Musk Takes 9.2% Stake In Twitter

[james.hendrickson]

Per Bloomberg, Elon Musk has taken a 9.2% stake in Twitter.

Guys - any response to this? Will Musk use his influence to return Twitter to a free speech platform?

[disneysteve]

Guys - any response to this? Will Musk use his influence to return Twitter to a free speech platform?

I certainly hope not. That would pretty much be the end of Twitter.

So many people don’t understand that freedom
of speech refers to the government, not private businesses. Twitter is a private business. They aren’t obligated to allow things like hate speech or inciting violence on their platform.

[bjl584]

He's a silent partner, so I doubt he'll have much influence. At least not directly.
This is probably more of a "pump and dump" for him than anything.
But with Musk you never know.
This could be the first step in some grander vision that he has.

[disneysteve]

He's a silent partner, so I doubt he'll have much influence.

He's now the largest stockholder. Not a majority of the company by any measure, but I'm sure his voice will be heard.

[Snydley]

All he wants is to draw attention to himself, in his endless quest to feel important and powerful. Why he can't choose to become 'important' by donating billions to end world hunger or something of similar significance I fail to understand. But alas, I have empathy, so we are different species.

[ua_guy]

I think it's more than just ego. The metaverse is something and Twitter is the platform where important people broadcast their ideas (for better or worse). He's up to something.

[james.hendrickson]

All he wants is to draw attention to himself, in his endless quest to feel important and powerful. Why he can't choose to become 'important' by donating billions to end world hunger or something of similar significance I fail to understand. But alas, I have empathy, so we are different species.

I agree - his ego is probably involved, but for what purpose? Does he want to take over the company and make it profitable or does he just want to be sure they won't censor him. He does have a huge amount of followers which may have economic value for him.

[disneysteve]

does he just want to be sure they won't censor him.

Hopefully owning 9% isn't enough to accomplish that goal. I like Twitter, but if it becomes a cesspool, I'm out, as I'm sure most people will be.

[myrdale]

From what I gather Twitter has used their community guide lines to punish anyone that did not tow their political line.

Assuming it's not just a stunt (50/50 that it is), I think he will greatly improve the situation.

[disneysteve]

From what I gather Twitter has used their community guide lines to punish anyone that did not tow their political line.

Assuming it's not just a stunt (50/50 that it is), I think he will greatly improve the situation.

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?

If Musk doesn't like Twitter, he is free to start his own social media platform, or buy a majority share of Twitter and make it into the new Parler if that's his desire. I'd have absolutely no issue with either of those options. I just don't think that 9.2% ownership gives you that power.

[bjl584]

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?

If Musk doesn't like Twitter, he is free to start his own social media platform, or buy a majority share of Twitter and make it into the new Parler if that's his desire. I'd have absolutely no issue with either of those options. I just don't think that 9.2% ownership gives you that power.

I think we're all reading way too much into this.
Musk is acentric to say the least, but he is a genius when it comes to making money.
This is an investment for him.
He is probably pretty confident that this move is going to make him a boatload of money or he wouldn't be doing it.

[disneysteve]

I think we're all reading way too much into this.
Musk is acentric to say the least, but he is a genius when it comes to making money.
This is an investment for him.
He is probably pretty confident that this move is going to make him a boatload of money or he wouldn't be doing it.

Hopefully you’re right. But it’s hard not to speculate when someone who has been a vocal critic of a company suddenly invests $3 billion in that company.

[jenn_jenn]

I’m personally here for it. Will be interested to see how this all plays out.

[rennigade]

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?

That analogy doesnt quite work. If you dont want to read something on twitter, you simply dont have to look at the post. Or I guess you can block people or groups? I dont have twitter so not entirely sure. If you're shopping in a store and you're face to face with someone that you cant get away from or that person is screaming and making you uncomfortable, thats a different story. Think about it, how much creepy stuff is online? All of us use the internet, or even youtube for example. Plenty of creepy stuff there. Most of us probably choose not to watch those sort of videos, but we use it to watch other things.

Jack wanted two versions of twitter. The version we see now, and a version that would have been the wild west. I dont believe violence and hate speech would have been allowed even in the wild west version. Problem is, twitter has everyday normal people deciding what can and cannot be said. If you say something that isnt out of line but doesnt align with a twitter employees view, they have banned accounts for it. Thats the issue with people making decisions. A company becomes so big and powerful even they cant steer keep the ship on course anymore.

It is interesting though, you can view people being tortured and porn on twitter and thats completely fine, but if you deadname someone, you'll be banned.

Also, twitter and other social media companies essentially run the world now. The power and reach they have is beyond comprehension. Since those are private companies and they decide to start blocking one viewpoint because it doesnt align with theirs, thats a massive problem.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

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