Elon Musk x Twitter: The Joke that Keeps Giving

ethomaz

Rebolation!
21 Jun 2022
7,985
6,836
Brasil 🇧🇷
PSN ID
ethomaz
Let's discuss that incredible and weird story of a guy buying a big social network.
I won't link article but right now the situation is the guy won't buy it anymore :D

Why I'm making this thread?

Because since Elon Musk announced he will buy Twitter I have some bad feeling about that.
I said in others places that it looked like he just wanted to change the shares values of Twitter in a near term to profit and he never had the intention to really buy the Twitter.
Turn out that that guess keep become more and more apparent.. I don't know... Am I really crazy and just seeying things?

What do you guys thinks?
 
  • haha
Reactions: PlacidusaX

Sircaw

Pro Flounder
Moderating
20 Jun 2022
5,340
9,334
Well, I myself did want him to buy ~Twitter and change the political narrative, i am a moderate at heart but do lean slightly conservative.

I think to many institutions are leaning in a certain political direction and that needs to be changed.

Saying that, what he has done could be extremely dangerous as in bringing the entire house of cards down.

It's either an incredibly astute plan to bring the prices of shares down in hope of getting a cheaper price or simply reckless, only time will tell.
 
OP
OP
ethomaz

ethomaz

Rebolation!
21 Jun 2022
7,985
6,836
Brasil 🇧🇷
PSN ID
ethomaz
Well, I myself did want him to buy ~Twitter and change the political narrative, i am a moderate at heart but do lean slightly conservative.

I think to many institutions are leaning in a certain political direction and that needs to be changed.

Saying that, what he has done could be extremely dangerous as in bringing the entire house of cards down.

It's either an incredibly astute plan to bring the prices of shares down in hope of getting a cheaper price or simply reckless, only time will tell.
It is fine to want something being changed in the politics of the companies... you do that electing a board with different opinions.
But what Elon did is different imo... I really don't believe he wanted to buy Twitter plus I have a lot of doubts of how to implement his "new" ideias on Twitter.

He is astute... that nobody can deny... I just think his character is not that good but that is me.

I believe at least an investigation will have with Twitter firing a lawsuit against him... because it is crime to make a purchase offer just to change the shares prices before back the offer... he needs good reason to have back off.
 
  • brain
Reactions: Sircaw

IntentionalPun

Veteran
Founder
22 Jun 2022
863
678
Urf
onlyfans.com
No one talking about how much of Twitter is bots? Because that's the official reason he's pulling out, they can't prove it despite it being a term of the sale. If they bring him to court they'll be forced to reveal bot levels.
There was no "term of the sale" regarding bots, or anything they had to "prove" to Musk after he agreed to buy the company.
 

Explosive Zombie

Active member
21 Jun 2022
237
263
There was no "term of the sale" regarding bots, or anything they had to "prove" to Musk after he agreed to buy the company.

You literally have no clue what you're talking about, EVERY bit of speculation on how this goes is based on the legitimacy of Musk's claim that bot figures are higher than Twitter disclosed, absolutely no one is making the argument that Twitter would be in the right even if they lied about this.
 

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,756
10,208
Musk had zero intention of buying twitter and he did this to manipulate their stock, as he usually does. He's done this with crypto, which is unregulated, he's done this with Tesla... Twitter has provided bot figures, and Mollusk, with a very small sample and high margin of error, called their numbers wrong.

At the end of the day he will not buy Twitter, which is for the best, because he is not an advocate for free speech. The guy that prevents a journalist from buying a Tesla because he said mean things about the company in an article, the guy that blocks people on Twitter because they call him out on the fraud he is, cannot be for free speech.

Additionally, I fail to see how a billionaire owning social media, or news, is something seen as positive. I mean, just look at this:

IgiUwOy.png
 

Explosive Zombie

Active member
21 Jun 2022
237
263
Musk had zero intention of buying twitter and he did this to manipulate their stock, as he usually does. He's done this with crypto, which is unregulated, he's done this with Tesla... Twitter has provided bot figures, and Mollusk, with a very small sample and high margin of error, called their numbers wrong.

