their brands alongside provocative content; even everyday political news is sometimes too much. If Mr. Musk allows Twitter to become a cesspool of hate speech and disinformation, he’ll test the risk adversity of the platform’s advertisers, and it’s likely that he’ll find himself with fewer brands that are willing to take the risk of appearing in people’s polluted feeds.

Sophisticated moderation policies are difficult to develop and enforce, and Twitter has already spent years tinkering and trying to come up with something that works. The current terms of service are not perfect, but if Mr. Musk chooses to partly or fully dismantle them, he may experience Twitter in a new way himself: The aspects of the platform that are weaponized against women and minorities may not be so friendly to him, either. And if the company can’t expand its user base, his worst critics may be the only growth area of Twitter.
 

It always cracks me up when I see everyday people defending these guys...because they somehow have been convinced they can be as rich as them. But they fail to realize how much help they got to get where they are. They were already from well off families and had the connections. The every day person isn't going to have that. Sure, they can get there...but they're going to have to work a hell of a lot harder than any of those dudes.
 
Back
Top