Musk Takes 9.2% Stake In Twitter

[disneysteve]

Oh boy will this be interesting. I wonder what he's planning on doing

I heard today that he posted a poll asking if Twitter should add an Edit button. Heck, if he can accomplish that, I will fully support him. That's been the biggest fault of Twitter since day one.

I also heard that he was appointed to the Board which, among other things, restricts him from owning more than about 15% of the company, so no chance of him becoming a majority owner as long as he remains on the Board.

[disneysteve]

That analogy doesnt quite work.

Perhaps not. How about this one? You own a store. At the front of the store, you maintain a bulletin board where customers can post items for sale, job listings, community events, etc. Would you allow anything and everything to be posted there or would you remove postings that you feel are inappropriate?

Twitter is an electronic bulletin board. They have every right to regulate what gets posted on it.

You mentioned pornography. Twitter has decided that's okay, and it's their right to do so. Another social media platform, Tumblr, used to be full of pornography. For whatever reason, they decided they no longer wanted to host that content so they banned it. Of course, that was pretty much the demise of Tumblr but it was their decision to make. I fully support both companies in that regard. These are private businesses. They do not have to permit content that they don't approve of.

[rennigade]

Perhaps not. How about this one? You own a store. At the front of the store, you maintain a bulletin board where customers can post items for sale, job listings, community events, etc. Would you allow anything and everything to be posted there or would you remove postings that you feel are inappropriate?

Twitter is an electronic bulletin board. They have every right to regulate what gets posted on it.

You mentioned pornography. Twitter has decided that's okay, and it's their right to do so. Another social media platform, Tumblr, used to be full of pornography. For whatever reason, they decided they no longer wanted to host that content so they banned it. Of course, that was pretty much the demise of Tumblr but it was their decision to make. I fully support both companies in that regard. These are private businesses. They do not have to permit content that they don't approve of.

I wish I knew more about how twitter works and how things are displayed. The bulletin board analogy...shoppers wouldnt have the ability to not see whats posted on it. I have to imagine on twitter you can decide what is displayed and what isnt? Or, is nothing displayed and you have to follow accounts to see anything?

I think its hard for any of us to wrap our heads around the influence twitter has. Do they have any competition where people can get different views from? Ive heard of other players building up platforms like twitter, but their numbers are minuscule compared to twitter or facebook. I dont know if its a great thing that they get to decide what can and cannot be posted...minus disgusting stuff like the obvious + violence and hate. With that kind of power and influence, they can sway huge populations of people into whatever they decide they want to support.

On a side note but interesting...there's a woman named Renee DiResta. She did a deep dive into russia troll farms. One of the many crazy things she found was 19 of the 20 biggest Christian groups on facebook are ran by russian troll farms. Im not entirely sure if they have twitter accounts. Im guessing they are also involved with twitter. Im not sure facebook or twitter is healthy for anyone.

[disneysteve]

I dont know if its a great thing that they get to decide what can and cannot be posted...minus disgusting stuff like the obvious + violence and hate.

That's exactly how the law works in this country, though. Private businesses, even huge ones with broad reach, have that right.

You can stroll around downtown Orlando all day wearing a t-shirt with profanity or vulgar images, but try to enter a Disney park and they will stop you because they've decided that isn't allowed on their property.

On a side note but interesting...there's a woman named Renee DiResta. She did a deep dive into russia troll farms. One of the many crazy things she found was 19 of the 20 biggest Christian groups on facebook are ran by russian troll farms.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I don't think most people realize how pervasive Russia's influence is online.

[disneysteve]

I dont know if its a great thing that they get to decide what can and cannot be posted...minus disgusting stuff like the obvious + violence and hate.

Also, what constitutes "disgusting" or "hate" is, unfortunately, subject to opinion. Many people have no problem at all with blatant discrimination, racism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, and other hateful stuff. I see nothing wrong with Twitter saying that sort of content isn't welcomed. That said, I can also tell you that there is a ton of it on Twitter so it's not like the platform is squeaky clean.

[myrdale]

Twitter is a private business, not a government entity. They are under no obligation to serve as host to people posting lies, misinformation, hate speech, incitement of violence, etc. If you owned a store, would you allow a customer to stand in the middle of the place speaking to everyone else about things with which you personally disagree or find harmful or dangerous?

One person's truth is another's "lies and misinformation" if they disagree with them politically.

One person's opinion is another's "hate speech" if they disagree with them politically.

One person's political discord is another's "incitement of violence" if they disagree with them politically.

It seems to me, Twitter is only concerned with the half of the customers in the store they "personally disagree" with politically.

[disneysteve]

One person's truth is another's "lies and misinformation" if they disagree with them politically.

One person's opinion is another's "hate speech" if they disagree with them politically.

One person's political discord is another's "incitement of violence" if they disagree with them politically.

It seems to me, Twitter is only concerned with the half of the customers in the store they "personally disagree" with politically.

I oppose antisemitism. That isn't a political view.
I oppose racism. That isn't a political view.
I oppose discriminating against people based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. That isn't a political view.

Somehow things that fundamentally have nothing at all to do with politics have become very politicized.

[myrdale]

I oppose antisemitism. That isn't a political view.
I oppose racism. That isn't a political view.
I oppose discriminating against people based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. That isn't a political view.

Somehow things that fundamentally have nothing at all to do with politics have become very politicized.

Israel should be allowed to expand into territory they won. Well that's the opposite of antisemitism, but still a political view.
The 55% of violent crimes committed by 15% of the population. Political groups list that fact as racist.
A baker politely declines to bake a cake and is sued out of business. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to Twitter, yet it is OK to force a baker out of business because he discriminated based on his religious views.

Things that fundamentally have nothing to do with politics have become very politicized by the practice of one party demonizing members of the other party who hold those views.

[disneysteve]

because he discriminated

I oppose discrimination too. No business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or other protected classes. But again, I don't think of that as a political issue. It's become one sadly, but it is basic human decency.

[ua_guy]

One person's truth is another's "lies and misinformation" if they disagree with them politically.

One person's opinion is another's "hate speech" if they disagree with them politically.

One person's political discord is another's "incitement of violence" if they disagree with them politically.

It seems to me, Twitter is only concerned with the half of the customers in the store they "personally disagree" with politically.

So don't use their product. Simple as that.

[jenn_jenn]

So don't use their product. Simple as that.

Or buy a large stake in their company and get a seat on the BoD and hopefully influence the changes you’d like to see?

[disneysteve]

Or buy a large stake in their company and get a seat on the BoD and hopefully influence the changes you’d like to see?

That's a perfectly fair approach also. If that's his goal, good for him. If he succeeds, he may not like the outcome, but that's not for me to say. I have no issue with him buying in and trying to bring about change regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with him.

[myrdale]

For now it's being reported that he is not going to be taking an active role on the board.

Honestly, between Tesla, SpaceX, and what ever else I would have been amazed that he had time to devote to Twitter.

[kork13]

For now it's being reported that he is not going to be taking an active role on the board.

Honestly, between Tesla, SpaceX, and what ever else I would have been amazed that he had time to devote to Twitter.

I've seen the same -- he declined the invitation for a seat on the board. Probably clarifies the intent behind his investment fairly well... He doesn't presently want to influence the company, merely investing in it, presumably foreseeing future growth/success.

[disneysteve]

I've seen the same -- he declined the invitation for a seat on the board. Probably clarifies the intent behind his investment fairly well... He doesn't presently want to influence the company, merely investing in it, presumably foreseeing future growth/success.

Either that or he wants to buy more of it and serving on the board would have limited the stake he's allowed to hold.