At the end of the day he will not buy Twitter, which is for the best, because he is not an advocate for free speech. The guy that prevents a journalist from buying a Tesla because he said mean things about the company in an article, the guy that blocks people on Twitter because they call him out on the fraud he is, cannot be for free speech.

Additionally, I fail to see how a billionaire owning social media, or news, is something seen as positive. I mean, just look at this:

IgiUwOy.png

It was owned by mostly Saudi billionaires before Musk so that last point is weird. They gave him a bot number they were unable to verify and still refuse to disclose how they came to their conclusion on bot percentage. If they want to sue him then they need to disprove the crux of his argument, so discovery in court will either be them damning themselves on the bot issue or they prove Musk wrong, in which case he's forced to buy. Musk in control of a non-bot-laden Twitter is a happy outcome for people who like free speech, even if you want to claim he hasn't personally adhered to free speech in all ways (buying a car is not a right, being not blocked by someone on Twitter is not a right) he at least speaks to the idea of it which Twitter clearly and flagrantly has not up to this point.
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: KiryuRealty

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,756
10,208
It was owned by mostly Saudi billionaires before Musk so that last point is weird

Wrong. The biggest Stockholders for twitter are funds. And it was like that before Mollusk.


They gave him a bot number they were unable to verify and still refuse to disclose how they came to their conclusion on bot percentage. If they want to sue him then they need to disprove the crux of his argument, so discovery in court will either be them damning themselves on the bot issue or they prove Musk wrong, in which case he's forced to buy.

Wrong. Mollusk has not been able to provide data that supports his thesis, and that's what he needs to prove, since he's the one saying the data is wrong. He used a super small sample and a flawed methodology to reach an absurd number of bots. He never intended to buy twitter, he just wanted to manipulate stocks. This is not new, he has done it before (stock manipulation).


Musk in control of a non-bot-laden Twitter is a happy outcome for people who like free speech, even if you want to claim he hasn't personally adhered to free speech in all ways (buying a car is not a right, being not blocked by someone on Twitter is not a right) he at least speaks to the idea of it which Twitter clearly and flagrantly has not up to this point.

How can you argue Musk supports free speech when he blocks people from acquiring his products because they excerted that right to free speech, and blocks them on Twitter for having an opinion against him? Those two are not compatible, you know?

And Twitter, for the most part, supports free speech. They just don't support hate speech.
 
Last edited:
  • haha
Reactions: KiryuRealty

Explosive Zombie

Active member
21 Jun 2022
237
263
Wrong. The biggest Stockholders for twitter are funds. And it was like that before Mollusk.




Wrong. Mollusk has not been able to provide data that supports his thesis, and that's what he needs to prove, since he's the one saying the data is wrong. He used a super small sample and a flawed methodology to reach an absurd number of bots. He never intended to buy twitter, he just wanted to manipulate stocks. This is not new, he has done it before (stock manipulation).




How can you argue Musk supports free speech when he blocks people from acquiring his products because they excerted that right to free speech, and blocks them on Twitter for having an opinion against him? Those two are not compatible, you know?

And Twitter, for the most part, supports free speech. They just don't support hate speech.

I'm talking about who's on their board deciding everything.

He isn't the one required to provide data, Twitter is. He hasn't just asked for accurate bot numbers but for their methodology for determining it and they provided neither.

Because free speech has no bearing on individuals choosing not to hear it, it's about your speech being stopped from being heard in general. If you insult someone's wife who wanted to sell you their car they don't need to continue with the deal to honor "free speech", that's not what free speech means, it isn't freedom from any consequences for that speech.

