10 ms·

Wow, my prediction is Musk will walk away, Twitter stock price will tank, and Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching thei

Wow, my prediction is Musk will walk away, Twitter stock price will tank, and Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching their fiduciary duty).

Waterluvian 5y ago
Why will the price tank? None of this changes the value of Twitter if he walks away.
- esperent 5y ago
  Stock prices are largely based on the emotional responses of humans, at least in the short term.
- daenz 5y ago
  $TWTR has been trending down over the last year. When he bought, the price went up 27%, signaling that people thought his involvement would be positive for the company. If he says "twitter is hopeless" and pulls out, the sentiment will be that nothing can save twitter.
  - Waterluvian 5y ago
    Yup that tracks. Thanks!
    - Tostino 5y ago
      Which is just fucking rank market manipulation
      - trixie_ 5y ago
        If he honestly wants to buy it which given the hoops he's jumping through seems to be the case then it's not 'manipulation' at all. Every move Elon makes is going to change the price. I think we all know he's not 'in it for the money' so it'd be pretty hard to make the case for manipulation. He really wants it. And if everyone else thinks Twitter would be better off with Elon as owner the stock goes up. And if he gives up trying, the stock goes down. That's not manipulation, that's sentiment.
  - stupandaus 5y ago
    this is incorrect. the price going up is a reflection of the market's believe about the % likelihood of a deal. for example at market close of $45.08, the market is betting there is a $45.08/$54.20 = 83% chance that this transaction goes through. there are certainly individual stockholders who are buying because they like his involvement, but that is tiny compared to people buying and selling a very near-term bet
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      > at market close of $45.08, the market is betting there is a $45.08/$54.20 = 83% chance that this transaction goes through. This assumes the price without the transactions goes to $0.00!
      - stupandaus 5y ago
        yes, there are many factors that can influence a valuation. and in different price ranges, different factors will have different weights. since the price is not $0 today and is relatively close to the potential transaction price, the % likelihood of a transaction has much more influence.
        ironSkillet 5y ago
        I think the comment is more about the fact that your calculation of 83% doesn't make sense. However, I agree with you that likelihood of the deal going through is definitely impacting the short term valuation.
      - bscphil 5y ago
        Correct, and furthermore, Musk's offer was made after he announced his stake in the company, which is what caused the price of the stock to rise. Him offering to buy it outright barely affected the share price: > The social media company’s shares were little changed at $45.81 in New York on Thursday, a sign there’s skepticism that one of the platform’s most outspoken users will succeed in his takeover attempt. -- Bloomberg So while the news of a major stakeholder with the power to join the board and affect how things are run did cause a significant blip in Twitter's stock price, the attempt to buy it outright doesn't seem to have affected things much. Even if we (incorrectly) assumed that all of the rise from ~$40 to ~$45 is associated with the possibility of Musk paying $54 a share, that suggests the market assigns only a ~36% chance of the deal going through.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    No, it's not. It's people that want to buy, so they can sell it at a premium to Musk later. It's pure speculation.
  - GCU-Empiricist 5y ago
    I keep seeing this sentiment, and it seems like wishful thinking.. The paper is out there on how to defeat the poison pill: trigger the pill, let the stock tank, offer at a lower price per share but at the same market value plus what was put into the company to acquire the new stock by the diluters. Full market price is full market price. Look at Musk's investment in automation at Tesla he knows how to play the long game. ttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=law_faculty_scholarship
- maxlybbert 5y ago
  I also believe that Musk will walk away and the stock will tank. Musk’s recent stock purchase and discussion about joining the board made the price jump significantly. You’re right that there’s no obvious reason that his involvement should change Twitter’s value, but the market appears to think otherwise. If he walks away, at a minimum, I would expect that the stock price will drop to what it was before he started playing around. But if he walks away, I believe he’ll also do something to make the stock drop more. For instance, he’ll stop Tweeting, which should have a measurable impact on the number of people actually using Twitter regularly.
  - Waterluvian 5y ago
    Thanks. That makes sense and I see it now.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    > For instance, he’ll stop Tweeting, which should have a measurable impact on the number of people actually using Twitter regularly. There are that many people whose engagement depends entirely upon whether Elon Musk is actively tweeting? I don't use Twitter much, but that seems pretty amazing if true.
    - burnished 5y ago
      You might be imagining the wrong model, its not the people that'll leave if Elon Musk does, but the entire cesspool around repackaging hot takes and reactions to his actions and tweets goes away too. I have a feeling its a lot of content that would dry up.
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    I’ve muted him, and I’m sure many other people have. Honestly if he leaves and that makes some of his fans leave too, I don’t see how that would do that much except for slightly raise the quality of conversations across the board!
  - lazyjones 5y ago
    They might sell 100% to someone else before that happens, like Microsoft or the Saudis.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  It will lower the value to institutional investors that they pulled the “poison pill” move, because it means that management is entrenched and they can’t remove the board if they needed to. Elon isn’t the only one who is barred from buying a controlling stake in the company.
- alfor 5y ago
  He will sell his 9% He will start something to compete against Twitter. Twitter will be stuck with their current management and cultural problems.
  - trixie_ 5y ago
    Or just team up with the other big owners who think the value would go up with him at the helm and...
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    Nobody will switch from Twitter to some knock off he or anyone else makes. (By “nobody” I mean both nearly 0% of users and only people who will not be missed on Twitter)
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      There is definitely a network effect around scale and populations of users. Gettr seems to be making positive inroads on the conservative/libertarian population, particularly those for whom twitter is not an option due to previous banning/shadow-banning, and de-boosting. As I expect there to be consolidation between truth social, gettr, parler, and others, think this will only get stronger. Part of this is also that younger populations are preferring tiktok to Twitter imo.
    - tag2103 5y ago
      I hate to disagree with you but when was the last time you checked your MySpace page?
      - rcpt 5y ago
        Voat or diaspora are better comparisons
      - Uehreka 5y ago
        Facebook (the thing I think people will agree destroyed MySpace) was not started by someone fed up with MySpace saying “I’m going to make the same thing, but I’ll moderate it differently!” It was started before MySpace had reached peak popularity, by an entrepreneur with a totally different product vision and way of looking at the world. Elon’s hypothetical Twitter-clone would probably be more like Gab, Parler or the Trump thing: Twitter, but with less moderation and some sort of weird gimmick, like “starting midnight Tuesday, I’m giving a free Model 3 to the first 1000 people who sign up!” or “I’m hosting a quarter of the load on servers on StarLink satellites!” Twitter won’t be destroyed by someone making a slightly different Twitter clone, it’ll be destroyed by something that re-imagines entirely in a way that also supplants it, and it’ll probably come from someone we don’t know yet.
- collinvandyck76 5y ago
  Musk has basically hinted that he might sell his 9% stake if the deal doesn't go through. a selloff of that volume would definitely change the value of Twitter.
  - aczerepinski 5y ago
    No, only the price.
- TobyTheDog123 5y ago
  A lot of people in this thread share your opinion, but I'm a bit confused by it. If the board acted against the usual shareholder interest (to make money) by turning down an offer 54% above premium, would it not be easy to claim that the board is not in it to make the average investor money on $TWTR? Therefore, wouldn't the value of $TWTR as an investment be far far less than companies who do make it their primary goal? That's not to even mention the 9% of Elon's stock that he claimed he would now sell.
  - Uehreka 5y ago
    Yeah but that analysis downplays the shareholders’ thoughts about the future. If they largely feel like Twitter’s real value is $100B, that it just hasn’t been realized yet, and that they think it can be realized, then it totally makes sense to turn Elon down. In reality though, the shareholders are a giant mob of people with wildly varying views about Twitter’s place in society, its true value as an asset, its ability to achieve its true value, and just generally what the best way to “make the most money for the shareholders” is. So I don’t think it’s an open-and-shut case that the board betrayed the shareholders. It’s probably a muddy case that’ll play out in court over months or years.
    - chernevik 5y ago
      It is the _directors_ making decisions here, not the shareholders. Those directors were chosen by management, and -- newsflash! -- they are beholden to management. They must jump through some legal hoops to discharge their fiduciary duties and protect themselves from lawsuits, but at the end of the day they'll do what management wants. Does management want to maximize the value of Twitter? Er, no. Management wants to maximize some combination of their compensation, their agency controlling a company, and their social capital controlling a social media platform. Maximization of shareholders' value is a legal objective to which management must pay legal lip service, but it is not in any way shape or form the interest of management, save insofar as management compensation is related to share price. If management cared about shareholder value, it would not have induced the board to enact this poison bill nonsense.
- chernevik 5y ago
  1. The possibility that Musk would bid for the company, nonzero before all of this, goes to zero. 2. The market observes a very capable businessman, after discussion with management, deems it incompetent and value-destructive. 3. Said businessman, with a track record of remarkable success in a variety of ventures and demonstrated skill with social media, may launch a competitor service. All three of these are bad signals for Twitter's future cash flows.
hooande 5y ago
As is detailed by many smart people below, fiduciary duty lawsuits are difficult to win. They'd pretty much have to have board members emailing each other saying "This would be in the best interest of shareholders, but let's screw them over instead" This was an epic debacle. Musk invested 4 BILLION dollars in an asset of questionable value, because "free speech". If he times it right he could come out ahead financially. But in general this was a pointless distraction and public fiasco that served no one. I have no idea what he was doing or what his goals were. It looks like he was upset that people he liked were getting banned by twitter and was afraid that he'd run afoul of their rules himself, so he tried to buy the company. And despite being one of the richest humans to ever live, he failed at that. This is just a head scratcher and a massive L. I don't see another way to view it.
- a-dub 5y ago
  from what i understand it's a matter of ideals combined with the technologist's desire to see the machines (all types, including sociopolitical) work correctly. he wants to see the first amendment function with autistic precision. he wants to remove any messy personalization because it interferes with that purity. he wants fully transparent moderation and proof of fairness. he doesn't like the idea that one organization has such control and he likely wants to turn the company into a dao. he's searching for a problem to apply cryptocurrency technologies to. what i think he doesn't get are the messy realities of the real world. we're already on the cusp of world war iii, can we chill for just a few minutes?
  - lettergram 5y ago
    I think musk believes we wouldn’t be on the midst of WWIII if free speech was allowed.
    - adfm 5y ago
      And here I was thinking that this was a $43B smokescreen to obfuscate the $15M payout occurring within the same news cycle. What am I missing here?
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tmaly 5y ago
The board could always remove the poison pill once shareholder lawsuits start. Musk could always step back in and buy at a significant discount
cmurf 5y ago
If Musk is sincere, he will turn Twitter into an 8chan racist hellhole. He has said he believes in absolute free speech. Racism, trolling, libel, dick pics, blatant racism are all fair game. He'd reverse Trump's lifetime ban. Maybe Twitter was always doomed because it was just fad. But the idea Musk alone can save it is absurd.
ergocoder 5y ago
It is naive to think that shareholder lawsuits will win. Have you looked at some crazy behaviours from Musk? Like how he teased SEC. How he tried to falsely accuse British diver as a child rapist. Not to mention, the price isn't that good. There were people who bought at 70 a few months ago. Offering at 44 is kinda meh. If musk offered 1000 per share, then the lawsuit may have had some weight.
- extheat 5y ago
  > falsely accuse British diver as a child rapist Let's be specific, "pedo guy". And that was an insult in response to an equally profane insult from the other guy. Two wrongs don't make a right, but he apologized and people who have said equally bad or worse things also occupy high places...
  - ergocoder 5y ago
    This is not insult. It is malicious intent. Weeks later someone talked to musk about it, and he replied "Bet ya signed dollar it's true". Elon also hired private investigator to dig dirt on the diver but found nothing. https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/15/elon-musk-tweets-hell-bet-ya-a-signed-dollar-that-thai-cave-rescuer-is-a-pedo/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/15/elon-musk-tweets-hell-bet-... Musk also emailed BuzzFeed reporter suggesting that the diver was a child rapist. Source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-cant-lose https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-cant-... Some of my friends even said that musk was this confident, maybe musk knew something we didn't. His excuse in court saying that "pedo guy" is just a common insult in Africa. Nobody in Africa uses this term. The BuzzFeed email wasn't included in court because it wasn't public communication. Okay, dude, great justice system. Please stop simping for musk. This person tried to destroy innocent lives with false pedophile accusation.
    - extheat 5y ago
      I think you again have missed the point that it was not an unprovoked comment. It was in response to another insult. I don't know how betting money on an insult makes it not an insult. It's one thing to attack someone because they dislike you or it's not provoked at all. It's another to respond to an ad hominem with another. Nobody is disputing he went far overboard than he needed to, and that his position gives him dangerous influence (as with many celebrities). In the end he deleted the tweets and apologized. Unless you have reason to believe that it's insincere, I'm not holding weight on a war of words. What it emphasises is the need for self-moderation especially when your state of mind is in fight mode. The mistake here is Elon's stream of consciousness doesn't stay off of twitter for his own determent. That is not an inherently malicious thing. People get into arguments all the time and say stupid regrettable things in the moment. Playing out on the internet--especially with a big power dynamic at play no doubt is bad. But let's not forget we're not robots here--hence we're not sending people to jail after arguments.
noelsusman 5y ago
Companies are not required to sell to any random billionaire who comes by and offers a premium over the current share price. There will be lawsuits, and they will fail.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Wow, my prediction is Musk will walk away, Twitter stock price will tank, and Twitter will be flooded with thousands of shareholder lawsuits (for breaching their fiduciary duty).

