The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair enough - though the board did take, or at least talk about - I've not followed up on what they actually did, quite a few steps initially to protect themselves from Musk taking over and now trying to see it through. As a general point I find it amusing in passing.
That could be because Elon has shown his duplicity many times and people were cautious about him and his claims. The funniest thing for me is Musk trying to pull out to be honest and the conturtions his supporters are now pulling. Especially after all the fanfare and victory boasting by the alters at the start.
 
Trump never said he would rejoin though, it isn't just a one way thing. Musk was also immediately asked about Trump by some news reporter because it is all people care about, it's the derangement syndrome. Musk essentially said he doesn't agree with permanent bans except for bots. This is why you're all going mental about Musk and Twitter, you only care about Trump.
No one cares about Trump as far as twitter goes! This is just you lot trying to climb down from your Musk high.
 
Trump never said he would rejoin though
and?

This is why you're all going mental about Musk and Twitter, you only care about Trump.
so tony was right, at the start it was about trump.

so when you said "can you substantiate your claims", you then have proven them any way...
Fair enough - though the board did take, or at least talk about - I've not followed up on what they actually did, quite a few steps initially to protect themselves from Musk taking over and now trying to see it through. As a general point I find it amusing in passing.
sure, but you said this only a moment ago.

they had a major melt down
 
Na I don't give a damn either way - as per the other thread (or this one) - I'm more interested in your house refurb

Well unfortunately I don't have before pictures, so you'd essentially just be seeing pictures of a normal looking room in a house. My painting isn't all that terrible though

No one cares about Trump as far as twitter goes! This is just you lot trying to climb down from your Musk high.

Why would I climb down from my Musk high? He's doing awesome things with Tesla and actually using his money to try to go to Mars.
 
He literally said as part of his gimmick he would unban Trump.
if you listen to the FT interview, he doesn't believe in permabans for anyone outside of bots, spam accounts and the like. Its not just Trump specific.


FT: And the final question, and this is really the toupe’d elephant in the room. Are you planning to let Donald Trump back on?

EM: I think there’s a general question of truth. There’s a general question around this: should Twitter have permanent bans. And, you know, I’ve talked with Jack Dorsey about this and he and I are of the same mind, which is that permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for people where they’re trying for accounts that are bots or spam, scam accounts, where there is just no legitimacy to the account at all. I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I do think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice. He is now going to be on Truth Social as will a large part of the right in the United States. So I think this could end up being frankly worse than a single forum where everyone could debate. So I guess the answer is that I would reverse the permaban. I don’t own Twitter yet. So this is not like a thing that will definitely happen because what if I don’t own Twitter? But my opinion and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares this opinion, is that we should not have events. Now, that doesn’t mean that somebody gets to say whatever they want to say. If they say something that is illegal or otherwise just, you know, just destructive to the world, then that could be a time out or that tweet should be made invisible or have very limited traction. But I think permanent bans just fundamentally undermine trust in Twitter as a town square, where everyone can voice their opinion. It was a foolish decision, I think it was a morally bad decision to be clear, and foolish in the extreme.

FT: Even after he egged on the crowds who went to the US Capitol, some of them carrying nooses. You still think it was a mistake to remove him?

EM: I think that if there are tweets that are wrong, they should be either deleted or made invisible and a suspension or a temporary suspension is appropriate, but not a permanent ban.

FT: So if the deal completes, he might potentially come back on but with the understanding that if he does something similar again, he’ll be back in the sin bin.

EM: He has publicly stated that he will not be coming back to Twitter but will go on Truth Social. And this is the point that I am trying to make, which is perhaps not getting across, banning Trump from Twitter didn’t end Trump’s voice. It will amplify it among the right, and this is why it is morally wrong and flat out stupid.
 
I don't like Elon, or billionaires in general, but Twitter got played here. Looks like the key shareholders were counting their eggs too early... when it's a rooster (Elon) that they're dealing with.


Unlikely, Twitters contract is most likely to stand up in court.

for Musk to get anywhere he would first have to prove Twitter's figures are wrong but has has so far failed to do yhat.

Then crucially, he has to prove the bot numbers impact business which ia unlikely because the Twitter's current revenue includes the current bot numbers, which the main advertisers are in full knowledge of.

Then the real hard part is Musk would have to prove that it would be impossible to reduce bot numbers over a period of several years, read 3-5 years and thereby impacting long term profitablity. This is next to impossible to prove and has almost never happened when such cases went to court.
 
Elon doesn't give a crap about Twitter. He needed a way to sell off some of his Tesla stock which was massively overvalued and the main source of his 'wealth', without tanking the price too much. He agreed to pay a value WAY over the share price to make the headlines, but apparently without bothering to do any due diligence, and when he tried to get out of it so he could keep his money he found he is actually legally obliged to go through with the purchase. He can claim "bots!" all he wants, but that should have been in the agreement to begin with, and it wasn't when he made the offer.

So, with Tesla's value being almost halved by the end of June after Elon sold his shares (at peak price, twice) doesn't it seem odd that he would have made the promise at the start of the year that his 'money would be the first into Tesla, and the last out' (despite the fact Tesla was around for ages as a company before Elon got involved).

Either that, or he just wanted to be in the headlines again and get Trump et al. crawling on their knees back to him to unban their accounts, feeding into his narcissistic tendencies.

I look forward to seeing what the courts do with this one.
 
