11 ms·

Elliott Management buys stake in Twitter and seeks to oust Jack Dorsey

234 points by tankenmate 7y ago

donatj 7y ago
Say what you will but I would love to see some balance and tolerance.
- iagovar 7y ago
  That would be a breath of fresh air
- ajross 7y ago
  Can you be specific about what balance you'd like to see from Twitter? Are there people you'd like to see banned or something?
  - donatj 7y ago
    The opposite, I would like to see fewer people banned, on all sides. I know personally a large number of people banned for expressing pretty mainstream right-leaning beliefs on the platform. I also know people who have declared that we should kill Trump's children who my report on that went nowhere.
  - logicallee 7y ago
    Here is a serious New York Times editorial suggesting that Donald Trump be banned from Twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.h... I think everyone reading this honestly knows there was a serious chance that a liberal employee at Twitter would do that as a political statement. (I would have disagreed with that action.) There is, obviously, no chance that Obama's Twitter would be banned. This is clearly "out of balance". I don't think Republicans having a stake in Twitter would improve this situation, though. Also in this specific example, the ban did not happen. (Just answering the question.)
    - ajross 7y ago
      Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned? Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.
      - logicallee 7y ago
        >Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned? I don't believe so, no. I think "who said it" (Trump or Obama) also determines who would get banned. (Currently I think Trump would get banned for something Obama wouldn't get banned for.) This is the balance that I referred to.
    - mnd999 7y ago
      As you conclude , neither was banned. As such no conclusions can be drawn about the biases or lack of it at Twitter based on that evidence. Not sure why you then go on to do so.
      - logicallee 7y ago
        Let's keep this civil. You are 100% correct that my comment did not show any bias at Twitter, as I referred to something that did not occur. Instead I appealed to the reader's intuition about a counterfactual, showing that the reader already knows and has internalized this balance at the moment, by appealing to the reader's intuition at how surprised the reader would be: not at all surprised to read "Twitter has banned Donald Trump" - though this is a counterfactual - and on reading that headline would know that a liberal employee would have done it. Do you consider the hypothetical headline I just quoted highly improbable? (I don't.) Not saying this status quo is good or bad - I was just answering the question. EDIT: So I'm walking with someone, and he said that he couldn't see it happening. The reasons that he gave were that it would be very bad for business because a lot of Republicans also use Twitter and that since it is the president of the United States, he could argue that this is a public function. So would be limiting his freedom of speech in a sense. So I guess I'm wrong and it would surprise many people.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Yes. Spike Lee for one: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense-tweet-lawsuit-656118 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense... He tweeted the home address of a person who happened to share the same last name as an unpopular person in the news, inviting people to attack this person, causing this person to have to move for his own protection. He was never banned from Twitter for this. Disgusting.
- eyjafjallajokul 7y ago
  I wasn’t aware that balance was missing. Got a source on that?
  - bergoid 7y ago
    Is Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, a good enough source? https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac... > Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'
    - loceng 7y ago
      Yet they're aware of that and set their rules and follow them accordingly; people only get ban from Twitter after 3 strikes as far as I know, and that's bad behaviour related, which if bad behaviour happens more by "one side" than the other - how can you blame the platform/moderators for that?
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        So disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.
        loceng 7y ago
        All of the examples I have seen, when have a response by Twitter associated with them, is that Twitter follows a 3 strikes and you're out rule - and they apply these rules to everyone. If there are a few examples where this isn't followed then okay, there were mistakes, problems - but that is then at a government level that needs some judiciary process for. Re: 'so many examples of people getting banned for "wrong think"'- have your sources been confirmed/provided confirmation by Twitter that's that what it was - and Moderation (parenting) is a very important and effort full work that is required to prevent a wild west of society. A wild west of society is more costly and leads to far more suffering than a managed home; if you want to raise children that are racist within your own home, or who where you find it acceptable for them threaten to kill others, you're allowed to - however forcing ALL platforms to allow all behaviour is insanity, and so Twitter needs to be allowed to have the rules they want to allow - and people can "vote" by using that service or not, and then other platforms can have their own rules - and that government as a whole will have to decide what those bounds are; perhaps should government provide a free speech platform like exist public parks as an option that everyone has available to them.
- no_wizard 7y ago
  Not really sure you will find the balance you may seek. I suspect strongly Jack Dorsey has little to do with moderation on the platform, if that’s the bone to pick here, which I don’t think is at all. If anything twitter has largely been silent on moderating anything at all beyond a few notable exceptions
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Which Twitter do you read? I've got so used to following links to conservative Twitter accounts and discovering they're banned it's not even worthy of note anymore. Twitter routinely even removes blue verification badges because of an expressed opinion. You have Twitter employees saying themselves they classify trump supporters as bots and ban them. I didn't even realise this was a matter for disagreement.
- coliveira 7y ago
