What's new
By:
Filters

Musk and Twitter

Austin said:
Consider the board already gone. If they don't accept the overvalued offer the board is in violation of it's financially duty to the shareholders. They pretty much have to take the offer, or loose their jobs because of it. Once he's in ... I'd bet a good chunk quit or loose their jobs anyway
Click to expand...
That's not correct.
 
Broncokyle88 said:
It was a great disservice to the American people to not allow gm and Chrysler to fold. The assets would have been carved up and sold to people who were actually interested in running a profitable company and building vehicles consumers actually wanted with some semblance of quality instead of that weird detour we actually took.

Now GM and Chrysler are forever beholden to the almighty government titty, and will do whatever the .gov tells them to do as long as the opportunity to continue suckling at it remains an option in the future. Unfortunately Ford walks lockstep with them so as to not allow their competition to get an unfair advantage over them.
Click to expand...
This. The arc of a company and the eventual demise are cornerstone of capitalism and economic theory. Every large economic entity eventually falls out of favor and becomes the seeds of the next generation of better ideas/methods. The govt subsidizing something that is "to big to fail" halts that progression and locks in the methods of a single point in time. "Too big to fail" only benefits the very short term situation and ruins the long term benefit.
 
clodhopper said:
This. The arc of a company and the eventual demise are cornerstone of capitalism and economic theory. Every large economic entity eventually falls out of favor and becomes the seeds of the next generation of better ideas/methods. The govt subsidizing something that is "to big to fail" halts that progression and locks in the methods of a single point in time. "Too big to fail" only benefits the very short term situation and ruins the long term benefit.
Click to expand...

Yup, if the forest is not allowed to burn and regenerate, the devastating fire that eventually comes kills everything.
 
www.wsj.com

Elon Musk Is No Longer Twitter’s Largest Shareholder

While Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter Inc., he’s no longer the company’s largest shareholder. Funds held by Vanguard Group recently upped their stake in the social-media platform, making the asset manager Twitter’s largest shareholder and bumping Mr. Musk out of the top spot. Vanguard disclosed
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Well this is an interest turn of events.
 
665.0coupe said:
www.wsj.com

Elon Musk Is No Longer Twitter’s Largest Shareholder

While Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter Inc., he’s no longer the company’s largest shareholder. Funds held by Vanguard Group recently upped their stake in the social-media platform, making the asset manager Twitter’s largest shareholder and bumping Mr. Musk out of the top spot. Vanguard disclosed
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Well this is an interest turn of events.
Click to expand...


Fucking Media.


0F3377F9-9B7D-4FF7-A4AB-2C5BC8AF46D8.jpeg
 
665.0coupe said:
www.wsj.com

Elon Musk Is No Longer Twitter’s Largest Shareholder

While Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter Inc., he’s no longer the company’s largest shareholder. Funds held by Vanguard Group recently upped their stake in the social-media platform, making the asset manager Twitter’s largest shareholder and bumping Mr. Musk out of the top spot. Vanguard disclosed
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Well this is an interest turn of events.
Click to expand...

from the article:

Mr. Musk along with former Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey, who is number seven on the list, are the only individuals among the top 10 shareholders in the company.

The rest of the spots are occupied by financial institutions.


is wallstreet starting to worry about losing some power?
 
Austin said:
Which part, I was speculating about him clearing house, but they do have fiduciary responsibility.
Click to expand...

Yes...and suddenly dumping hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of realized capital gains into the laps of board members and shareholders is not really a responsible or desirable outcome.

I just had this happen with Cedar Fair. It was floating around $50/share, and SeaWorld offered to do a cash buyout at $56. That offer was turned down for many reasons, but the stock itself jumped up to near that amount anyway. If the board can make a convincing case that they believe continuing their course will raise the value beyond that of the buyout, it's a non-issue.

Considering my cost basis in Cedar Fair is between $9-$20, my taxes would've looked a lot different for next year if that buyout had gone through, and not in a fun way.
 