He wants to verify those numbers, and they won't provide a method for him or anyone to do that.
He had the chance to confirm their numbers and raise queries before he signed the "I'll buy" deal. That's what due diligence is, he basically said "no need your FEC filings are fine".

He's also apparently looking for numbers in retrospect that Twitter almost certainly doesn't do because they're not needed for the way Twitter works out how many bots they have. apparently he wants daily numbers of bots, but Twitter only does them are far longer intervals because of the time/cost involved in working it out and the fact that they need them for the FEC filings which are every 3 months.

Musk looks like he's agreed to buy a car having looked at an advert and declined the offer of the seller to let him have his choice of mechanic look at it, and is now having buyers remorse and trying to get out of it by claiming some relatively minor part isn't what he expected.
 
He needed a way to sell off some of his Tesla stock which was massively overvalued and the main source of his 'wealth', without tanking the price too much. He agreed to pay a value WAY over the share price to make the headlines, but apparently without bothering to do any due diligence, and when he tried to get out of it so he could keep his money he found he is actually legally obliged to go through with the purchase. He can claim "bots!" all he wants, but that should have been in the agreement to begin with, and it wasn't when he made the offer.
Interesting theory but the get-out clause in the merger agreement would suggest that isn't the case, not unless (potentially) paying $1bn worked out to be the cheapest solution.
 
Last edited:
Interesting theory but the get-clause in the merger agreement would such that isn't the case, not unless (potentially_ paying $1bn worked out to be the cheapest solution.
From what I've read (not having seen the original agreement, obviously) he simply ignored due diligence and agreed to the sale, only bringing up the bot thing later on. As it wasn't in the agreement, it's not a legal reason to refuse to go through with the deal and that's what twitter will hold him to in court. I'm not a lawyer and know nothing about these things, but my opinion on Musk being the slimy narcissistic con-man that he is would make me tend toward this theory rather than him having any actual interest in free speech or twitter as a whole. If he really did, he'd just set up his own social media platform (much like Trump...)

Or, the simpler explanation is that he was happy to pay a $1 billion fee just to get his name in the headlines and be the centre of attention again.

Either way, if the courts force him to complete the purchase or pay a massive fine for pulling out (way over the billion dollars) then it'll only cement my opinions on him further.
 
From what I've read (not having seen the original agreement, obviously) he simply ignored due diligence and agreed to the sale, only bringing up the bot thing later on. As it wasn't in the agreement, it's not a legal reason to refuse to go through with the deal and that's what twitter will hold him to in court. I'm not a lawyer and know nothing about these things, but my opinion on Musk being the slimy narcissistic con-man that he is would make me tend toward this theory rather than him having any actual interest in free speech or twitter as a whole. If he really did, he'd just set up his own social media platform (much like Trump...)

Or, the simpler explanation is that he was happy to pay a $1 billion fee just to get his name in the headlines and be the centre of attention again.

Either way, if the courts force him to complete the purchase or pay a massive fine for pulling out (way over the billion dollars) then it'll only cement my opinions on him further.
where you theory falls down, is that musk could easily have done all the same, had an excuse to sell his tesla stock, but not put in such a strong offer that looks like it may force him to purchase/pay a fee.

he could easily have said "this is my offer, subject to xyz, i'm going to sell tesla stock to get the funds together"

and then months later "oh no i don't want to purchase twitter any more and now it wont cost me anything to walk away, plus i have all my tesla stock money, win win for me"

he didn't do that.
 
where you theory falls down, is that musk could easily have done all the same, had an excuse to sell his tesla stock, but not put in such a strong offer that looks like it may force him to purchase/pay a fee.

he could easily have said "this is my offer, subject to xyz, i'm going to sell tesla stock to get the funds together"

and then months later "oh no i don't want to purchase twitter any more and now it wont cost me anything to walk away, plus i have all my tesla stock money, win win for me"

he didn't do that.
The issue there is that then Twitter would not have agreed to it, so his plan would have failed.

Twitter were not especially keen on Musk buying them, and took standard precautions to limit the chance of a hostile takeover whilst improving the outcome for investors, which resulted in Musk having the option to walk away then or sign a deal to say he was definitely going to do it for a set price within a set time frame with penalties for not doing so.
People at the time were surprised at the fact he didn't do what was standard in far smaller/lower value deals, and were questioning if he thought he could just pull out.

Basically he either really wanted twitter and didn't care about doing the smart, normal thing before signing the deal, or he wanted to have the excuse to offload Tesla stock and didn't realise that the deal he was signing with Twitter had teeth for them to enforce it when he tried to pull out.

Either way Musk does not come out of this looking like some 4d chess player who actually understood what he was doing, especially as the court where this is all due to be settled is one that has enforced similar clauses under similar circumstances in the recent past. I think one of the lawyers who deals with this sort of thing basically said under the law and the contract it's pretty much a given he should lose, but there is always the question of what a jury will say and due to the size of this deal and the personal wealth of the individual there is a question of how enforcing it would go for the court (IE if the court rules in Twitter's favour and Musk decides to spend the next 10 years running through every possible appeal as slowly as possible it can undermine the court in other cases). This seems to have some basis in fact just because of the way Musk has basically ignored what other court rulings have said in the past/skirted around them and how ineffectual the sanctions the FEC put on him seem to have been after his last stock manipulation using Twitter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom