3 ms·

>Woke means broke I guess. That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes t

>Woke means broke I guess. That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered. It's also very well possible that after talking to Elon through private conversations that you were not part of, they fundamentally disagree with his value and the direction he wants to take the company. >I think his plan B will be to start a competitor. Hey, maybe he would buy Parler, that would sure get him all the attention he desperately craves for. /s but maybe not.

recuter 4y ago
> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people (almost nobody actually tweets and usage is falling) an alternative would split the user base and accelerate their demise and the inane concept of web micro-forums being worth tens of billions of dollars. Companies will simply decide advertising on Parler/Twitter is not worth the hassle.
- Cookingboy 4y ago
  >Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? No. But you immediately made this into a Camp A vs. Camp B problem when in reality there could be a million different reasons for the Twitter board to not want to get acquired means you weren't trying to discuss this specific situation, you were looking to turn this into a debate on "wokeness". That's why I said you weren't discussing in good faith. >The balance sheet speaks for itself. Does it? Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well. So obviously he thinks Twitter has the potential to achieve much higher value through implementing XYZ. The board agrees too but just disagree on what that XYZ is.
  - recuter 4y ago
    > Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well. Up to you to take him at his word however he has stated otherwise. "It's important to the function of democracy, it's important to the function of the united states as a free country and on many other countries and actually to help freedom in the world more broadly than the US. You know I think this there's the risk, civilizational risk, uh is decreased if twitter, the more we can increase the trust of twitter as a public platform and so I do think this will be somewhat painful and I'm not sure that I will actually be able to to acquire it. I mean I could technically afford it um what I'm saying is this is not a way to sort of make money you know.. It's just that I think, my strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDfqwTBHah8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDfqwTBHah8
    - Cookingboy 4y ago
      Wait, you seriously think Elon is buying Twitter out of his good heart to "protect" the healthy functioning of democracy? Jesus I know it's Friday but some of you guys start drinking early man.
      - recuter 4y ago
        His net worth is over a quarter trillion dollars. Flipping twitter for profit is very far from a sure thing and seems like a waste of his time. Why out of everything that he could invest in would he bother with twitter specifically? Whatever his intentions are it seems plausible that this isn't about money. I get that you don't like him but this attitude of "I am right, you are wrong, and if you disagree you are drunk" is.. not a good look.
        Cookingboy 4y ago
        >Whatever his intentions are it seems plausible that this isn't about money. It's very plausible that this isn't about money, and I never said it's about money. However it's far more plausible that this is about a narcissist buying media and social influence and he wants to be able to shape public discourse that paints him in a positive light. He really cares what people thinks of him. All of that would seem far more likely (and suits his past track record) than him doing this to "save democracy".
- medler 4y ago
  The topic of discussion is corporate governance and finance, and you immediately pivoted to some irrelevant culture war BS.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    The topic of discussion is Elon Musk trying to purchase Twitter, which is very much at the intersection of finance and culture war.
    - MrMan 4y ago
      "culture war" is the ultimate propaganda tool to be used on people who think they are smart
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- threeseed 4y ago
  > The balance sheet speaks for itself a) Revenue increased 37% y/y. b) User count growing at 2% y/y. c) Profit of $273m in 2021 when you exclude once-off litigation expense. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2021-results-301479494.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-f...
  - woadwarrior01 4y ago
    > c) Profit of $273m in 2021 when you exclude once-off litigation expense. The once-off litigation expense might soon be recuring in 2022, after this move. The former was a shareholder class action lawsuit, and the latter will most likely be the same.
    - threeseed 4y ago
      Twitter is predicting a drop in GAAP loss in 2022 to between $225-$175m. So even if the lawsuit is recurring (neither of us know) they are still managing to reign in their losses. By any definition the company is heading in the right direction.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Fascism means cashism! (Sorry, unable to resist.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
swayvil 4y ago
I for one prefer that my communication-medium not have "values". For obvious reasons.
- Cookingboy 4y ago
  Not having value is a value in itself. It takes a crazy amount of effort to be completely neutral. >that my communication-medium Twitter is first and foremost a publishing platform, you should not rely on it as a private communication medium. None of the chat apps I know censor stuff, so use them instead. Use Twitter for public communication if you want, but since it's in the public domain you can't complain too much if there is content moderation.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    I dunno man. My email software seems to accomplish that feat quite easily. Sure I can complain. When it's the defacto public forum any administrative conversation-tweaking is pure poison to our society. And also, yes, there is an implicit promise that the conversation between you and me is not getting fucked with by an invisible rat in the middle. So when I smell one of those rats, heck yes I'll complain. That's objectively ratty.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > Not having value is a value in itself. It takes a crazy amount of effort to be completely neutral. The phone company does a pretty good job of it, and we have regulations that force them to be mostly "neutral". Those regulations have worked out quite well. Perhaps it time to expand our existing, and working regulations to other platforms, given that they work so well on existing platforms.
    - ahtihn 4y ago
      One-to-all broadcasting is a fundamentally different medium than one-to-one conversations. The various messenger apps are closer analogs to phone companies and they have no or very light content moderation.
nemo44x 4y ago
> It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered Who would believe that? They’ve had years to prove it and as they stock market has doubled in value their stock has been cut in half. Share holders should sue. It’s time to trick their world and either drive the stock price to a few bucks or force then board to do their fiduciary responsibility and sell the company. It’s a great offer.
015a 4y ago
All of this is possible, but the reality is: Twitter is a 16 year old company that has changed imperceptibly since its inception. Elon has several polls over the past month, voted on by literally over 3M people, vehemently disagreeing with some of the policies Twitter holds dear. Their revenue is flat and down. They literally had a chokehold on global politics during the Trump era, and did nothing with it toward building a better business, or even a better social network. Their board can believe all they want. But they're failing, miserably. Elon isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't have a demonstrated history of driving his companies' value into the basement, like Twitter's leadership does. This move by their board serves no-one but them; it doesn't serve Twitter's users, it doesn't serve their customers (advertisers), it doesn't even serve the vast majority of shareholders (which will be evidenced by an unprecedented sell-off on Monday). Goldman advised them to block the purchase, because $52/share was too high, while simultaneously holding a $30 sell benchmark on TWTR. Its not even ironic that this is where Twitter's stock is going; its what they predicted, and then caused. The idiots in the room are the Twitter board, who actually believed the advice was given in good faith.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > Elon isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't have a demonstrated history of driving his companies' value into the basement How are SolarCity and Boring doing these days ?
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  > Elon has several polls over the past month, voted on by literally over 3M people, Oh sh*t i don't follow him and didn't care about those votes ... should I write a bot to make my voice heard? Is that how it goes? (Or in other words: such a vote has no statistical significance aside from pleasing Musk's ego or whatever is driving him and his need for attention)
- cinntaile 4y ago
  > Their revenue is flat and down. This makes me wary of your post. You could have easily fact checked this and you would have seen that this is incorrect. It's up 37% compared to the year before that. [0] I checked the last 3 years and the growth has been positive during all 3 years. [1] [0] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2021-results-301479494.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-f... [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/reven...
treeman79 4y ago
The entire Twitter battle is about the woke left taking over / banning all of America culture.
- myko 4y ago
  This implies American culture is pro-fascism, and while there are elements of that I don't believe that encapsulates American ideas - the gamut of ideologies have been part of the nation since its founding, though the ideas and what that means have shifted over time

