4 ms·

Hypothesis: this is not about Elon running Twitter, controlling society, insuring free speech, or any other such thing. It's simply that he wants insurance aga

Hypothesis: this is not about Elon running Twitter, controlling society, insuring free speech, or any other such thing. It's simply that he wants insurance against being de-platformed, and now he has it.

protomyth 5y ago
9% is a hell of an insurance policy. I don't disagree, the man does not do small things, but I do wonder if he just bought insurance for more people than himself.
- stathibus 5y ago
  You're assuming there was some cost/benefit analysis here. Elon has enough money that only the benefit is a factor.
- hacknat 5y ago
  Not if you're able to influence the market in a meaningful way from your Twitter handle. How is anyone underestimating Twitter's power at this point?
- stale2002 5y ago
  >? 9% is a hell of an insurance policy I mean, you say that. But the literal former president of the USA got de-platformed from twitter, and we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter. Maybe it is actually worth that amount of money, if entire elections can be influenced like that.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    >entire elections can be influenced like that. What was the influence Trump's banning had over the election?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > What was the influence Trump's banning had over the election? Especially since it occurred after the election, that's a good question.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        Well if you added the slightest, most tiniest drop of good faith for half a second, you'd realize that I said "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter", and the implication being that I think this might effect future elections, and that is the reason why. You can agree or disagree that Trump being banned from the platform that he was most known for, will effect his future election chances, and you can disagree with if you want that to happen or not, but that is completely unrelated to the point. But I think it is unfortunate that people on HN sometimes are so jumpy to find a disagreement, that they mis-understand the point so easily. Instead of thinking "This person didn't know that Trump was banned after the 2020 election, what an idiot!", instead you could have thought "Maybe he is talking about future elections, instead of the one that happened previously to his ban, which would obviously be really stupid!"
        philosopher1234 5y ago
        Its for the better that trump was banned. If trump wants to broadcast his rallying cries, racism, and lies, he can find other ways to do it.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I said "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter He didn't stop getting wall-to-wall coverage in all media when he was banned for Twitter. It did start fading shortly after he left office. I mean, it could be coincidence, but it does seem to suggest an obvious alternative explanation for why attention to him dropped.
  - hackyhacky 5y ago
    Really? He seems to be in the news pretty regularly. He even created his own social network. So he certainly has no trouble reaching his fans, and it's clear that he isn't censored or banned in the same way that, say, Alexei Navalny is in Russia. If there's declining interest in him among the public, maybe it's because he isn't president anymore.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zthrowaway 5y ago
His gripe is that Twitter is not a neutral platform and has a lot of ideological issues that have massive impact on society. What you're saying just goes full circle into that point.
tomatowurst 5y ago
but 9% seems very expensive way to do that, I think most likely he just likes it and has benefited greatly by the platform. the question, is it worth investment?
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  Well if his 9% actually appreciates over time (by no means guaranteed), then the only real cost is any opportunity cost of using the money for this right now. Which, given the investment environment, may not be that large. So assuming that his stake grows in value over the long run, it's a very small cost, really.

protomyth 5y ago

9% is a hell of an insurance policy. I don't disagree, the man does not do small things, but I do wonder if he just bought insurance for more people than himself.

stathibus 5y ago
You're assuming there was some cost/benefit analysis here. Elon has enough money that only the benefit is a factor.
hacknat 5y ago
Not if you're able to influence the market in a meaningful way from your Twitter handle. How is anyone underestimating Twitter's power at this point?
stale2002 5y ago
>? 9% is a hell of an insurance policy I mean, you say that. But the literal former president of the USA got de-platformed from twitter, and we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter. Maybe it is actually worth that amount of money, if entire elections can be influenced like that.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  >entire elections can be influenced like that. What was the influence Trump's banning had over the election?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What was the influence Trump's banning had over the election? Especially since it occurred after the election, that's a good question.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      Well if you added the slightest, most tiniest drop of good faith for half a second, you'd realize that I said "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter", and the implication being that I think this might effect future elections, and that is the reason why. You can agree or disagree that Trump being banned from the platform that he was most known for, will effect his future election chances, and you can disagree with if you want that to happen or not, but that is completely unrelated to the point. But I think it is unfortunate that people on HN sometimes are so jumpy to find a disagreement, that they mis-understand the point so easily. Instead of thinking "This person didn't know that Trump was banned after the 2020 election, what an idiot!", instead you could have thought "Maybe he is talking about future elections, instead of the one that happened previously to his ban, which would obviously be really stupid!"
      - philosopher1234 5y ago
        Its for the better that trump was banned. If trump wants to broadcast his rallying cries, racism, and lies, he can find other ways to do it.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I said "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter He didn't stop getting wall-to-wall coverage in all media when he was banned for Twitter. It did start fading shortly after he left office. I mean, it could be coincidence, but it does seem to suggest an obvious alternative explanation for why attention to him dropped.
- hackyhacky 5y ago
  Really? He seems to be in the news pretty regularly. He even created his own social network. So he certainly has no trouble reaching his fans, and it's clear that he isn't censored or banned in the same way that, say, Alexei Navalny is in Russia. If there's declining interest in him among the public, maybe it's because he isn't president anymore.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zthrowaway 5y ago

His gripe is that Twitter is not a neutral platform and has a lot of ideological issues that have massive impact on society. What you're saying just goes full circle into that point.

tomatowurst 5y ago

but 9% seems very expensive way to do that, I think most likely he just likes it and has benefited greatly by the platform. the question, is it worth investment?

rossdavidh 5y ago
Well if his 9% actually appreciates over time (by no means guaranteed), then the only real cost is any opportunity cost of using the money for this right now. Which, given the investment environment, may not be that large. So assuming that his stake grows in value over the long run, it's a very small cost, really.