woods
I probably did it wrong.
- Joined
- May 22, 2020
- Member Number
- 1120
- Messages
- 5,165
Is it really? I used to hang out in /b all the time. its been awhile.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Musk and Twitter
- Thread starter ThePanzerFuhrer
- Start date
Liberals Outraged To Learn 10% Of Twitter Now Owned By African-American
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—Liberals at Twitter were outraged this morning upon finding out almost 10% of their company is now owned by an African-American. Several have threatened walk-outs to protest the news.
babylonbee.com
Social media will never be truly free speech. If the platforms can be held liable for things people say on the platform then there will always be a requirement for a moderator. If in public or private someone is deciding on what is appropriate it's still limited to that individual or groups view. Hopefully they can improve though and not block things based on political ideals.
Honky Lips
Welcome to the shit show.
nahmus
Refugee from syrup
I would really like to be a fly on the wall in the first meeting.
Fuzzydog
Red Skull Member
And this is why I am very wary of investing in things that Musk shows an interest in. Having him involved in your company is a double edged sword. Yes, he has a huge fan base, he is by most accounts a very shrewd businessman, and he is willing to take risks.
But that comes with an ego and eccentricity, combined with a Zero fucks given attitude that comes from being a billionaire, that makes him unreliable. The Bitcoin fiasco showed that.
Twitter stock will now make major price moves depending on what he tweets. That is not investing, it is speculating which does have its place. I just don't see Twitter as being a speculative stock, until now.
Disclaimer- I make these comments as a 57yr old approaching retirement. While I still feel very comfortable investing in quality stocks (fuck bonds) I don't want my portfolio value being subject to the quality of weed that any one person smoked that morning. Younger investors will likely feel more comfortable with Musk's involvement and more power to them. They will likely make higher returns than me - I just hope they hang on for the ride!
And because some people have asked about how much control, etc.
A MAJORITY shareholder owns or controls more than 50% of the voting shares of a company. Shareholders elect the directors of a company so as a majority shareholder you could essentially stack the directors with people you control, and who would vote the way you want them to on board resolutions. Essentially gives you control of the company. With his stake in Twitter, Musk is far from a majority shareholder but he can definitely have influence, and be a swing vote. IMHO, his reputation will likely carry more influence than his shares - if he is voting his shares a certain way, it is likely that a bunch of shareholders will follow, just because they hang on every word he says. Also, he can bring more shareholders to become active. I rarely exercise my voting rights on shares I own, and that is prob true for the majority of retail investors. With Musk now involved in Twitter, you could find a lot more retail level twitter holders getting off the couch and voting their shares, again, just because 'thats what Musk is doing' so even though he only owns less than 10% of the shares, he influences a much larger number, which could swing a shareholder vote his way
gladman
Aroused by Ta Ta's
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Member Number
- 2107
- Messages
- 1,006
Motorcharge
Unregistered User
I'm surprised the FTC hasn't opened their worthless mouths yet. Every time he tweets anything remotely business related they jump all over his ass saying he's not allowed to talk about it like it's not blatantly a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Void_of_Light
Keeping I.T. real
You have that wrong. Social media platforms are free from liability the same way UPS or fedex is free from liability if someone ships something illegal.
The understanding is they must adhere to common carrier status and not pick and choose who they do business with.
Facebook and Twitter and most of the rest are enjoying all the protections of common carrier, but now they are choosing who they will and wont do business with. Once they start choosing what content they allow, they should be held liable for any content on their platform.
They have all the protections of a platform, and none of the liabilities of a publisher.
XtremeJ
Wanker
Not sure if this was mentioned yet,
Musk took his TWTR position last week at around $40, traded almost to $50 yesterday, so he saw an increase in the value of his position of around $825 MILLION, touched $55 overnight on news he is now on the board of directors. He is up roughly 1.1 Billion in less than a week.