Twitter has a long history of banning people who have not used hate speech and unfortunately for you and anyone who has a problem with hate speech even that is covered by the actual first amendment, exceptions for hate speech are invented by corporations, it is not a recognized exception constitutionally. But even so, like I said, they have a long history of banning people from their platform who cannot be shown to have even engaged in hate speech.
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: KiryuRealty

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,756
10,208
He isn't the one required to provide data, Twitter is. He hasn't just asked for accurate bot numbers but for their methodology for determining it and they provided neither.

If he says the data is wrong, he needs to prove it's wrong. The onus is on him.

I'm talking about who's on their board deciding everything.

Not the same as owning the company.

Because free speech has no bearing on individuals choosing not to hear it, it's about your speech being stopped from being heard in general. If you insult someone's wife who wanted to sell you their car they don't need to continue with the deal to honor "free speech", that's not what free speech means, it isn't freedom from any consequences for that speech.

That's not what he did though, and you're moving the goalpost.

Twitter has a long history of banning people who have not used hate speech and unfortunately for you and anyone who has a problem with hate speech even that is covered by the actual first amendment, exceptions for hate speech are invented by corporations, it is not a recognized exception constitutionally. But even so, like I said, they have a long history of banning people from their platform who cannot be shown to have even engaged in hate speech.

The first amendment, in the US, applies to PUBLIC entities, I.E. the government, not to private companies. Private companies can ban any and all speech they choose (not that I agree with that, but that's a fact nonetheless).
 

IntentionalPun

Veteran
Founder
22 Jun 2022
863
678
Urf
onlyfans.com
You literally have no clue what you're talking about, EVERY bit of speculation on how this goes is based on the legitimacy of Musk's claim that bot figures are higher than Twitter disclosed, absolutely no one is making the argument that Twitter would be in the right even if they lied about this.

The ONLY way that matters is if a court considers what Twitter told Musk fraud.

Like actual criminal fraud.

It's not some condition of the sale for Twitter to provide info to Musk.. it absolutely is not. They already gave him info and he already agreed to buy Twitter.

Musk did not ask for Twitter's methodology for determining bot count before signing the dotted line, he just... signed... he has no right to that information, he had a right to ask for it, he had the right to say "no" if they wouldn't provide it, etc.. but he already bought them.. and asked after, hence why he is being sued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satoru

IntentionalPun

Veteran
Founder
22 Jun 2022
863
678
Urf
onlyfans.com
Twitter has a long history of banning people who have not used hate speech and unfortunately for you and anyone who has a problem with hate speech even that is covered by the actual first amendment, exceptions for hate speech are invented by corporations, it is not a recognized exception constitutionally. But even so, like I said, they have a long history of banning people from their platform who cannot be shown to have even engaged in hate speech.
You are so far off on this it's insane.

You think every forum ban in the history of forums is a free speech violations?

Because that's what you are implying... as other's have said only the government and it's entities has to abide by free speech. And even that is limited, as a government entity can still do things like kicking you out of a courtroom for being disruptive, or even charging you with a crime. It's all situational.. the 1st amendment protects the press, it protects things like protests, it protects groups like the KKK, etc... but that doesn't mean you can just say what you want, anywhere, any time without facing consequences.. even legal ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satoru

Explosive Zombie

Active member
21 Jun 2022
237
263
If he says the data is wrong, he needs to prove it's wrong. The onus is on him.



Not the same as owning the company.



That's not what he did though, and you're moving the goalpost.



The first amendment, in the US, applies to PUBLIC entities, I.E. the government, not to private companies. Private companies can ban any and all speech they choose (not that I agree with that, but that's a fact nonetheless).

Your first point is for a court to decide, not you.

More important than owning it, actually. As Musk himself found out when becoming majority share holder, hence this whole snafu.

You complained he denied someone access to something he was selling over their speech, did you not? And how is the goalpost being moved?

No crap, dude, this is why your commentary on Musk blocking people or not selling to them is meaningless.
The ONLY way that matters is if a court considers what Twitter told Musk fraud.

