Twitter accepts Elon Musk's buyout deal

[easysurfer]

So much for that poison pill ...

• Twitter's board accepted billionaire Elon Musk's offer to buy the social media company and take it private, the company confirmed.
• The announcement ends a weeks-long saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
• Twitter's board sought to fend off a hostile takeover by adopting a so-called poison pill.

Twitter's board has accepted an offer from billionaire Elon Musk to buy the social media company and take it private, the company announced Monday.
"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," Musk said in a statement included in the press release announcing the $44 billion deal. "I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/twitter-accepts-elon-musk-s-buyout-deal/ar-AAWzSEh

I'm not ready to buy the free speech argument. Didn't Zuck and FB have that approach until things took to the need to moderate?
I'm not on Twitter and have no plans to join .

 

[USGrant1962]

So much for that poison pill ...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/twitter-accepts-elon-musk-s-buyout-deal/ar-AAWzSEh

I'm not ready to buy the free speech argument. Didn't Zuck and FB have that approach until things took to the need to moderate?
I'm not on Twitter and have no plans to join .

I never got how the Board could do something like a poison pill while maintaining their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. It was a 38% premium in a still-inflated market when it was announced. They could certainly argue about the price or look for higher offers. But, I think the threat of shareholder lawsuits against the BOD was a real influence.

 

[euro]

I'm not on Twitter and have no plans to join .

same here, not a Twitter user at all. Will be interesting to see where he takes it though

 

[natetheb]

Without being political, I look at what businesses Musk has gotten into and the results from them. While not all fully successful (hyperloop), PayPal, SpaceX, and Telsa have been transformative. As he said himself, this deal will likely not be profitable but I do believe he is attempting to be transformative when it comes to free speech. For example, he refused to shut the Russian users off of the Starlink network. I believe this allows the non-squeeky wheel type people to still have their voices heard.

 

[easysurfer]

Without being political, I look at what businesses Musk has gotten into and the results from them. While not all fully successful (hyperloop), PayPal, SpaceX, and Telsa have been transformative. As he said himself, this deal will likely not be profitable but I do believe he is attempting to be transformative when it comes to free speech. For example, he refused to shut the Russian users off of the Starlink network. I believe this allows the non-squeeky wheel type people to still have their voices heard.

As for the free speech, that may work IF he allows the future Twitter to put the power of filtering out and screening out content with the user. Don't even know if that's technically possible. Other social media like FB, filtering out and privacy (no matter what FB says) is not a high priority.

Otherwise, if he allows folks to say what that want with any rules ... good luck with that. Will be interesting to see if his buyout will lead to substance or just hype.

 

[niven]

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," said Mr. Musk.

No matter what your politics are, that's a ridiculous statement. Twitter is for twits, always has been.

 

[38Chevy454]

same here, not a Twitter user at all. Will be interesting to see where he takes it though

Me neither. But I do think this is the key below:

"I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans."

 

[ls99]

No twitter user, but that forum can't get worse. Have popcorn and lawnchair ready to watch the gnashing of teeth and general meltdown. Though good idea to authenticate humans and dump the bots. Even better to make public the filter algorithm in the current version and subsequent changes..

 

[Car-Guy]

I don't have a Twitter account "yet" but I will probably get one depending on what Elon does with the rules.

 

[Sue J]

The original Twitter was about "What are you doing?" It was a lot simpler. Now it's politics and ads and links to news on other sites and lots of other things.

It seemed to change after some posts during a political uprising where users were posting updates and videos. I can't think of what year, what uprising, so help me out if you remember any of this! Checked with my "history aware" son and he thinks it was 2009 in Iran.

 

[Jerry1]

All I know is that if our freedom of speech is dependent on a platform that only allows 280 characters, we’re already in a lot of trouble. The level of thoughtful discussion in our “town square” is abysmal. That our representatives don’t have or don’t utilize a forum that allows for thoughtful discussion is a disgrace. Think how far we’ve come from the Fireside Chat in 1933. Now almost 90 years later instead of a more robust conversation with our representatives, we rely on snippets of disconnected thoughts to inform and lead the masses. Sad, given how far technology has come. Maybe this is a step in the right direction. I don’t think so, but I hope so.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Twitter is for twits, always has been.

Upper Class Twits no less.....

 

[easysurfer]

All I know is that if our freedom of speech is dependent on a platform that only allows 280 characters, we’re already in a lot of trouble. The level of thoughtful discussion in our “town square” is abysmal. That our representatives don’t have or don’t utilize a forum that allows for thoughtful discussion is a disgrace. Think how far we’ve come from the Fireside Chat in 1933. Now almost 90 years later instead of a more robust conversation with our representatives, we rely on snippets of disconnected thoughts to inform and lead the masses. Sad, given how far technology has come. Maybe this is a step in the right direction. I don’t think so, but I hope so.

Hopefully a Bayesian filter can be applied to tweets similarly to the way applied to email spam filters and that's sort of the improvements thought about. Let the reader decide what is appropriate and what is not with proper tools. Otherwise, if anything goes, that's like the Wild Wild West.

 

[CaptTom]

I just watched a (long!) interview with Elon where he talks about twitter and a lot of other things:
https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk...tesla_and_how_his_brain_works_live_at_ted2022

I have to admit I have some trepidation about him owning Twitter. I don't use it, but I do understand how influential it is. Clearly his "free speech" ideals and opposition to lifetime bans will cheer certain parts of the political spectrum. But it's not as one-sided as it sounds. He also talks about making the algorithms which promote and suppress certain types of speech open-source and transparent, and talks about how committed he is to "truth" and "reality."

Anyway, since he's about to become the most influential, as well as the richest, person on the planet, that interview was worth the investment in watching the whole thing. It really helped me understand him as a person. It still scares me that anyone has that much power, but I guess I'd rather have him wield it than some politician.

 

[Winemaker]

I never got how the Board could do something like a poison pill while maintaining their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. It was a 38% premium in a still-inflated market when it was announced. They could certainly argue about the price or look for higher offers. But, I think the threat of shareholder lawsuits against the BOD was a real influence.

I suspect the board has an idea of the next earnings report, and it may be a poor one. They lock in a high price now before a tank next week when the earnings come out.

 

[Aerides]

Twitter is what you make it. Yes it can be terrible, but so can sitting watching only one TV channel you don't like and never looking for ones you do. Also, I mostly view it on my PC so I don't get ads.

My feed is not much of a dumpster fire at all, and I turn off any time I follow a new account, and unfollow if they clog up my feed.

Stuff I follow:

Some news (from a few selected journalists)
Lots of arts/crafts from artisans and artists
Many cats and dogs
A few comic/fun accounts
Some writers/authors
A couple of political folks from "both sides"!
A few actors (well below the celebrity line)
A few indie game devs
National Hurricane Center
The japanese mascot account
Darth

All in all rather pleasant and informative. Not hard!

 

[Irishgirlyc58]

No matter what your politics are, that's a ridiculous statement. Twitter is for twits, always has been.

Not true. I get the fastest and best responses from companies I’m having problems with through Twitter. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it lame.

 

[Aerides]

Not true. I get the fastest and best responses from companies I’m having problems with through Twitter. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it lame.

Now that's true. I've gotten outstanding support - fast - several times this way.

 

[aja8888]

What he does with it won't affect me at all. I have tried to use it, and opened an account, but everything I see is a collection of garbage or political crap.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

Never had it and never will, but glad to see a step forward for free speech and a step backward for censorship.

 

[Qs Laptop]

Twitter is what you make it. Yes it can be terrible, but so can sitting watching only one TV channel you don't like and never looking for ones you do. Also, I mostly view it on my PC so I don't get ads.

My feed is not much of a dumpster fire at all, and I turn off any time I follow a new account, and unfollow if they clog up my feed.

Stuff I follow:

Some news (from a few selected journalists)
Lots of arts/crafts from artisans and artists
Many cats and dogs
A few comic/fun accounts
Some writers/authors
A couple of political folks from "both sides"!
A few actors (well below the celebrity line)
A few indie game devs
National Hurricane Center
The japanese mascot account
Darth

All in all rather pleasant and informative. Not hard!

This is an excellent post. Twitter is what you make it. True, so true.

Don't like the political arguments? Don't follow politicians or political wonks. I used to follow a bunch of politicians but I've winnowed it down to a handful. I deliberately choose people from both sides of the spectrum so I get both sides.

I like Twitter because you get breaking news by eyewitnesses while it's happening. People that are on the scene post videos long before the news crews arrive. You can see unfiltered news as it happens.

As a baseball fan I appreciate the fact I can get highlights of games a couple of minutes after they happen, or I can get caught up on the best plays in about 15 minutes by going through my Twitter feed after most games are completed.

Anybody on ER-ORG that watches the evening news or relies on newspapers to get your news is basically getting whatever was on Twitter 4 to 24 hours ago. I get the local Saturday and Sunday paper and I barely have to read the news sections because I'm already up to speed from reading my Twitter feed the day before.

I've also found product support is superior with Twitter. Companies do not want bad PR to get a toehold and go viral so they respond to you almost immediately. Some companies are proactive and do searches in real time looking for mentions of their brand name and respond to people even if they are not explicitly looking for support.

I would suggest if you watch a particular YouTube channel you can get ahead of the crowd by following that YouTuber on Twitter (or people in the same subject matter category.)

I welcome Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter and I predict it will get bigger and better. I predict there will be an influx of new users and a return of dormant users after he announces his new policies and changes to the platform.

 

[Qs Laptop]

What he does with it won't affect me at all. I have tried to use it, and opened an account, but everything I see is a collection of garbage or political crap.

There is a learning curve, but once you get the hang of it, it's an amazing tool. Simple, don't follow political crap. Only follow what interests you. Even then, I winnow down the number of people and accounts I follow because they get off-topic, they post too much, or they hardly ever post.

For example, I'm a history buff and I follow several Twitter accounts that post history facts. NY Times: On this Date in History is excellent. They post the front page of the NY Times on dates where significant historical events occurred. You can zoom in on the image and read the articles. I'm also following an account that posts the day-by-day news of WWII as it happened, it started several years ago and is now in 1943.

 

[Koolau]

I think moderation is important. It works pretty well here - especially for food fights. What we don't moderate here is "truth" - whatever that is. We let our members debate what they think is the truth.

If on Twitter Joe Blow candidate says "I served in Viet Nam" and he didn't, I don't see it as the moderators' job to point that out. Let candidate Jill Smith say it and document it if she wishes. Moderators have better things to do than search for "lies, dam lies and statistics."

What we have seen is statements like "I'm the best candidate because I've accomplished the most" defined as untrue/moderated. I think that was the step too far that some folks have objected to on Twitter. (SWAG it's one reason Musk wanted to take the reins of Twitter - but it's just as likely he has a plan to make a bundle on Twitter.)

There ARE objective truths such as the atomic weight of Hydrogen (though that has been "refined" over the years) and there are subjective truths "Jill Smith is the most attractive candidate for...."

I could see some "truth" committee insuring the few objective truths, but it seems a waste of time as we're all smart enough to look up objective truth.

When candidate Joe Blow says "I've done more for group XYZ than Jill Smith" I consider that a subjective "truth" (or subjective lie) that Jill Smith and her minions can correct. It's not up to moderators to say that Joe Blow is full of it or ban Joe Blow for that matter.

Banning should be for food fights that get out of hand. But I'm told - (I don't use it) the food fights are the best part for some folks. As always, YMMV.

 

[easysurfer]

I think moderation is important. It works pretty well here - especially for food fights. What we don't moderate here is "truth" - whatever that is. We let our members debate what they think is the truth.

If on Twitter Joe Blow candidate says "I served in Viet Nam" and he didn't, I don't see it as the moderators' job to point that out. Let candidate Jill Smith say it and document it if she wishes. Moderators have better things to do than search for "lies, dam lies and statistics."

What we have seen is statements like "I'm the best candidate because I've accomplished the most" defined as untrue/moderated. I think that was the step too far that some folks have objected to on Twitter. (SWAG it's one reason Musk wanted to take the reins of Twitter - but it's just as likely he has a plan to make a bundle on Twitter.)

There ARE objective truths such as the atomic weight of Hydrogen (though that has been "refined" over the years) and there are subjective truths "Jill Smith is the most attractive candidate for...."

I could see some "truth" committee insuring the few objective truths, but it seems a waste of time as we're all smart enough to look up objective truth.

When candidate Joe Blow says "I've done more for group XYZ than Jill Smith" I consider that a subjective "truth" (or subjective lie) that Jill Smith and her minions can correct. It's not up to moderators to say that Joe Blow is full of it or ban Joe Blow for that matter.

Banning should be for food fights that get out of hand. But I'm told - (I don't use it) the food fights are the best part for some folks. As always, YMMV.

I don't use Twitter, but Musk owing Twitter has me curious on the impact. I think to see will he run Twitter responsibly or just use for self promotion.

In your example, can you filter out some of the stuff Joe Blow tweets? or is that an block/no block thing?

 

[niven]

Not true. I get the fastest and best responses from companies I’m having problems with through Twitter. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it lame.

I was referring to the "where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated" line - on a platform that allows limited debate by it's nature and only short responses. I guess I do misunderstand.