recuter 4y ago

> That sentence alone means you weren't even discussing this in good faith. Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one. Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people (almost nobody actually tweets and usage is falling) an alternative would split the user base and accelerate their demise and the inane concept of web micro-forums being worth tens of billions of dollars. Companies will simply decide advertising on Parler/Twitter is not worth the hassle.

Cookingboy 4y ago
>Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B? No. But you immediately made this into a Camp A vs. Camp B problem when in reality there could be a million different reasons for the Twitter board to not want to get acquired means you weren't trying to discuss this specific situation, you were looking to turn this into a debate on "wokeness". That's why I said you weren't discussing in good faith. >The balance sheet speaks for itself. Does it? Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well. So obviously he thinks Twitter has the potential to achieve much higher value through implementing XYZ. The board agrees too but just disagree on what that XYZ is.
- recuter 4y ago
  > Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well. Up to you to take him at his word however he has stated otherwise. "It's important to the function of democracy, it's important to the function of the united states as a free country and on many other countries and actually to help freedom in the world more broadly than the US. You know I think this there's the risk, civilizational risk, uh is decreased if twitter, the more we can increase the trust of twitter as a public platform and so I do think this will be somewhat painful and I'm not sure that I will actually be able to to acquire it. I mean I could technically afford it um what I'm saying is this is not a way to sort of make money you know.. It's just that I think, my strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDfqwTBHah8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDfqwTBHah8
  - Cookingboy 4y ago
    Wait, you seriously think Elon is buying Twitter out of his good heart to "protect" the healthy functioning of democracy? Jesus I know it's Friday but some of you guys start drinking early man.
    - recuter 4y ago
      His net worth is over a quarter trillion dollars. Flipping twitter for profit is very far from a sure thing and seems like a waste of his time. Why out of everything that he could invest in would he bother with twitter specifically? Whatever his intentions are it seems plausible that this isn't about money. I get that you don't like him but this attitude of "I am right, you are wrong, and if you disagree you are drunk" is.. not a good look.
      - Cookingboy 4y ago
        >Whatever his intentions are it seems plausible that this isn't about money. It's very plausible that this isn't about money, and I never said it's about money. However it's far more plausible that this is about a narcissist buying media and social influence and he wants to be able to shape public discourse that paints him in a positive light. He really cares what people thinks of him. All of that would seem far more likely (and suits his past track record) than him doing this to "save democracy".
medler 4y ago
The topic of discussion is corporate governance and finance, and you immediately pivoted to some irrelevant culture war BS.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  The topic of discussion is Elon Musk trying to purchase Twitter, which is very much at the intersection of finance and culture war.
  - MrMan 4y ago
    "culture war" is the ultimate propaganda tool to be used on people who think they are smart
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
threeseed 4y ago
> The balance sheet speaks for itself a) Revenue increased 37% y/y. b) User count growing at 2% y/y. c) Profit of $273m in 2021 when you exclude once-off litigation expense. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2021-results-301479494.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-f...
- woadwarrior01 4y ago
  > c) Profit of $273m in 2021 when you exclude once-off litigation expense. The once-off litigation expense might soon be recuring in 2022, after this move. The former was a shareholder class action lawsuit, and the latter will most likely be the same.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Twitter is predicting a drop in GAAP loss in 2022 to between $225-$175m. So even if the lawsuit is recurring (neither of us know) they are still managing to reign in their losses. By any definition the company is heading in the right direction.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Fascism means cashism! (Sorry, unable to resist.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

swayvil 4y ago

I for one prefer that my communication-medium not have "values". For obvious reasons.

Cookingboy 4y ago
Not having value is a value in itself. It takes a crazy amount of effort to be completely neutral. >that my communication-medium Twitter is first and foremost a publishing platform, you should not rely on it as a private communication medium. None of the chat apps I know censor stuff, so use them instead. Use Twitter for public communication if you want, but since it's in the public domain you can't complain too much if there is content moderation.
- swayvil 4y ago
  I dunno man. My email software seems to accomplish that feat quite easily. Sure I can complain. When it's the defacto public forum any administrative conversation-tweaking is pure poison to our society. And also, yes, there is an implicit promise that the conversation between you and me is not getting fucked with by an invisible rat in the middle. So when I smell one of those rats, heck yes I'll complain. That's objectively ratty.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Not having value is a value in itself. It takes a crazy amount of effort to be completely neutral. The phone company does a pretty good job of it, and we have regulations that force them to be mostly "neutral". Those regulations have worked out quite well. Perhaps it time to expand our existing, and working regulations to other platforms, given that they work so well on existing platforms.
  - ahtihn 4y ago
    One-to-all broadcasting is a fundamentally different medium than one-to-one conversations. The various messenger apps are closer analogs to phone companies and they have no or very light content moderation.

nemo44x 4y ago

> It's very well possible that the Twitter board believes that they can achieve higher value for the shareholders than what Elon offered Who would believe that? They’ve had years to prove it and as they stock market has doubled in value their stock has been cut in half. Share holders should sue. It’s time to trick their world and either drive the stock price to a few bucks or force then board to do their fiduciary responsibility and sell the company. It’s a great offer.

015a 4y ago

All of this is possible, but the reality is: Twitter is a 16 year old company that has changed imperceptibly since its inception. Elon has several polls over the past month, voted on by literally over 3M people, vehemently disagreeing with some of the policies Twitter holds dear. Their revenue is flat and down. They literally had a chokehold on global politics during the Trump era, and did nothing with it toward building a better business, or even a better social network. Their board can believe all they want. But they're failing, miserably. Elon isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't have a demonstrated history of driving his companies' value into the basement, like Twitter's leadership does. This move by their board serves no-one but them; it doesn't serve Twitter's users, it doesn't serve their customers (advertisers), it doesn't even serve the vast majority of shareholders (which will be evidenced by an unprecedented sell-off on Monday). Goldman advised them to block the purchase, because $52/share was too high, while simultaneously holding a $30 sell benchmark on TWTR. Its not even ironic that this is where Twitter's stock is going; its what they predicted, and then caused. The idiots in the room are the Twitter board, who actually believed the advice was given in good faith.

threeseed 4y ago
> Elon isn't perfect, but at least he doesn't have a demonstrated history of driving his companies' value into the basement How are SolarCity and Boring doing these days ?
johannes1234321 4y ago
> Elon has several polls over the past month, voted on by literally over 3M people, Oh sh*t i don't follow him and didn't care about those votes ... should I write a bot to make my voice heard? Is that how it goes? (Or in other words: such a vote has no statistical significance aside from pleasing Musk's ego or whatever is driving him and his need for attention)
cinntaile 4y ago
> Their revenue is flat and down. This makes me wary of your post. You could have easily fact checked this and you would have seen that this is incorrect. It's up 37% compared to the year before that. [0] I checked the last 3 years and the growth has been positive during all 3 years. [1] [0] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2021-results-301479494.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-f... [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/reven...

treeman79 4y ago

The entire Twitter battle is about the woke left taking over / banning all of America culture.

myko 4y ago
This implies American culture is pro-fascism, and while there are elements of that I don't believe that encapsulates American ideas - the gamut of ideologies have been part of the nation since its founding, though the ideas and what that means have shifted over time