Motorcharge said:
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. :shaking:
Click to expand...


Social media platforms state that they do not have editorial control over their content. Because of this they are afforded special immunity under the law from lawsuits over content posted by users on their platform. This is under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

So I am free to go on there and say whatever I want to and Twitter can’t be sued. Under a Good Samaritan provision they are allowed to take down certain content without it being considered as them carrying out editorial functions over their content, which would make them a publisher like a newspaper.

Section 230(c)(2) states that service providers and users may not be held liable for voluntarily acting in good faith to restrict access to “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material.
Click to expand...

These tech companies are obviously exercising editorial control over their content by blatant censorship while trying to hide under section 230(c)(2) and should thereby loose their status as a platform and government protected immunity.

In my opinion, section 230(c)(2) should exclude the “otherwise objectionable“ part the social media platforms seem to be hiding under.


Edit: So yes to your point, they are a private company and can decide if they want to limit my speech but in doing so they give up their special protection under the law.
 
Last edited:
Animalmother said:
Social media platforms state that they do not have editorial control over their content. Because of this they are afforded special immunity under the law from lawsuits over content posted by users on their platform. This is under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

So I am free to go on there and say whatever I want to and Twitter can’t be sued. Under a Good Samaritan provision they are allowed to take down certain content without it being considered as them carrying out editorial functions over their content, which would make them a publisher like a newspaper.



These tech companies are obviously exercising editorial control over their content by blatant censorship while trying to hide under section 230(c)(2) and should thereby loose their status as a platform and government protected immunity.

In my opinion, section 230(c)(2) should exclude the “otherwise objectionable“ part the social media platforms seem to be hiding under.


Edit: So yes to your point, they are a private company and can decide if they want to limit my speech but in doing so they give up their special protection under the law.
Click to expand...
They are getting around this even further now with their algorithms that supress certain content. Post something about Hunter Biden. Technically they allow the content, but they will do everything they can to ensure the least number of people see it.
 
Last edited:
Seubs070 said:
They are getting around this even further now with their algorithms that supress certain content. Post something about Hunter Biden. Technically they allow the content, but they will do everything they can to ensure the least number of people see it.
Click to expand...

I remember reading a story that claimed a mere notification sent out to only democrats to vote was good for I forgot how many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of votes. Info directed at or kept from target audiences is huge.
 
Animalmother said:
I remember reading a story that claimed a mere notification sent out to only democrats to vote was good for I forgot how many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of votes. Info directed at or kept from target audiences is huge.
Click to expand...
Sorta like propaganda....
 
Captain said:
Honest question b/c I don't know the answer:
- Did Tesla request that the .gov give the tax incentives for EVs - or did the .gov do it on their own?
Click to expand...
^^^bump for the page 6 crowd...

Broncokyle88 said:
It was a great disservice to the American people to not allow gm and Chrysler to fold. The assets would have been carved up and sold to people who were actually interested in running a profitable company and building vehicles consumers actually wanted with some semblance of quality instead of that weird detour we actually took.

Now GM and Chrysler are forever beholden to the almighty government titty, and will do whatever the .gov tells them to do as long as the opportunity to continue suckling at it remains an option in the future. Unfortunately Ford walks lockstep with them so as to not allow their competition to get an unfair advantage over them
Click to expand...

Also I think Elon is also getting back at the SEC with this. Remember (5-second google search)
www.theguardian.com

SEC watchdog says two Elon Musk tweets violated settlement deal

Tesla CEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2019 deal stipulated that Musk would vet any public communications
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
The SEC had sued Musk after he tweeted on 7 August 2018 that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 a share (lol). The agency alleged the tweet, which sent the electric automaker’s share price up as much as 13.3%, violated securities law. Musk’s privatization plan was at best in an early stage, and financing was not in place.