  Twitter is the only company that will not allow the fake ads paid by trump supporters. This is what we need to do.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    What about the Mueller report that showed ads bought by Russians that supported Sanders and Clinton? Does a “ministry of truth” really sound like a good idea? Edit: well apparently very few people ACTUALLY READ the much hyped Mueller report.
    - mnd999 7y ago
      What about them? If you ban all political ads then they all go away regardless of who they are supporting or who paid for them.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        I believe the context I replied to was “fake ads by Trump supporters” when the reality is no “side” has a monopoly on nonsense.
- kzrdude 7y ago
  Don't we have enough right-wing social media and media moguls already?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- charlesju 7y ago
  Balance is a false paradigm, not all ideas are valid, ie. just because some people believe the earth are flat doesn't mean that in school we have to teach the earth is both flat and round. (a more 50/50 idea would be evolution or carbon dating) I would also say Jack Dorsey has been pretty fair about the platform. I don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.
  - robin_reala 7y ago
    I’m not sure that either evolution or carbon-dating approach 50/50…
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    Not all ideas are valid, but that therefore means that balance is a false paradigm? I don't see how that follows. There was a time(supposedly) when the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun was considered invalid.
    - Riverheart 7y ago
      Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.
      - ravenstine 7y ago
        > Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age". > And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm. Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.
- 12xo 7y ago
  Balance? How do you balance what is essentially a cesspool. The Internet, and specifically 'social media', always ends up at the lowest common denominator.
  - donatj 7y ago
    A well mixed cesspool is balanced. People at least seeing each other opinions. Understanding that there is like half of the population that doesn't agree with them. A well mixed cesspool is healthier than what we have.
    - 12xo 7y ago
      A well mixed cesspool? No one with any sense wants to hang out in a cesspool. That's the problem. You are expecting human behavior to change. And worse, on the internet none the less.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      A 'well mixed' cesspool doesn't exist, because inevitably in the absence of moderation one side of the cesspool will chase out the other. It's usually the more racist, virulent side. See: Voat, Gab and so forth.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Come on, this article is the poster child of unnecessary politicization. The Guardian isn't claiming that the buy is about politics, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence it is, so why call Singer "Republican mega-donor" or talk about what Trump has to say about him?
- kyledrake 7y ago
  Calling him a Republican mega-donor is if anything an understatement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Political_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Poli...
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm saying it's irrelevant. Not every story is about national politics.
    - kyledrake 7y ago
      I think the politics of billionaires attempting to take control of the engines of discourse is quite relevant, especially given the current political landscape where no less than two of them are dumping an enormous amount of their own money to attempt a brokered DNC convention and push out a progressive candidate.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        I don't agree with the fundamental premise. "How might this news affect political elections" is usually not a question we should even try to answer.
        kyledrake 7y ago
        It is completely plausible given his political track record that he is attempting to take control of Twitter to inhibit a progressive movement addressing wealth inequality issues. I don't think you can cover this story honestly without addressing the possible motives of a very active actor. This is a major public social network, not an oil refinery. It feels really inappropriate to treat this as an apolitical business move and I think the speculation on motives is more than warranted, that the story would be incomplete without it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mrtksn 7y ago
There seems to be a strong desire around the world to implement the Turkish media business model: Operate the media as a loss leader and make your profits from your other businesses by being favourable to the politicians in power and get just as favourable treatment. This also scales nicely because you can start getting way overpriced ad buys when other companies also want to get favourable deals with the politicians, so you become a direct broker for access to the government. Of course, the quality suffers and other media begins to emerge but you can keep buying the challengers or the govt can take care of them. In Turkey, the pro-govt media is called "pool media" because a bunch of businessmen close to the ruling party created a pool to buy out newspapers and TV channels and an audio recording of them discussing the details was leaked(which is also very complicated, way out of the scope of this comment).
- markus_zhang 7y ago
  Media has always been a part of the political arsenal since maybe thousands of years ago. The only difference is who is finacing it.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  Not just Turkish, works in a lot of corrupt countries. Up to a point though: if the price is too high, you're going to jail and your media empire sold to the govt friendly ones. Tax evasion, corruption, murder or whatever. The ones on the good side get business and building permits, state advertising (they'll invent a campaign for you,) win contract bids, get out of jail free card etc etc.
- fortran77 7y ago
  You don't even have to be operating at a loss to benefit from being favorable to politicians in power. It lets you get away with things. For example: Apple paid Jobs in backdated stock options[1] while having Al Gore on the board. With a salary of $1/year, he was able to take all his income as long term capital gains and save on SS tax and income tax. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-jobs-haunted-by-backdating-scandal-again https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-jobs-haunted-by-back...
- mark_l_watson 7y ago
Danieru 7y ago
Oh wow, getting Argentina to make good on their defaulted bonds is about as Mission-Impossible as activist investing gets. Not much productive to say about the political aspect of this move on Twitter, but I can say I would not want to be fighting Mr. Signer.
- aurelianito 7y ago
  He even deposed a democratic government. He was a big Macri supporter, and several 'ongs' supported by him where presided by members of his government (for example, Laura Alonso). If this guy gets Twitter control it will make Twitter complete trash.
loceng 7y ago
I'd be curious to know Scott Galloway's response to this. Is this action that of a mainstream media channel being bought and control shifted way from Jack and current board's leadership, where they seem to be trying to at least do good - even if they are faltering some? I'd speculate that they will push for political ads to be allowed, and false information to be perpetuated. To me this situation is highlighting that we can't depend on platforms that depend on advertising revenue as its operations budget.
- wreck 7y ago
  Ya I'm worried that the only reason to oust Dorsey is to try and allow political ads again
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    Out right rejecting a huge profit stream like that is reason enough to drop Dorsey. What a terrible business decision to leave that sort of money on the table over a relatively small cohort of their users who complain.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      > over a relatively small cohort of their users who complain. I can’t wait until vocal minority has been seen for what it is and now cow toed to. The best art and comedy and film of the past wouldn’t exist if created today because surely it would offend someone and “need” to be canceled.
    - wreck 7y ago
      Yes I agree about it being a terrible business decision. But not everything should be about money. Micro-targeting political ads is terrible for democracy
      - jsjddbbwj 7y ago
        I think Twitter and other social networks should be neutral. I don't see why they should make decisions that benefit democracy or any other political system.
request_id 7y ago
Peter Singer is the world's worst billionaire.
- request_id 7y ago
  Typo. Paul.
- smitty1e 7y ago
  Competition is narrow, but scurrilous. OTOH, as a capitalist, if the oligarchs aren't breaking laws, then it falls to the dissenters to offer peaceful, appropriate resistance. #StickItToTheMan
  - request_id 7y ago
    I enjoy the fruits of capitalism but Singer makes me look up the various stages of the French Revolution.
predators372 7y ago
Well, maybe it'd be wiser to start with keeping media platforms as platforms for the media rather than outlets for opinions, political or otherwise. I remember the days when Twitter was weird and diverse and interesting. There was a group of people making *-ebooks bots for strange content, there were people walking in traphouses in major cities and basically doing photo essays. There was so much interesting, unique content on Twitter back then. Granted, Twitter is certainly imbalanced from the political perspective and it'll be good to see a better balance, but I think that the platform will almost inevitably sway further from the coolest things that they were doing before. I LOVE politics, but damn if it ain't ruining all kinds of cool tech.
- beamatronic 7y ago
  Well there’s no moat so anyone can make a Twitter competitor
  - loceng 7y ago
    I'd agree with you once 100% of your data, and network connections data, is owned and movable by you - so if others move their data too, everything can be previously interlinked and displayed in a UI similarly - then we'd have true mobility and ability to "vote for governance" with our attention (so we can decide to pay for a service with ads or pay with funds). If all of the good people from these platforms would shift away, taking away advertising revenues with them, then platforms that do bad, unacceptable things, would quickly get punished.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    This is a bad argument. Google tried to make a Facebook competitor... google... and failed spectacularly. If Google resources can’t overcome the momentum of a big service; then no one can except over a long time. So while I’m very free hand of market sometimes, I realize the reality that these are currently monopolies in their spaces and have to resources to prevent competition via lawsuits and acquisitions.
    - 7y ago
karl11 7y ago
Kind of a misleading headline. Elliot has a long history of activist investing primarily motivated by profits and having nothing to do with politics.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Their tech activism is not run directly by Singer (who, btw, is pretty liberal). He is the face of Elliot but he isn't personally responsible for every decision they make (that would require super-human levels of work).
- ajaygeorge91 7y ago
  it made you click on the article though ;)
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
I read the article, and as much as I see a lot of Elliott Management's tactics as personally odious, this action seems very much par for the course for them. That is, I don't see the political angle having much weight. Elliott has always been very clear the absolute only thing they care about is making more money, and finding companies that they believe have a management team that is not 100% laser focused on increasing shareholder value have always been a target for them. Given Dorsey's dual CEO roles and his persona as the tech-male version of Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand, not out of character at all that they'd be eyeing a change in management. As an aside, would someone who is more versed in the world of finance explain how these PE companies are able to have so much leverage when the stakes they take are still relatively small (e.g. single digits). Management in firms across the world shudder with fear when Elliott takes a sizable stake, but I don't understand how Elliott can wield so much power without having a greater percentage of shares.
- Avshalom 7y ago
  >absolute only thing they care about is making more money That is a political angle.
  - modwest 7y ago
    This is correct
  - tomatotomato37 7y ago
    It can be, but I'd argue in Twitter's case it's not. Twitter's problem isn't "too much" altruism, but rather generically poor management
  - loceng 7y ago
    You're right. The problem is people in their thinking silo and try to differentiate to claim that not everything is political - when in fact, someone who only is interested in earning money is inherently impacting politics.
- SkyMarshal 7y ago
  That was my impression too, Dorsey is spreading himself too thin, getting distracted, and not focusing sufficiently on Twitter, hence he’s made himself vulnerable to an activist shareholder. As for Elliott’s power, part of that is probably his soft power - ability to persuade enough other shareholders to vote Dorsey out. That means he needs to supply a compelling alternative plan to the current status quo and get enough other shareholders to vote for it. I assume he already had that to some degree before buying the shares, so Dorsey could be in for a battle here.
tptacek 7y ago
"Republican mega-donor"? Elliott is one of the most famous activist investors in the world. Nobody talked about the "Republicanism" when Elliott started pushing Softbank around. And it's absolutely no surprise that an activist would push on Twitter; its CEO isn't even full-time.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  With the elections coming up, the President being more present on Twitter than in Real Life and Twitters new aversion towards political ads, it's quite natural to mention his investment into one of the sides just like his position on what Twitter has been doing on the political spiel.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    Twitter is only relevant because the media retweets and otherwise focuses on tweets. The media was into it pre Trump but now it’s unavoidable.
    - Krasnol 7y ago
      "The media" would be even less relevant today if they'd have ignored twitter trends. It's not like they got together and picked some irrelevant network to make it popular.
      - sjg007 7y ago
        Eh... I Doubt the media would be less relevant. Twitter is fascinating because it’s your personal press release.
- gist 7y ago
  > And it's absolutely no surprise that an activist would push on Twitter; its CEO isn't even full-time. For those to young enough to remember (you do) there are so many things that happen in this day and age in public companies that would never fly years ago. Part time CEO and for that matter Dorsey's planned move to Africa means he can't be fully focused on what is right for twitter. Which has been the case for some time. I remember when Obama took office and in the first few weeks he found it necessary to go to a meeting at his kid's school. I can think of many ways political spin wise why he might have done that (people mumbled something about setting a good example for other fathers iirc) but honestly the angle seemed to be 'important that I know what is going on with my kids'. As if his wife Michelle wasn't good to drive that event. Or that somehow the kids of a President need to be hovered over at all lest at that age.
bryanmgreen 7y ago
Here is the original source, can we update link? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/singer-s-elliott-is-said-to-seek-to-replace-twitter-ceo-dorsey https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/singer-s-...
throwGuardian 7y ago
The Guardian would like it if Twitter wrangled to retain Democrats at the helm. And apparently whoever opvoted this to #1
sytelus 7y ago
Money is a measure of labor you own from an average human. A billionaire owns labor from about a million humans perpetually to practically any of his/her whims. With so much labor available at hand, a person can control entire governments, major companies, social pipes, news channels, elections, policies, laws, land use, resource distribution, economic priorities, arts, science and culture. The billionaires are the new monarchs in pretty much all sense. I shudder to think of powers vested in a trillionaire.
cheese4242 7y ago
You wouldn't hear a peep about this if it was a "Democratic mega-donor". That would just be business as usual. Let's stop beating around the bush and just admit that many are desperate to silence any and all right-leaning voices. Just look at what is happening to Reddit...
- Proven 7y ago
  Right on! And it'd be refreshing to get some free speech going over there after years of fake news and user harassment
fourstar 7y ago
What's up with this politicized title? Might as well just say the hedge fund was also started by a Jew.
modwest 7y ago
people are bad & should be avoided
botwriter 7y ago
Fucking YESSS!!!! Get in there my son!
smkellat 7y ago
This could lead to good outcomes. Mr. Dorsey is effectively an absentee landlord, metaphorically speaking, for this online property. I am hopeful.
olivermarks 7y ago
Singer is primarily a vulture capitalist, operating on a nation state scale (he resurrected Argentinian national debt he bought and forced payment for example and his wealth exploded after 2008 buying up distressed assets and business). The 'Republican mega-donor' aspect is a tiny droplet of his corporate wealth, I suspect the main reason for the Twitter pressure is for Singer the globalist and his elite colleagues to control a global medium and manipulate it to a much greater extent than it already is, cracking down on free speech and with much stronger surveillance and data tracking.
- jariel 7y ago
  "he resurrected Argentinian national debt" ... wait, so the money Argentina borrowed, they have to actually pay back? FYI this is not 'vulture capitalism', it's not even really capitalism. It's just basic financing.
  - olivermarks 7y ago
    https://www.gregpalast.com/rubios-billionaire-wins-ransom-from-argentina/ https://www.gregpalast.com/rubios-billionaire-wins-ransom-fr...
    - jariel 7y ago
      Or maybe we should redefine 'vulture capitalism' to be borrowing money from naive Americans, Europeans, and Japanese by blatantly lying to them, then corruptly stealing and squandering the money, then refusing to pay it back all the while claiming that you are a victim and that the people whose money you stole are 'imperialist colonialist aggressors'. Now that's quite a playbook.
      - olivermarks 7y ago
        I don't think you understand the formal use of the term 'vulture capitalist' https://prospect.org/economy/vulture-capitalism-killed-sears/ https://prospect.org/economy/vulture-capitalism-killed-sears...
jariel 7y ago
The bit where he said he wanted to 'move to Africa for a few years' was such a big red flag, I can't imagine any CEO without a retirement horizon ever saying that. It's like he was signalling to the market he wanted to get taken over. Of course, it's not an unreasonable sentiment, but from a corporate / investor relations communications perspective it's fatalistic.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

234 points by tankenmate 7y ago

donatj 7y ago

Say what you will but I would love to see some balance and tolerance.

iagovar 7y ago
That would be a breath of fresh air
ajross 7y ago
Can you be specific about what balance you'd like to see from Twitter? Are there people you'd like to see banned or something?
- donatj 7y ago
  The opposite, I would like to see fewer people banned, on all sides. I know personally a large number of people banned for expressing pretty mainstream right-leaning beliefs on the platform. I also know people who have declared that we should kill Trump's children who my report on that went nowhere.
- logicallee 7y ago
  Here is a serious New York Times editorial suggesting that Donald Trump be banned from Twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.h... I think everyone reading this honestly knows there was a serious chance that a liberal employee at Twitter would do that as a political statement. (I would have disagreed with that action.) There is, obviously, no chance that Obama's Twitter would be banned. This is clearly "out of balance". I don't think Republicans having a stake in Twitter would improve this situation, though. Also in this specific example, the ban did not happen. (Just answering the question.)
  - ajross 7y ago
    Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned? Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.
    - logicallee 7y ago
      >Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned? I don't believe so, no. I think "who said it" (Trump or Obama) also determines who would get banned. (Currently I think Trump would get banned for something Obama wouldn't get banned for.) This is the balance that I referred to.
  - mnd999 7y ago
    As you conclude , neither was banned. As such no conclusions can be drawn about the biases or lack of it at Twitter based on that evidence. Not sure why you then go on to do so.
    - logicallee 7y ago
      Let's keep this civil. You are 100% correct that my comment did not show any bias at Twitter, as I referred to something that did not occur. Instead I appealed to the reader's intuition about a counterfactual, showing that the reader already knows and has internalized this balance at the moment, by appealing to the reader's intuition at how surprised the reader would be: not at all surprised to read "Twitter has banned Donald Trump" - though this is a counterfactual - and on reading that headline would know that a liberal employee would have done it. Do you consider the hypothetical headline I just quoted highly improbable? (I don't.) Not saying this status quo is good or bad - I was just answering the question. EDIT: So I'm walking with someone, and he said that he couldn't see it happening. The reasons that he gave were that it would be very bad for business because a lot of Republicans also use Twitter and that since it is the president of the United States, he could argue that this is a public function. So would be limiting his freedom of speech in a sense. So I guess I'm wrong and it would surprise many people.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Yes. Spike Lee for one: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense-tweet-lawsuit-656118 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense... He tweeted the home address of a person who happened to share the same last name as an unpopular person in the news, inviting people to attack this person, causing this person to have to move for his own protection. He was never banned from Twitter for this. Disgusting.
eyjafjallajokul 7y ago
I wasn’t aware that balance was missing. Got a source on that?
- bergoid 7y ago
  Is Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, a good enough source? https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac... > Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'
  - loceng 7y ago
    Yet they're aware of that and set their rules and follow them accordingly; people only get ban from Twitter after 3 strikes as far as I know, and that's bad behaviour related, which if bad behaviour happens more by "one side" than the other - how can you blame the platform/moderators for that?
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      So disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.
      - loceng 7y ago
        All of the examples I have seen, when have a response by Twitter associated with them, is that Twitter follows a 3 strikes and you're out rule - and they apply these rules to everyone. If there are a few examples where this isn't followed then okay, there were mistakes, problems - but that is then at a government level that needs some judiciary process for. Re: 'so many examples of people getting banned for "wrong think"'- have your sources been confirmed/provided confirmation by Twitter that's that what it was - and Moderation (parenting) is a very important and effort full work that is required to prevent a wild west of society. A wild west of society is more costly and leads to far more suffering than a managed home; if you want to raise children that are racist within your own home, or who where you find it acceptable for them threaten to kill others, you're allowed to - however forcing ALL platforms to allow all behaviour is insanity, and so Twitter needs to be allowed to have the rules they want to allow - and people can "vote" by using that service or not, and then other platforms can have their own rules - and that government as a whole will have to decide what those bounds are; perhaps should government provide a free speech platform like exist public parks as an option that everyone has available to them.
no_wizard 7y ago
Not really sure you will find the balance you may seek. I suspect strongly Jack Dorsey has little to do with moderation on the platform, if that’s the bone to pick here, which I don’t think is at all. If anything twitter has largely been silent on moderating anything at all beyond a few notable exceptions
- thu2111 7y ago
  Which Twitter do you read? I've got so used to following links to conservative Twitter accounts and discovering they're banned it's not even worthy of note anymore. Twitter routinely even removes blue verification badges because of an expressed opinion. You have Twitter employees saying themselves they classify trump supporters as bots and ban them. I didn't even realise this was a matter for disagreement.
coliveira 7y ago
Twitter is the only company that will not allow the fake ads paid by trump supporters. This is what we need to do.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  What about the Mueller report that showed ads bought by Russians that supported Sanders and Clinton? Does a “ministry of truth” really sound like a good idea? Edit: well apparently very few people ACTUALLY READ the much hyped Mueller report.
  - mnd999 7y ago
    What about them? If you ban all political ads then they all go away regardless of who they are supporting or who paid for them.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      I believe the context I replied to was “fake ads by Trump supporters” when the reality is no “side” has a monopoly on nonsense.
kzrdude 7y ago
Don't we have enough right-wing social media and media moguls already?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
charlesju 7y ago
Balance is a false paradigm, not all ideas are valid, ie. just because some people believe the earth are flat doesn't mean that in school we have to teach the earth is both flat and round. (a more 50/50 idea would be evolution or carbon dating) I would also say Jack Dorsey has been pretty fair about the platform. I don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.
- robin_reala 7y ago
  I’m not sure that either evolution or carbon-dating approach 50/50…
- ravenstine 7y ago
  Not all ideas are valid, but that therefore means that balance is a false paradigm? I don't see how that follows. There was a time(supposedly) when the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun was considered invalid.
  - Riverheart 7y ago
    Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      > Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age". > And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm. Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.
12xo 7y ago
Balance? How do you balance what is essentially a cesspool. The Internet, and specifically 'social media', always ends up at the lowest common denominator.
- donatj 7y ago
  A well mixed cesspool is balanced. People at least seeing each other opinions. Understanding that there is like half of the population that doesn't agree with them. A well mixed cesspool is healthier than what we have.
  - 12xo 7y ago
    A well mixed cesspool? No one with any sense wants to hang out in a cesspool. That's the problem. You are expecting human behavior to change. And worse, on the internet none the less.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    A 'well mixed' cesspool doesn't exist, because inevitably in the absence of moderation one side of the cesspool will chase out the other. It's usually the more racist, virulent side. See: Voat, Gab and so forth.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Come on, this article is the poster child of unnecessary politicization. The Guardian isn't claiming that the buy is about politics, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence it is, so why call Singer "Republican mega-donor" or talk about what Trump has to say about him?

kyledrake 7y ago
Calling him a Republican mega-donor is if anything an understatement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Political_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Poli...
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm saying it's irrelevant. Not every story is about national politics.
  - kyledrake 7y ago
    I think the politics of billionaires attempting to take control of the engines of discourse is quite relevant, especially given the current political landscape where no less than two of them are dumping an enormous amount of their own money to attempt a brokered DNC convention and push out a progressive candidate.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't agree with the fundamental premise. "How might this news affect political elections" is usually not a question we should even try to answer.
      - kyledrake 7y ago
        It is completely plausible given his political track record that he is attempting to take control of Twitter to inhibit a progressive movement addressing wealth inequality issues. I don't think you can cover this story honestly without addressing the possible motives of a very active actor. This is a major public social network, not an oil refinery. It feels really inappropriate to treat this as an apolitical business move and I think the speculation on motives is more than warranted, that the story would be incomplete without it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mrtksn 7y ago

There seems to be a strong desire around the world to implement the Turkish media business model: Operate the media as a loss leader and make your profits from your other businesses by being favourable to the politicians in power and get just as favourable treatment. This also scales nicely because you can start getting way overpriced ad buys when other companies also want to get favourable deals with the politicians, so you become a direct broker for access to the government. Of course, the quality suffers and other media begins to emerge but you can keep buying the challengers or the govt can take care of them. In Turkey, the pro-govt media is called "pool media" because a bunch of businessmen close to the ruling party created a pool to buy out newspapers and TV channels and an audio recording of them discussing the details was leaked(which is also very complicated, way out of the scope of this comment).

markus_zhang 7y ago
Media has always been a part of the political arsenal since maybe thousands of years ago. The only difference is who is finacing it.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
Not just Turkish, works in a lot of corrupt countries. Up to a point though: if the price is too high, you're going to jail and your media empire sold to the govt friendly ones. Tax evasion, corruption, murder or whatever. The ones on the good side get business and building permits, state advertising (they'll invent a campaign for you,) win contract bids, get out of jail free card etc etc.
fortran77 7y ago
You don't even have to be operating at a loss to benefit from being favorable to politicians in power. It lets you get away with things. For example: Apple paid Jobs in backdated stock options[1] while having Al Gore on the board. With a salary of $1/year, he was able to take all his income as long term capital gains and save on SS tax and income tax. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-jobs-haunted-by-backdating-scandal-again https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-jobs-haunted-by-back...
mark_l_watson 7y ago

Danieru 7y ago

Oh wow, getting Argentina to make good on their defaulted bonds is about as Mission-Impossible as activist investing gets. Not much productive to say about the political aspect of this move on Twitter, but I can say I would not want to be fighting Mr. Signer.

aurelianito 7y ago
He even deposed a democratic government. He was a big Macri supporter, and several 'ongs' supported by him where presided by members of his government (for example, Laura Alonso). If this guy gets Twitter control it will make Twitter complete trash.

loceng 7y ago

I'd be curious to know Scott Galloway's response to this. Is this action that of a mainstream media channel being bought and control shifted way from Jack and current board's leadership, where they seem to be trying to at least do good - even if they are faltering some? I'd speculate that they will push for political ads to be allowed, and false information to be perpetuated. To me this situation is highlighting that we can't depend on platforms that depend on advertising revenue as its operations budget.

wreck 7y ago
Ya I'm worried that the only reason to oust Dorsey is to try and allow political ads again
- macinjosh 7y ago
  Out right rejecting a huge profit stream like that is reason enough to drop Dorsey. What a terrible business decision to leave that sort of money on the table over a relatively small cohort of their users who complain.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    > over a relatively small cohort of their users who complain. I can’t wait until vocal minority has been seen for what it is and now cow toed to. The best art and comedy and film of the past wouldn’t exist if created today because surely it would offend someone and “need” to be canceled.
  - wreck 7y ago
    Yes I agree about it being a terrible business decision. But not everything should be about money. Micro-targeting political ads is terrible for democracy
    - jsjddbbwj 7y ago
      I think Twitter and other social networks should be neutral. I don't see why they should make decisions that benefit democracy or any other political system.

request_id 7y ago

Peter Singer is the world's worst billionaire.

request_id 7y ago
Typo. Paul.
smitty1e 7y ago
Competition is narrow, but scurrilous. OTOH, as a capitalist, if the oligarchs aren't breaking laws, then it falls to the dissenters to offer peaceful, appropriate resistance. #StickItToTheMan
- request_id 7y ago
  I enjoy the fruits of capitalism but Singer makes me look up the various stages of the French Revolution.

predators372 7y ago

Well, maybe it'd be wiser to start with keeping media platforms as platforms for the media rather than outlets for opinions, political or otherwise. I remember the days when Twitter was weird and diverse and interesting. There was a group of people making *-ebooks bots for strange content, there were people walking in traphouses in major cities and basically doing photo essays. There was so much interesting, unique content on Twitter back then. Granted, Twitter is certainly imbalanced from the political perspective and it'll be good to see a better balance, but I think that the platform will almost inevitably sway further from the coolest things that they were doing before. I LOVE politics, but damn if it ain't ruining all kinds of cool tech.

beamatronic 7y ago
Well there’s no moat so anyone can make a Twitter competitor
- loceng 7y ago
  I'd agree with you once 100% of your data, and network connections data, is owned and movable by you - so if others move their data too, everything can be previously interlinked and displayed in a UI similarly - then we'd have true mobility and ability to "vote for governance" with our attention (so we can decide to pay for a service with ads or pay with funds). If all of the good people from these platforms would shift away, taking away advertising revenues with them, then platforms that do bad, unacceptable things, would quickly get punished.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  This is a bad argument. Google tried to make a Facebook competitor... google... and failed spectacularly. If Google resources can’t overcome the momentum of a big service; then no one can except over a long time. So while I’m very free hand of market sometimes, I realize the reality that these are currently monopolies in their spaces and have to resources to prevent competition via lawsuits and acquisitions.
  - 7y ago

karl11 7y ago

Kind of a misleading headline. Elliot has a long history of activist investing primarily motivated by profits and having nothing to do with politics.

hogFeast 7y ago
Their tech activism is not run directly by Singer (who, btw, is pretty liberal). He is the face of Elliot but he isn't personally responsible for every decision they make (that would require super-human levels of work).
ajaygeorge91 7y ago
it made you click on the article though ;)

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

I read the article, and as much as I see a lot of Elliott Management's tactics as personally odious, this action seems very much par for the course for them. That is, I don't see the political angle having much weight. Elliott has always been very clear the absolute only thing they care about is making more money, and finding companies that they believe have a management team that is not 100% laser focused on increasing shareholder value have always been a target for them. Given Dorsey's dual CEO roles and his persona as the tech-male version of Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand, not out of character at all that they'd be eyeing a change in management. As an aside, would someone who is more versed in the world of finance explain how these PE companies are able to have so much leverage when the stakes they take are still relatively small (e.g. single digits). Management in firms across the world shudder with fear when Elliott takes a sizable stake, but I don't understand how Elliott can wield so much power without having a greater percentage of shares.

Avshalom 7y ago
>absolute only thing they care about is making more money That is a political angle.
- modwest 7y ago
  This is correct
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  It can be, but I'd argue in Twitter's case it's not. Twitter's problem isn't "too much" altruism, but rather generically poor management
- loceng 7y ago
  You're right. The problem is people in their thinking silo and try to differentiate to claim that not everything is political - when in fact, someone who only is interested in earning money is inherently impacting politics.
SkyMarshal 7y ago
That was my impression too, Dorsey is spreading himself too thin, getting distracted, and not focusing sufficiently on Twitter, hence he’s made himself vulnerable to an activist shareholder. As for Elliott’s power, part of that is probably his soft power - ability to persuade enough other shareholders to vote Dorsey out. That means he needs to supply a compelling alternative plan to the current status quo and get enough other shareholders to vote for it. I assume he already had that to some degree before buying the shares, so Dorsey could be in for a battle here.

tptacek 7y ago

"Republican mega-donor"? Elliott is one of the most famous activist investors in the world. Nobody talked about the "Republicanism" when Elliott started pushing Softbank around. And it's absolutely no surprise that an activist would push on Twitter; its CEO isn't even full-time.

Krasnol 7y ago
With the elections coming up, the President being more present on Twitter than in Real Life and Twitters new aversion towards political ads, it's quite natural to mention his investment into one of the sides just like his position on what Twitter has been doing on the political spiel.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Twitter is only relevant because the media retweets and otherwise focuses on tweets. The media was into it pre Trump but now it’s unavoidable.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    "The media" would be even less relevant today if they'd have ignored twitter trends. It's not like they got together and picked some irrelevant network to make it popular.
    - sjg007 7y ago
      Eh... I Doubt the media would be less relevant. Twitter is fascinating because it’s your personal press release.
gist 7y ago
> And it's absolutely no surprise that an activist would push on Twitter; its CEO isn't even full-time. For those to young enough to remember (you do) there are so many things that happen in this day and age in public companies that would never fly years ago. Part time CEO and for that matter Dorsey's planned move to Africa means he can't be fully focused on what is right for twitter. Which has been the case for some time. I remember when Obama took office and in the first few weeks he found it necessary to go to a meeting at his kid's school. I can think of many ways political spin wise why he might have done that (people mumbled something about setting a good example for other fathers iirc) but honestly the angle seemed to be 'important that I know what is going on with my kids'. As if his wife Michelle wasn't good to drive that event. Or that somehow the kids of a President need to be hovered over at all lest at that age.

bryanmgreen 7y ago

Here is the original source, can we update link? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/singer-s-elliott-is-said-to-seek-to-replace-twitter-ceo-dorsey https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/singer-s-...

throwGuardian 7y ago

The Guardian would like it if Twitter wrangled to retain Democrats at the helm. And apparently whoever opvoted this to #1

sytelus 7y ago

Money is a measure of labor you own from an average human. A billionaire owns labor from about a million humans perpetually to practically any of his/her whims. With so much labor available at hand, a person can control entire governments, major companies, social pipes, news channels, elections, policies, laws, land use, resource distribution, economic priorities, arts, science and culture. The billionaires are the new monarchs in pretty much all sense. I shudder to think of powers vested in a trillionaire.

cheese4242 7y ago

You wouldn't hear a peep about this if it was a "Democratic mega-donor". That would just be business as usual. Let's stop beating around the bush and just admit that many are desperate to silence any and all right-leaning voices. Just look at what is happening to Reddit...

Proven 7y ago
Right on! And it'd be refreshing to get some free speech going over there after years of fake news and user harassment

fourstar 7y ago

What's up with this politicized title? Might as well just say the hedge fund was also started by a Jew.

modwest 7y ago

people are bad & should be avoided

botwriter 7y ago

Fucking YESSS!!!! Get in there my son!

smkellat 7y ago

This could lead to good outcomes. Mr. Dorsey is effectively an absentee landlord, metaphorically speaking, for this online property. I am hopeful.

olivermarks 7y ago

Singer is primarily a vulture capitalist, operating on a nation state scale (he resurrected Argentinian national debt he bought and forced payment for example and his wealth exploded after 2008 buying up distressed assets and business). The 'Republican mega-donor' aspect is a tiny droplet of his corporate wealth, I suspect the main reason for the Twitter pressure is for Singer the globalist and his elite colleagues to control a global medium and manipulate it to a much greater extent than it already is, cracking down on free speech and with much stronger surveillance and data tracking.

jariel 7y ago
"he resurrected Argentinian national debt" ... wait, so the money Argentina borrowed, they have to actually pay back? FYI this is not 'vulture capitalism', it's not even really capitalism. It's just basic financing.
- olivermarks 7y ago
  https://www.gregpalast.com/rubios-billionaire-wins-ransom-from-argentina/ https://www.gregpalast.com/rubios-billionaire-wins-ransom-fr...
  - jariel 7y ago
    Or maybe we should redefine 'vulture capitalism' to be borrowing money from naive Americans, Europeans, and Japanese by blatantly lying to them, then corruptly stealing and squandering the money, then refusing to pay it back all the while claiming that you are a victim and that the people whose money you stole are 'imperialist colonialist aggressors'. Now that's quite a playbook.
    - olivermarks 7y ago
      I don't think you understand the formal use of the term 'vulture capitalist' https://prospect.org/economy/vulture-capitalism-killed-sears/ https://prospect.org/economy/vulture-capitalism-killed-sears...

jariel 7y ago

The bit where he said he wanted to 'move to Africa for a few years' was such a big red flag, I can't imagine any CEO without a retirement horizon ever saying that. It's like he was signalling to the market he wanted to get taken over. Of course, it's not an unreasonable sentiment, but from a corporate / investor relations communications perspective it's fatalistic.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]