6 ms·

"Boards have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders." Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium. They also bid to buy Twitte

"Boards have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders." Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium. They also bid to buy Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft. All for 20% premium. Should shareholders do 'the right thing' and sell? Assuming you're not a Twitter shareholder why do you care about investors interests? Why don't you care about your interests? Why do plebes constantly argue against their own interests? As a Twitter user, I pretty much don't want Elon Musk involved, and I don't really care too much otherwise. Every organization has stakeholders: customers, suppliers, financiers (investors and debtors), execs, employees. If a Union forms, they can take considerable control away from investors. If debtors come calling, they can take considerable control, away from investors. 'Externalizations' such as issues in the public good, or environmental issues - matter. Usually, we like to think of those things, in the context of a 'Charter' that highlights those things i.e. some 'Crown/Gov. Corporations', things like the CBC, US Post etc.. When you say 'things that don't matter vs. things that do' - that could be true, or only even true from a certain perspective. For example, you might think they should not focus on moderation, but instead, advertising. Well, without appropriate moderation, the ship could sink. Also, issues like moderation can be hard and ultimately satisfy nobody, and frankly, might not even be an operational distraction (although it probably is). Finally - as property of Elon Musk - Twitter will be literally whatever he wants it to be. Rich People have, throughout history, bought newspapers etc. for the entire purpose of slandering their opponents. The news wasn't even 'real' until just a few generations ago, it was all tabloid. Elon Musk could will likely censor those who disagree with him and his colleagues, and boost/amplify those who's interests are aligned with him - maybe not as badly as others, but it could be that. If you're going to take a 'principled stand' on this issue, it's going to have to be one probably of the externalized common good, not so much shareholders.

RandallBrown 5y ago
> Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium. They also bid to buy Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft. All for 20% premium. Should shareholders do 'the right thing' and sell? The right thing isn't necessarily selling. In that case the right thing is to consider the offer and decide if it's worth it or not. In this case the answer would probably be "No" and the US Government probably wouldn't let it happen either.
mrleinad 5y ago
Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else. How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want? Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship". The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned.
- llbeansandrice 5y ago
  > need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. You are not immune to propaganda.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's kind of sad egoism that people think they are immune to misinformation or propaganda. Mark Twain said something along the lines of it's 10x more difficult to convince someone they've been duped, then duping them in the first place. Everyone, definitely including intelligent people, are very susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.
    - nullc 5y ago
      How many of the positions you strongly advocate for here on HN would you estimate are ultimately the result of misinformation or propaganda that you've fallen victim to?
    - mrleinad 5y ago
      Who gets to decide what's propaganda and what is not? You? The government?
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    No one is saying they are, only that they'd like the opportunity (read the right) to make up their own mind, and be wrong about things.
bewaretheirs 5y ago
"Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium." If this were to happen, the bid would be reviewed by the CFIUS -- https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co... ; based on the review, the transaction could be blocked by executive order.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Of course it would not pass muster, which is my point. There is a giant 'non market force' at play there a certain kind of regulatory apparatus which most people understand exists for good reason. This regulatory condition obviously supercedes 'fiduciary responsibility' of the Board. Communications is a protected industry because powerful foreign interests can take control of narratives, precisely because people in the commons - including you and I - are fairly easily pursuaded. 'Truth' is really hard to do, it's a public good and it's why at the national level we have protections - and - it's why both Twitter, Google etc. as 'sources of information' fall under a different perspective of governance than say, a 'cracker company'.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I know you're arguing in good faith but don't you think putting crazy hypotheticals like Xi buying any US company is a little silly? There are probably better examples to further your point.

RandallBrown 5y ago

> Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium. They also bid to buy Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft. All for 20% premium. Should shareholders do 'the right thing' and sell? The right thing isn't necessarily selling. In that case the right thing is to consider the offer and decide if it's worth it or not. In this case the answer would probably be "No" and the US Government probably wouldn't let it happen either.

mrleinad 5y ago

Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else. How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want? Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship". The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned.

llbeansandrice 5y ago
> need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. You are not immune to propaganda.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's kind of sad egoism that people think they are immune to misinformation or propaganda. Mark Twain said something along the lines of it's 10x more difficult to convince someone they've been duped, then duping them in the first place. Everyone, definitely including intelligent people, are very susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.
  - nullc 5y ago
    How many of the positions you strongly advocate for here on HN would you estimate are ultimately the result of misinformation or propaganda that you've fallen victim to?
  - mrleinad 5y ago
    Who gets to decide what's propaganda and what is not? You? The government?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  No one is saying they are, only that they'd like the opportunity (read the right) to make up their own mind, and be wrong about things.

bewaretheirs 5y ago

"Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium." If this were to happen, the bid would be reviewed by the CFIUS -- https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co... ; based on the review, the transaction could be blocked by executive order.

jollybean 5y ago
Of course it would not pass muster, which is my point. There is a giant 'non market force' at play there a certain kind of regulatory apparatus which most people understand exists for good reason. This regulatory condition obviously supercedes 'fiduciary responsibility' of the Board. Communications is a protected industry because powerful foreign interests can take control of narratives, precisely because people in the commons - including you and I - are fairly easily pursuaded. 'Truth' is really hard to do, it's a public good and it's why at the national level we have protections - and - it's why both Twitter, Google etc. as 'sources of information' fall under a different perspective of governance than say, a 'cracker company'.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I know you're arguing in good faith but don't you think putting crazy hypotheticals like Xi buying any US company is a little silly? There are probably better examples to further your point.