Like actual criminal fraud.

It's not some condition of the sale for Twitter to provide info to Musk.. it absolutely is not. They already gave him info and he already agreed to buy Twitter.

Musk did not ask for Twitter's methodology for determining bot count before signing the dotted line, he just... signed... he has no right to that information, he had a right to ask for it, he had the right to say "no" if they wouldn't provide it, etc.. but he already bought them.. and asked after, hence why he is being sued.

Find me the exact terms and conditions of the sale, the entire written agreement and make it clear to me you're right, otherwise you're blowing hot air until courtroom discovery gives us these answers.

You are so far off on this it's insane.

You think every forum ban in the history of forums is a free speech violations?

Because that's what you are implying... as other's have said only the government and it's entities has to abide by free speech. And even that is limited, as a government entity can still do things like kicking you out of a courtroom for being disruptive, or even charging you with a crime. It's all situational.. the 1st amendment protects the press, it protects things like protests, it protects groups like the KKK, etc... but that doesn't mean you can just say what you want, anywhere, any time without facing consequences.. even legal ones.

So, you're saying what I was saying that Musk not selling a car to someone isn't infringing on their free speech... that Musk blocking someone isn't infringing on their free speech? Okay, guess you're not disagreeing with me.
 

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,756
10,208
More important than owning it, actually. As Musk himself found out when becoming majority share holder, hence this whole snafu.
He signed the dotted line and accepted the conditions and data provided. Then he contested once he got what he wanted.

You complained he denied someone access to something he was selling over their speech, did you not? And how is the goalpost being moved?

Because him openly blocking speech and criticism shows he's not for free speech? It's not like the people he blocked were being openly racist or whatever. I'm not sure how you can argue that simultaneously he's for free speech and preventing it.
 

Explosive Zombie

Active member
21 Jun 2022
237
263
He signed the dotted line and accepted the conditions and data provided. Then he contested once he got what he wanted.



Because him openly blocking speech and criticism shows he's not for free speech? It's not like the people he blocked were being openly racist or whatever. I'm not sure how you can argue that simultaneously he's for free speech and preventing it.

He isn't planning to make it so you can't block people you don't want to on Twitter and that's what no one expects. Also you keep bringing up racism as though it isn't free speech and is the only thing it's okay to object to? I get it's really the in thing to act like any comment perceived as racist is the worst thing ever said but there are no laws regarding it. An example of his free speech mentality that would clearly change Twitter would be allowing Trump back on, who was not banned for your favorite pet peeve "racism/hate speech" either.
 

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,756
10,208
He isn't planning to make it so you can't block people you don't want to on Twitter and that's what no one expects. Also you keep bringing up racism as though it isn't free speech and is the only thing it's okay to object to? I get it's really the in thing to act like any comment perceived as racist is the worst thing ever said but there are no laws regarding it

Racist speech is not free speech in plenty of countries and it can even be a crime. The US is not the world, it represents about 3 or 4% of it. And it's not the only thing, it's just an example.

An example of his free speech mentality that would clearly change Twitter would be allowing Trump back on, who was not banned for your favorite pet peeve "racism/hate speech" either.

Again, someone that actively prevents free speech (Musk) is not a "free speech absolutist". I'm not even sure how you keep mentioning it is.
 

Explosive Zombie

Active member
21 Jun 2022
237
263
Racist speech is not free speech in plenty of countries and it can even be a crime. The US is not the world, it represents about 3 or 4% of it. And it's not the only thing, it's just an example.



Again, someone that actively prevents free speech (Musk) is not a "free speech absolutist". I'm not even sure how you keep mentioning it is.

Most countries are backwards and have less freedom than America, the greatest country on this Earth.

You just made an active argument that free speech only refers to the government stopping you from saying something, not your favorite tech billionaire blocking you on Twitter, figure out your argument and come back to me. Also, don't put in quotes something no one said, if I had said he was an absolutist you'd have a leg to stand on.