Waterluvian 5y ago

Why will the price tank? None of this changes the value of Twitter if he walks away.

esperent 5y ago
Stock prices are largely based on the emotional responses of humans, at least in the short term.
daenz 5y ago
$TWTR has been trending down over the last year. When he bought, the price went up 27%, signaling that people thought his involvement would be positive for the company. If he says "twitter is hopeless" and pulls out, the sentiment will be that nothing can save twitter.
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  Yup that tracks. Thanks!
  - Tostino 5y ago
    Which is just fucking rank market manipulation
    - trixie_ 5y ago
      If he honestly wants to buy it which given the hoops he's jumping through seems to be the case then it's not 'manipulation' at all. Every move Elon makes is going to change the price. I think we all know he's not 'in it for the money' so it'd be pretty hard to make the case for manipulation. He really wants it. And if everyone else thinks Twitter would be better off with Elon as owner the stock goes up. And if he gives up trying, the stock goes down. That's not manipulation, that's sentiment.
- stupandaus 5y ago
  this is incorrect. the price going up is a reflection of the market's believe about the % likelihood of a deal. for example at market close of $45.08, the market is betting there is a $45.08/$54.20 = 83% chance that this transaction goes through. there are certainly individual stockholders who are buying because they like his involvement, but that is tiny compared to people buying and selling a very near-term bet
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    > at market close of $45.08, the market is betting there is a $45.08/$54.20 = 83% chance that this transaction goes through. This assumes the price without the transactions goes to $0.00!
    - stupandaus 5y ago
      yes, there are many factors that can influence a valuation. and in different price ranges, different factors will have different weights. since the price is not $0 today and is relatively close to the potential transaction price, the % likelihood of a transaction has much more influence.
      - ironSkillet 5y ago
        I think the comment is more about the fact that your calculation of 83% doesn't make sense. However, I agree with you that likelihood of the deal going through is definitely impacting the short term valuation.
    - bscphil 5y ago
      Correct, and furthermore, Musk's offer was made after he announced his stake in the company, which is what caused the price of the stock to rise. Him offering to buy it outright barely affected the share price: > The social media company’s shares were little changed at $45.81 in New York on Thursday, a sign there’s skepticism that one of the platform’s most outspoken users will succeed in his takeover attempt. -- Bloomberg So while the news of a major stakeholder with the power to join the board and affect how things are run did cause a significant blip in Twitter's stock price, the attempt to buy it outright doesn't seem to have affected things much. Even if we (incorrectly) assumed that all of the rise from ~$40 to ~$45 is associated with the possibility of Musk paying $54 a share, that suggests the market assigns only a ~36% chance of the deal going through.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  No, it's not. It's people that want to buy, so they can sell it at a premium to Musk later. It's pure speculation.
- GCU-Empiricist 5y ago
  I keep seeing this sentiment, and it seems like wishful thinking.. The paper is out there on how to defeat the poison pill: trigger the pill, let the stock tank, offer at a lower price per share but at the same market value plus what was put into the company to acquire the new stock by the diluters. Full market price is full market price. Look at Musk's investment in automation at Tesla he knows how to play the long game. ttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=law_faculty_scholarship
maxlybbert 5y ago
I also believe that Musk will walk away and the stock will tank. Musk’s recent stock purchase and discussion about joining the board made the price jump significantly. You’re right that there’s no obvious reason that his involvement should change Twitter’s value, but the market appears to think otherwise. If he walks away, at a minimum, I would expect that the stock price will drop to what it was before he started playing around. But if he walks away, I believe he’ll also do something to make the stock drop more. For instance, he’ll stop Tweeting, which should have a measurable impact on the number of people actually using Twitter regularly.
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  Thanks. That makes sense and I see it now.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  > For instance, he’ll stop Tweeting, which should have a measurable impact on the number of people actually using Twitter regularly. There are that many people whose engagement depends entirely upon whether Elon Musk is actively tweeting? I don't use Twitter much, but that seems pretty amazing if true.
  - burnished 5y ago
    You might be imagining the wrong model, its not the people that'll leave if Elon Musk does, but the entire cesspool around repackaging hot takes and reactions to his actions and tweets goes away too. I have a feeling its a lot of content that would dry up.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  I’ve muted him, and I’m sure many other people have. Honestly if he leaves and that makes some of his fans leave too, I don’t see how that would do that much except for slightly raise the quality of conversations across the board!
- lazyjones 5y ago
  They might sell 100% to someone else before that happens, like Microsoft or the Saudis.
oceanplexian 5y ago
It will lower the value to institutional investors that they pulled the “poison pill” move, because it means that management is entrenched and they can’t remove the board if they needed to. Elon isn’t the only one who is barred from buying a controlling stake in the company.
alfor 5y ago
He will sell his 9% He will start something to compete against Twitter. Twitter will be stuck with their current management and cultural problems.
- trixie_ 5y ago
  Or just team up with the other big owners who think the value would go up with him at the helm and...
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  Nobody will switch from Twitter to some knock off he or anyone else makes. (By “nobody” I mean both nearly 0% of users and only people who will not be missed on Twitter)
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    There is definitely a network effect around scale and populations of users. Gettr seems to be making positive inroads on the conservative/libertarian population, particularly those for whom twitter is not an option due to previous banning/shadow-banning, and de-boosting. As I expect there to be consolidation between truth social, gettr, parler, and others, think this will only get stronger. Part of this is also that younger populations are preferring tiktok to Twitter imo.
  - tag2103 5y ago
    I hate to disagree with you but when was the last time you checked your MySpace page?
    - rcpt 5y ago
      Voat or diaspora are better comparisons
    - Uehreka 5y ago
      Facebook (the thing I think people will agree destroyed MySpace) was not started by someone fed up with MySpace saying “I’m going to make the same thing, but I’ll moderate it differently!” It was started before MySpace had reached peak popularity, by an entrepreneur with a totally different product vision and way of looking at the world. Elon’s hypothetical Twitter-clone would probably be more like Gab, Parler or the Trump thing: Twitter, but with less moderation and some sort of weird gimmick, like “starting midnight Tuesday, I’m giving a free Model 3 to the first 1000 people who sign up!” or “I’m hosting a quarter of the load on servers on StarLink satellites!” Twitter won’t be destroyed by someone making a slightly different Twitter clone, it’ll be destroyed by something that re-imagines entirely in a way that also supplants it, and it’ll probably come from someone we don’t know yet.
collinvandyck76 5y ago
Musk has basically hinted that he might sell his 9% stake if the deal doesn't go through. a selloff of that volume would definitely change the value of Twitter.
- aczerepinski 5y ago
  No, only the price.
TobyTheDog123 5y ago
A lot of people in this thread share your opinion, but I'm a bit confused by it. If the board acted against the usual shareholder interest (to make money) by turning down an offer 54% above premium, would it not be easy to claim that the board is not in it to make the average investor money on $TWTR? Therefore, wouldn't the value of $TWTR as an investment be far far less than companies who do make it their primary goal? That's not to even mention the 9% of Elon's stock that he claimed he would now sell.
- Uehreka 5y ago
  Yeah but that analysis downplays the shareholders’ thoughts about the future. If they largely feel like Twitter’s real value is $100B, that it just hasn’t been realized yet, and that they think it can be realized, then it totally makes sense to turn Elon down. In reality though, the shareholders are a giant mob of people with wildly varying views about Twitter’s place in society, its true value as an asset, its ability to achieve its true value, and just generally what the best way to “make the most money for the shareholders” is. So I don’t think it’s an open-and-shut case that the board betrayed the shareholders. It’s probably a muddy case that’ll play out in court over months or years.
  - chernevik 5y ago
    It is the _directors_ making decisions here, not the shareholders. Those directors were chosen by management, and -- newsflash! -- they are beholden to management. They must jump through some legal hoops to discharge their fiduciary duties and protect themselves from lawsuits, but at the end of the day they'll do what management wants. Does management want to maximize the value of Twitter? Er, no. Management wants to maximize some combination of their compensation, their agency controlling a company, and their social capital controlling a social media platform. Maximization of shareholders' value is a legal objective to which management must pay legal lip service, but it is not in any way shape or form the interest of management, save insofar as management compensation is related to share price. If management cared about shareholder value, it would not have induced the board to enact this poison bill nonsense.
chernevik 5y ago
1. The possibility that Musk would bid for the company, nonzero before all of this, goes to zero. 2. The market observes a very capable businessman, after discussion with management, deems it incompetent and value-destructive. 3. Said businessman, with a track record of remarkable success in a variety of ventures and demonstrated skill with social media, may launch a competitor service. All three of these are bad signals for Twitter's future cash flows.

hooande 5y ago

As is detailed by many smart people below, fiduciary duty lawsuits are difficult to win. They'd pretty much have to have board members emailing each other saying "This would be in the best interest of shareholders, but let's screw them over instead" This was an epic debacle. Musk invested 4 BILLION dollars in an asset of questionable value, because "free speech". If he times it right he could come out ahead financially. But in general this was a pointless distraction and public fiasco that served no one. I have no idea what he was doing or what his goals were. It looks like he was upset that people he liked were getting banned by twitter and was afraid that he'd run afoul of their rules himself, so he tried to buy the company. And despite being one of the richest humans to ever live, he failed at that. This is just a head scratcher and a massive L. I don't see another way to view it.

a-dub 5y ago
from what i understand it's a matter of ideals combined with the technologist's desire to see the machines (all types, including sociopolitical) work correctly. he wants to see the first amendment function with autistic precision. he wants to remove any messy personalization because it interferes with that purity. he wants fully transparent moderation and proof of fairness. he doesn't like the idea that one organization has such control and he likely wants to turn the company into a dao. he's searching for a problem to apply cryptocurrency technologies to. what i think he doesn't get are the messy realities of the real world. we're already on the cusp of world war iii, can we chill for just a few minutes?
- lettergram 5y ago
  I think musk believes we wouldn’t be on the midst of WWIII if free speech was allowed.
  - adfm 5y ago
    And here I was thinking that this was a $43B smokescreen to obfuscate the $15M payout occurring within the same news cycle. What am I missing here?
  - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tmaly 5y ago

The board could always remove the poison pill once shareholder lawsuits start. Musk could always step back in and buy at a significant discount

cmurf 5y ago

If Musk is sincere, he will turn Twitter into an 8chan racist hellhole. He has said he believes in absolute free speech. Racism, trolling, libel, dick pics, blatant racism are all fair game. He'd reverse Trump's lifetime ban. Maybe Twitter was always doomed because it was just fad. But the idea Musk alone can save it is absurd.

ergocoder 5y ago

It is naive to think that shareholder lawsuits will win. Have you looked at some crazy behaviours from Musk? Like how he teased SEC. How he tried to falsely accuse British diver as a child rapist. Not to mention, the price isn't that good. There were people who bought at 70 a few months ago. Offering at 44 is kinda meh. If musk offered 1000 per share, then the lawsuit may have had some weight.

extheat 5y ago
> falsely accuse British diver as a child rapist Let's be specific, "pedo guy". And that was an insult in response to an equally profane insult from the other guy. Two wrongs don't make a right, but he apologized and people who have said equally bad or worse things also occupy high places...
- ergocoder 5y ago
  This is not insult. It is malicious intent. Weeks later someone talked to musk about it, and he replied "Bet ya signed dollar it's true". Elon also hired private investigator to dig dirt on the diver but found nothing. https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/15/elon-musk-tweets-hell-bet-ya-a-signed-dollar-that-thai-cave-rescuer-is-a-pedo/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/15/elon-musk-tweets-hell-bet-... Musk also emailed BuzzFeed reporter suggesting that the diver was a child rapist. Source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-cant-lose https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-cant-... Some of my friends even said that musk was this confident, maybe musk knew something we didn't. His excuse in court saying that "pedo guy" is just a common insult in Africa. Nobody in Africa uses this term. The BuzzFeed email wasn't included in court because it wasn't public communication. Okay, dude, great justice system. Please stop simping for musk. This person tried to destroy innocent lives with false pedophile accusation.
  - extheat 5y ago
    I think you again have missed the point that it was not an unprovoked comment. It was in response to another insult. I don't know how betting money on an insult makes it not an insult. It's one thing to attack someone because they dislike you or it's not provoked at all. It's another to respond to an ad hominem with another. Nobody is disputing he went far overboard than he needed to, and that his position gives him dangerous influence (as with many celebrities). In the end he deleted the tweets and apologized. Unless you have reason to believe that it's insincere, I'm not holding weight on a war of words. What it emphasises is the need for self-moderation especially when your state of mind is in fight mode. The mistake here is Elon's stream of consciousness doesn't stay off of twitter for his own determent. That is not an inherently malicious thing. People get into arguments all the time and say stupid regrettable things in the moment. Playing out on the internet--especially with a big power dynamic at play no doubt is bad. But let's not forget we're not robots here--hence we're not sending people to jail after arguments.

noelsusman 5y ago

Companies are not required to sell to any random billionaire who comes by and offers a premium over the current share price. There will be lawsuits, and they will fail.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]