^^^Is he simply doing the exact same thing...only putting his money where his mouth is...just to perform a massively successful (and perfectly legal?) pump-n-dump scheme?

Buy large position of company. Stock price increases. Offer to buy company. IF company is purchased...OK great...make the company better....???....profit.
If the company declines his offer - does he then have no other logical choice but to dump all his shares (at a nice profit) and send the share price plummeting down?

What am I missing?
 
Captain said:
^^^bump for the page 6 crowd...



Also I think Elon is also getting back at the SEC with this. Remember (5-second google search)
www.theguardian.com

SEC watchdog says two Elon Musk tweets violated settlement deal

Tesla CEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2019 deal stipulated that Musk would vet any public communications
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
The SEC had sued Musk after he tweeted on 7 August 2018 that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 a share (lol). The agency alleged the tweet, which sent the electric automaker’s share price up as much as 13.3%, violated securities law. Musk’s privatization plan was at best in an early stage, and financing was not in place.

^^^Is he simply doing the exact same thing...only putting his money where his mouth is...just to perform a massively successful (and perfectly legal?) pump-n-dump scheme?

Buy large position of company. Stock price increases. Offer to buy company. IF company is purchased...OK great...make the company better....???....profit.
If the company declines his offer - does he then have no other logical choice but to dump all his shares (at a nice profit) and send the share price plummeting down?

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
he buys it either way
 
Captain said:
If the company declines his offer - does he then have no other logical choice but to dump all his shares (at a nice profit) and send the share price plummeting down?
Click to expand...
then he can scoop it up at a deep discount
 
Paragon said:
he buys it either way
Click to expand...

Never Monday said:
then he can scoop it up at a deep discount
Click to expand...

True.

But why not just sell at a massive profit...(while giving the SEC the middle fingers)...then with the proceeds start his own social media company...take his followers with him from twitter...(something that has already seemingly failed by parlor and truth)...but just might work with him as the CEO....and further dilute twitter into a leftist echo chamber.

I look forward to seeing how he plays this out...either way...entertaining to watch
 
Captain said:
True.

But why not just sell at a massive profit...(while giving the SEC the middle fingers)...then with the proceeds start his own social media company...take his followers with him from twitter...(something that has already seemingly failed by parlor and truth)...but just might work with him as the CEO....and further dilute twitter into a leftist echo chamber.

I look forward to seeing how he plays this out...either way...entertaining to watch
Click to expand...
there are no reasons to start a new company when one is already there.

it is almost always better to buy an established company than start from scratch, all else remaining the same

but, he had a plan, to begin with. he is executing a plan, not trying to make more money he can't spend
 
Paragon said:
there are no reasons to start a new company when one is already there.
Click to expand...
So it would've been better to partner with a GM, Ford, etc. vs. start Tesla? Might have to disagree with you on this.

Paragon said:
it is almost always better to buy an established company than start from scratch, all else remaining the same
Click to expand...
Ehh...for a website...ehhh
Paragon said:
but, he had a plan, to begin with. he is executing a plan, not trying to make more money he can't spend
Click to expand...
What?
 
Paragon said:
there are no reasons to start a new company when one is already there.

it is almost always better to buy an established company than start from scratch, all else remaining the same

but, he had a plan, to begin with. he is executing a plan, not trying to make more money he can't spend
Click to expand...
He’s a god damn James Bond Super villain. :lmao:

I really hope musk can find a midget look a like that can follow him around and troll the world with. :lmao:
 
Captain said:
True.

But why not just sell at a massive profit...(while giving the SEC the middle fingers)...then with the proceeds start his own social media company...take his followers with him from twitter...(something that has already seemingly failed by parlor and truth)...but just might work with him as the CEO....and further dilute twitter into a leftist echo chamber.

I look forward to seeing how he plays this out...either way...entertaining to watch
Click to expand...

I doubt he is being motivated by money. He already has proceeds to start up 10 social media platforms. The party with everyone on it is on twitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh