10 ms·

Shareholders like him on the board, and they would be even happier if he were running the company, because an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable.

jermaustin1 5y ago
> an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable. I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have a lot of experience with running ad sales. His big breaks have been PayPal (kind of), Tesla and SpaceX. None of which were social, none of which were "free".
- Ferrotin 5y ago
  I’m not sure either (there is of course uncertainty). But in Tesla and SpaceX, he shows good management, while my (outsider) impression of Twitter’s is that it’s dropping the ball. Also, I think Twitter was undervalued compared to its potential, and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    > and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit. Unless he was buying a seat on the board so that he could help effect change that he desired.
- rhacker 5y ago
  My paypal account is free. It is way more useful than my twitter account which I don't even know my handle.
  - seized 5y ago
    It's free to someone who only buys product. It's not free to someone receiving money.
  - jonwachob91 5y ago
    Your paypal account charges you every time you make a transaction. It is not free.
    - openknot 5y ago
      This is false. There is no fee when making a purchase in at least the US or Canada [0]. The exception is when there is a currency conversion involved (about a 4% fee). There are fees when receiving money as a result of selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes (likely most) of its money. [0] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees
      - jimnotgym 5y ago
        It is not false, when you pay for a product with paypal it takes a fee off the person receiving the money. The person receiving the money knows of this cost in advance so adds it onto the price in advance. Therefore the purchaser pays.
        openknot 5y ago
        It's not always true that a vendor receiving money will increase prices to pass the PayPal fees to the consumer. You can see that many checkouts offer multiple options (e.g. both PayPal, Stripe, and/or other methods), with the item price usually the same even if each method has a different fee. The idea is that you want to make purchasing as convenient as possible, as it costs more to lose a sale, versus paying an incremental fee difference with PayPal. If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who is less likely to return and make more purchases). Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a conference ticket or course fee). Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal account charges you each transaction (which is false). The new argument is different, which asserts that a vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.
        jimnotgym 5y ago
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Twitter is simultaneously useless and also the life-blood of western politics. The people in power care more about what Twitter thinks than what voters think.
- dangwu 5y ago
  So you think he got 3 lucky breaks when with electronic payments, electric cars, and space rockets, and Twitter is too hard?
  - jimnotgym 5y ago
    He got a lucky break with payments that allowed him to try his luck on the other two
- fallingknife 5y ago
  He didn't have a lot of experience in cars or rockets either.
elicash 5y ago
It's certainly true that the stock is currently way up on the news of his investment. I personally would not invest in a company where I cannot trust claims being made by the board.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  I am so curious as to what's in your portfolio...
Overtonwindow 5y ago
More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices. Twitter has become a liberal vacuum that, as a liberal, has gone way too far to the left in silencing voices. It's not a private company, it's a public company, and I hope Elon turns it around into a true, free speech town square, instead of just an echo chamber for blue checks.
- frob 5y ago
  No, it is literally a private company. Which is why we are having this discussion based off of SEC filings. Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good. Twitter is a public company, but not a public good.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction, including those issued by unlisted companies, e.g. start-ups.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    I believe they mean public in the publically-traded sense, but I agree with you. It's not in the public (citizen controlled) sense
  - Ajay-p 5y ago
    I don't think that means what you think it means, perhaps you are international? A Public company is one that is owned by shareholders of a public exchange. This is why Elon can buy into it and become a member of the board. If it were a private company he could not do that.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
bobkazamakis 5y ago
he hasn't had any experience running a company that doesn't rely on subsidies in over a decade but I appreciate your optimism.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jermaustin1 5y ago

> an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable. I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have a lot of experience with running ad sales. His big breaks have been PayPal (kind of), Tesla and SpaceX. None of which were social, none of which were "free".

Ferrotin 5y ago
I’m not sure either (there is of course uncertainty). But in Tesla and SpaceX, he shows good management, while my (outsider) impression of Twitter’s is that it’s dropping the ball. Also, I think Twitter was undervalued compared to its potential, and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  > and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit. Unless he was buying a seat on the board so that he could help effect change that he desired.
rhacker 5y ago
My paypal account is free. It is way more useful than my twitter account which I don't even know my handle.
- seized 5y ago
  It's free to someone who only buys product. It's not free to someone receiving money.
- jonwachob91 5y ago
  Your paypal account charges you every time you make a transaction. It is not free.
  - openknot 5y ago
    This is false. There is no fee when making a purchase in at least the US or Canada [0]. The exception is when there is a currency conversion involved (about a 4% fee). There are fees when receiving money as a result of selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes (likely most) of its money. [0] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees
    - jimnotgym 5y ago
      It is not false, when you pay for a product with paypal it takes a fee off the person receiving the money. The person receiving the money knows of this cost in advance so adds it onto the price in advance. Therefore the purchaser pays.
      - openknot 5y ago
        It's not always true that a vendor receiving money will increase prices to pass the PayPal fees to the consumer. You can see that many checkouts offer multiple options (e.g. both PayPal, Stripe, and/or other methods), with the item price usually the same even if each method has a different fee. The idea is that you want to make purchasing as convenient as possible, as it costs more to lose a sale, versus paying an incremental fee difference with PayPal. If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who is less likely to return and make more purchases). Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a conference ticket or course fee). Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal account charges you each transaction (which is false). The new argument is different, which asserts that a vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.
        jimnotgym 5y ago
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Twitter is simultaneously useless and also the life-blood of western politics. The people in power care more about what Twitter thinks than what voters think.
dangwu 5y ago
So you think he got 3 lucky breaks when with electronic payments, electric cars, and space rockets, and Twitter is too hard?
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  He got a lucky break with payments that allowed him to try his luck on the other two
fallingknife 5y ago
He didn't have a lot of experience in cars or rockets either.

elicash 5y ago

It's certainly true that the stock is currently way up on the news of his investment. I personally would not invest in a company where I cannot trust claims being made by the board.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
I am so curious as to what's in your portfolio...

Overtonwindow 5y ago

More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices. Twitter has become a liberal vacuum that, as a liberal, has gone way too far to the left in silencing voices. It's not a private company, it's a public company, and I hope Elon turns it around into a true, free speech town square, instead of just an echo chamber for blue checks.

frob 5y ago
No, it is literally a private company. Which is why we are having this discussion based off of SEC filings. Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good. Twitter is a public company, but not a public good.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction, including those issued by unlisted companies, e.g. start-ups.
- xeromal 5y ago
  I believe they mean public in the publically-traded sense, but I agree with you. It's not in the public (citizen controlled) sense
- Ajay-p 5y ago
  I don't think that means what you think it means, perhaps you are international? A Public company is one that is owned by shareholders of a public exchange. This is why Elon can buy into it and become a member of the board. If it were a private company he could not do that.
- dahfizz 5y ago

bobkazamakis 5y ago

he hasn't had any experience running a company that doesn't rely on subsidies in over a decade but I appreciate your optimism.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]