Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter

[105.4]

Byker28i said:

Which is why
NAACP statement: "Mr. Musk: free speech is wonderful, hate speech is unacceptable. Disinformation, misinformation and hate speech have NO PLACE on Twitter. Do not allow 45 to return to the platform. Do not allow Twitter to become a petri dish for hate speech."

Define ‘disinformation, misinformation and hate speech’?

Let’s just take one example that seems to be current.
A man has a penis, a woman does not.

There are those who would say that the above statement is biologically correct, whilst others would say it is hate speech.

Who gets to define what is disinformation, misinformation and hate speech? We’ve certainly seen plenty of examples over the past couple of years of things being labelled disinformation, only to later turn out to be true, or certainly plausible.

I’m not comfortable with having others dictate what opinions I can hear.

[JagLover]

InformationSuperHighway said:

Bradgate said:

It will be interesting to see how many of Twitter’s predominantly young, liberal employees wish to continue working for a libertarian billionaire.

It will also be interesting to see how many of Twitter’s most-followed accounts, eg @barackobama, @Cristiano, @CNN, @BBCBreaking, @nytimes will want to continue having their brands associated with a platform owned by a libertarian billionaire.

Probably exactly the same way that the young liberal employees of Tesla, Space X, Boring Co, etc will react…. They love him.

I think he means "progressive authoritarian" not "liberal" hence the counter-point of someone with libertarian views as being the opposite.

So some of the staff of Twitter may well struggle with not being able to "no-platform" people they disagree with, if indeed Musk does create a more open forum for free speech, which is by no means certain.

[JagLover]

bodhi said:

g3org3y said:

[Gweeds]

105.4 said:

Define ‘disinformation, misinformation and hate speech’?

Let’s just take one example that seems to be current.
A man has a penis, a woman does not.

There are those who would say that the above statement is biologically correct, whilst others would say it is hate speech.
.

You could start by realising that’s in no way hate speech.

[bitchstewie]

Got to admit I'm struggling with why some people seem to be so upset by this.

Likewise the idea Twitter is going to turn into some sort of "anything goes" badlands seems for the birds as public or private you can't just let people say what they like on your platform.

[g3org3y]

bhstewie said:

Got to admit I'm struggling with why some people seem to be so upset by this.

Likewise the idea Twitter is going to turn into some sort of "anything goes" badlands seems for the birds as public or private you can't just let people say what they like on your platform.

MSNBC aren't happy.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1518777886...

[Ian Geary]

Gweeds said:

105.4 said:

Define ‘disinformation, misinformation and hate speech’?

Let’s just take one example that seems to be current.
A man has a penis, a woman does not.

There are those who would say that the above statement is biologically correct, whilst others would say it is hate speech.
.

You could start by realising that’s in no way hate speech.

In your view.

Views differ.

Therein lies the problem. It really needs an impartial legal system to moderate it.

I don't tweet, but get the feeling that the foghorn minority love Twitter. Maybe I will just tune out the sound of foghorns for a bit.

[JagLover]

gregs656 said:

I’m amazed people are getting so excited about this.

I think the pandemic showed both the importance of Twitter and also why free speech matters on it.

This wasn't a Twitter issue (but Facebook) but when the British Medical Journal starts getting censored by social media factcheckers then something has gone badly wrong.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

[grumbledoak]

g3org3y said:

MSNBC aren't happy.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1518777886...

The legacy media have basically controlled what the public think by controlling what the public hears since forever. That is what it is for.

The internet democratised publishing, so the same rich people and governments bought up and legislated all the successful publishers and marginalised any alternative views by the back door.

Now a mainstream site might actually support "free speech" and all the right people are wailing.

[Don1]

Musk for me is a wish[.] com Ironman - or a fluffy cat away from being a Bond villain.

I don't think it will go well, with Twitter going down the tubes and the right and left getting further polarised.

[Gweeds]

Ian Geary said:

In your view.

Views differ.

Therein lies the problem. It really needs an impartial legal system to moderate it.

I don't tweet, but get the feeling that the foghorn minority love Twitter. Maybe I will just tune out the sound of foghorns for a bit.

No. Hate speech has quite distinct definitions and exists within a legal framework. The example given above is in no way hate speech.

[rscott]

Don1]Musk for me is a wish[. said:

com Ironman - or a fluffy cat away from being a Bond villain.

I don't think it will go well, with Twitter going down the tubes and the right and left getting further polarised.

I can see advertisers moving elsewhere if moderation is too light - they won't want adverts appearing next to really objectional content.
Same with large companies who currently use it as a main communication channel - they'll focus more on Facebook/Instagram.

Although it'll be next year by the time Musk actually has ownership of the company, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I'm assuming the die-hard Trump fans who've invested in DWAC (the company behind Truth Social) are very confused now - their beloved leader may return to Twitter, but if he does, then Truth Social will continue to crash and burn, losing them a lot of money.

[pquinn]

Gecko1978 said:

Julian Thompson said:

Will be watching TSLA closely. I guess that’s how he’s financing it…. Ouch?

Not really ouch is it he is worth circa 300bn if day after he buys it he is worth 200bn....Still.richest guy on the plant 100bn top 5 etc. He wants it so he has bought it. Could ahut it down next day if he wants

Given that a big chunk of the funding comes from borrowing against his stock, if there's enough movement in the price it brings margin problems that he'd need to fix by either throwing in more or selling.

Given the stock is sitting at a high value for what it is, it's prone to some big swings, and he already pledged plenty of his holdings it's a risk.

If you spend money and it evaporates that's not the end of the world, scope is limited to just that original number. Borrowing on margin is a slightly different game.

Of course he could just magic up another bonus scheme that pays him out vast multiples of the profits Tesla actually generates. Stock price bro!

[Byker28i]

GroundEffect said:

Gweeds said:

GroundEffect said:

Twitter is probably the single most important website.

For what?

I use it regularly so I understand how excellent it is for fast breaking news etc. but fking hell it’s a cesspit already.

And it has a tiny active user base compared to Facebook, TikTok, Instagram etc.

Well, news. It's a simple way to get everything consolidated in to one place from the sources you care about, and find it out basically as it breaks.

Someone just paid $44BN for it, so it's clearly valuable.

It should be pointed out he hasn't bought it, just that the board has recommended his offer to shareholders

Musk is taking on $25 billion in debt financing to acquire Twitter, at an average interest rate of between 4.5-5%. That means Twitter's going to have to pay $1.15-$1.3 billion a year in interest alone, which is more than it made before interest and taxes last year.

[Byker28i]

Gweeds said:

105.4 said:

Define ‘disinformation, misinformation and hate speech’?

Let’s just take one example that seems to be current.
A man has a penis, a woman does not.

There are those who would say that the above statement is biologically correct, whilst others would say it is hate speech.
.

You could start by realising that’s in no way hate speech.

and also recognised why trump and others were banned from twitter, not for one tweet but for several instances, including after he was suspended for his rhetoric and returning to repeat the same.

[Randy Winkman]

Don1]Musk for me is a wish[. said:

com Ironman - or a fluffy cat away from being a Bond villain.

I don't think it will go well, with Twitter going down the tubes and the right and left getting further polarised.

The irony is that Twitter has long been criticised for just being a load of people slagging each other off. Surely it will be even more like that now?

[Electro1980]

The reality is, Musk is going to find it impossible to deliver what he says. You simply can’t have 100% free speech. There will always be limits, always be things banned or blocked and always be people who disagree with those limits.

In reality it wouldn’t surprise me if Musk does naff all to change moderation policy and this is simply a way of getting attention. I’m betting the reality is he has an idea of how to better leverage the platform for better returns.

[pquinn]

Still think it's weird that he actually went through with it - like other recent events you look at the build up, see a simple play that leads to some nice gains, and assume the rest is just window dressing.

Then the lunatic piles all the way in and you wonder what on earth they hope to gain from over commiting, there's no obvious way out and suddenly their every move is under a spotlight.

Guess until it actually completes there's still room for escape so we're not at the end game just yet.

[WestyCarl]

Electro1980 said:

The reality is, Musk is going to find it impossible to deliver what he says. You simply can’t have 100% free speech. There will always be limits, always be things banned or blocked and always be people who disagree with those limits.

In reality it wouldn’t surprise me if Musk does naff all to change moderation policy and this is simply a way of getting attention. I’m betting the reality is he has an idea of how to better leverage the platform for better returns.

I have no idea about twitter but based on what he's done in other industries I'd bet the changes won't be naff all.

[chemistry]

I think this is great news.

I think there should be free speech on Twitter; I would censor anything that directly incites lawbreaking and/or violence against others, but that's about it. Possibly make the minimum sign up age 16?

People should be free to offend (and equally, people are free to leave Twitter if they don't like it).