Takes money to make money I guess
Rolled call options twice yesterday, and now holding some longer dated 52.50 calls. paid less than 2 traded 4.2 at open, currently around 2.2
As a "private" investor I believe he will be limited to a stake just below 15%, so he will struggle to remove the current board members although obviously he holds some sway
Musk took his TWTR position last week at around $40, traded almost to $50 yesterday, so he saw an increase in the value of his position of around $825 MILLION, touched $55 overnight on news he is now on the board of directors. He is up roughly 1.1 Billion in less than a week.
Takes money to make money I guess
Rolled call options twice yesterday, and now holding some longer dated 52.50 calls. paid less than 2 traded 4.2 at open, currently around 2.2
As a "private" investor I believe he will be limited to a stake just below 15%, so he will struggle to remove the current board members although obviously he holds some sway
Motorcharge
Unregistered User
You're comparing apples and oranges, your logic would apply to ISPs, not individual websites.
This recent conservative push to regulate websites is fucking retarded and only going to make things worse. Making sites responsible for their users content is the Pandora's box of the internet and the death of anything resembling free speech on it.
CarterKraft
Red Skull Member
I knew that...
DavidVanVorous
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2021
- Member Number
- 4182
- Messages
- 38
One might argue that the users have a say but do they really?
It becomes a proxy battle...folks using twitter and folks owning stock in twitter are not necessarily synonymous. As with the one between Packard and Carly Fiorina when Packard took exception to the direction Fiorina was taking HP only the stock holders have a vote.
Further, given the credibility of said polls being similar to the rigged polls done by Pirate in the past (IMO with all polls and pollsters) , how much credibility do you think the twitter poll Musk posed has?
And while we muse on conspiracies or other things of that ilk, what are the chances Musk is doing an inside job to drop the stock price to get more of a hold?
Last edited:
No he's right. It's been discussed to death. Even in a congressional hearing. No one is asking them to regulate users. Just regulate users with the same fairness they regulate conservatives.
Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Testify Before Congress: 4 Things To Know
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey of Twitter will testify about the steps they have taken to deal with misinformation about the election, COVID-19 and vaccines.
www.npr.org
rockota
white collar hillbilly
- Joined
- May 28, 2020
- Member Number
- 1642
- Messages
- 3,672
tell that to all of the "platforms" that the FBI closed down and/or tried to hold responsible for illegal activities. Craigslist, comes to mind.
only reason I mention it is that social media - AND the Fed gov't - want it both ways. Protection when they need it and control when they want it.
Or back when they tried to tell ISP's to give up the IP's of anyone running napster.
Motorcharge
Unregistered User
Did you even read the article you posted? The first line addressing the subject talks about how platforms should be held accountable for user posts.No he's right. It's been discussed to death. Even in a congressional hearing. No one is asking them to regulate users. Just regulate users with the same fairness they regulate conservatives.
Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Testify Before Congress: 4 Things To Know
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey of Twitter will testify about the steps they have taken to deal with misinformation about the election, COVID-19 and vaccines.
As with anything with government, it's a slippery slope. This sort of thing is where we end up with garbage rulings like Citizen's United through unintended consequences.
You also don't have a right to free speech on their platforms. Everyone here loves to advocate for businesses to do whatever they want until it's social media and big tech. Suddenly the government needs to do something.
Congress didn't do anything to Craigslist. Congress passed anti-sex work legislation under the guise of stopping human trafficking and in response Craigslist removed their personals section. Craigslist wasn't what lead to that legislation either, Backdoor was. And not that I agree with the government response, but Backdoor was straight up just allowing prostitution ads on their site.
rockota
white collar hillbilly
- Joined
- May 28, 2020
- Member Number
- 1642
- Messages
- 3,672
Point being, gov't doesn't treat all publishers/platforms the same... they go after people they want to, regardless of the situation. It's a fine line, I guess, and a mess overall.
Motorcharge
Unregistered User
Of course they do. There's never fair application of the law, that's the inherent danger of handing them more power which is why it's retarded that so called conservatives want to hand more power over the government to regulate how the internet is used.
Governments are already the reason why the internet has become so shitty in the last few years. Why you've constantly got to click shit for cookies and get bombarded with policy update emails. Look no further than the EU to see what retarded shit happens when you let governments start fucking around with regulating something they fundamentally don't understand.
Did you even read the article you posted? The first line addressing the subject talks about how platforms should be held accountable for user posts.
As with anything with government, it's a slippery slope. This sort of thing is where we end up with garbage rulings like Citizen's United through unintended consequences.
You also don't have a right to free speech on their platforms. Everyone here loves to advocate for businesses to do whatever they want until it's social media and big tech. Suddenly the government needs to do something.
Congress didn't do anything to Craigslist. Congress passed anti-sex work legislation under the guise of stopping human trafficking and in response Craigslist removed their personals section. Craigslist wasn't what lead to that legislation either, Backdoor was. And not that I agree with the government response, but Backdoor was straight up just allowing prostitution ads on their site.
backdoor is what you went to backpage to have happen.
Ksand
Red Skull Member
I bought some today hoping the trend continues
Yes I read it. The point still stands. They are picking and choosing how they are enforcing their own rules. I'm not saying they should be held accountable for what people post or we need more regulation. But them banning people just because they are xyz is discrimination.Did you even read the article you posted? The first line addressing the subject talks about how platforms should be held accountable for user posts.
As with anything with government, it's a slippery slope. This sort of thing is where we end up with garbage rulings like Citizen's United through unintended consequences.
You also don't have a right to free speech on their platforms. Everyone here loves to advocate for businesses to do whatever they want until it's social media and big tech. Suddenly the government needs to do something.
Motorcharge
Unregistered User
What's your point? They're a private company, they can discriminate all they want. You're not entitled to use those platforms and should have no expectation of free speech on them.
tracyb
Well-known member
i think the point is that its out right lying and slander at this point. misrepresenting the truth, for an agenda is illegal and shouldn't be allowed.
they can go ahead and discriminate all they want. but call it what it is. its not fact checking or whatever excuse they choose to push their agenda. kinda like how you can joke about anything, as its a joke. but you try to push that joke as fact and damages can be shown, you are legally liable.
wasn't that a larry flint case of something?
it got real murky when governments starting using social media as official notifications.
they admitted that fact checking was opinion in a recent court case.
Levigarrett76
Zeus of the Sluice
Fucking delete it
Pocahontas
Red Skull Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Member Number
- 2117
- Messages
- 478
By problem with Twitter is the slant. You are either a publisher and liable for what is published. Therefore open to lawsuits and all the other bs that comes with being a publisher or you are a public forum where you aren't liable for anything posted but you cant sensor/delete any of it because you disagree with it.
I have no problem with them 'fact' checking stuff and putting little pop-ups saying xyz is propaganda. Once you start deleting people that are critical of you you become a publisher and and open yourself to that world.
ThePanzerFuhrer
The Rock Breaker God
How do you deal with the after the fact fact checks that were used to sway a election? The whole hunter Biden laptop issue? They are finally asking who is the big guy mentioned in the emails.
In this case the fact checks were the propaganda, and the stuff they were fact checking was actually the facts.
Pocahontas
Red Skull Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Member Number
- 2117
- Messages
- 478
It would be like a cookies thing/ how it is now, fox News is a known contributor to republican politics or CNN is know contributor to left wing stuff.
Just a window that pops up and you click through(agree that you are 18 to enter this site), both sides have their own spin you aren't going to able to convince linkslide or Harry that left or right have done wrong.
I don't know of anyone that actually believes any of the fact checkers anymore unless they agree with what they want to hear. The msm in general has been so wrong about so many things in the last 10 years, they've lost all credibility.
WaterH
Well-known member
They don’t need to ban liberals because they sound so stupid if they debate. The only reason conservatives were being banned is because liberals can’t defend themselves with logic.
I agree with above, if they ban anybody or censor anything, they should be responsible for everything on their site. The only exception to this rule would be something like pedophiles or bomb building classes. But even those should have explicit guidelines published so they can be sued if they use them politically.