27 ms·
Twitter takeover battle: Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey turn up pressure on board
- specialist 4y agoYup. Twitter's board kept a (nominally) 1/2 time CEO at the helm while Twitter floundered. Sadly, @jack's parting dig is equally true and useless. Tell us something we didn't know.
- donsupreme 4y agoJack will be most dominant opinion setter in this episode. This is sounding more like he is siding with Musk.
- sbinthree 4y ago
- decremental 4y agoJack is as much in favor of censorship as anyone currently on the board. The real reason the board doesn't want Elon in charge is because Twitter doesn't exist to make money. It exists now to steer politicians and drive the news cycle. When a board member says that Twitter is vastly undervalued it's not because he thinks it could be making more money. It's because he knows that much power is impossible to put a price on.
- mandeepj 4y agoCan Twitter board ban Elon if they think it will simplify their life?
- pfarrell 4y agoOoo. I so wanted to downvote this comment for the “censorship” angle… but, for the rest of it, I think you’re right and I’d just be shooting the messenger.
- barbacoa 4y agoThis comment rings very true. The internet broke the business model that much of traditional media relied upon. Newspapers used to work hard to build trust and reputation in order to sell subscriptions, now they are bought up by billionaires to use a tools in driving political narratives (for example Bezos and Washington Post). I suspect Musk has a similar plan for Twitter. Which in this case Musk believes letting the unwashed masses speak freely benefits him.
- BurningFrog 4y ago> now they are bought up by billionaires to use a tools in driving political narratives (for example Bezos and Washington Post) I can't think of any other examples of this "trend"? I also haven't seen Bezos use WaPo that way.
- themitigating 4y agoWhat proof do you have that Bezos uses WaPo for this?
- barbacoa 4y agoWashington Post literally had an article today titled: "It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president"
- themitigating 4y agoThe article wasn't from today it was from two years ago, the title was also changed when people complained. However, it was referring to party primaries from the article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/18/fix-primaries-let-elites-decide/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/18/fix-prima...) "For decades, the conversation about nominations has been about the conflicts between party elites and everyone else. Today, that conversation is counterproductive. A better approach is to think about how voters and elites could best play their different roles: to make their political parties more representative" Here's a selection of headlines that counter the implication that the paper is there to help Bezos "Worker-led win at Amazon warehouse could provide new labor playbook The unionization of a Staten Island facility at one of the country’s biggest employers shows how workers are emerging from pandemic with new tactics and energy" https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/02/amazon-labor-union-strategy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/02/amazon-la... "Amazon’s anti-union blitz stalks Alabama warehouse workers everywhere, even the bathroom" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/02/amazon-union-warehouse-workers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/02/amazon-... "Jun 1, 2021 — A Washington Post analysis of Occupational Safety and Health Administration data shows Amazon's serious injury rates are nearly double those at higher rates than other firms" "https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-osha-injury-rate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-..."
- riffic 4y ago> Twitter doesn't exist to make money Shareholders will beg to differ.
- flyingcircus3 4y agoIf a twitter user blocks another user, is the blocked user being censored because they can't speak to the user that blocked them? Is this infringing on their free speech? If someone spams twitter with billions of messages, to the point where just about the only thing anyone sees are this one person's messages, would it be censorship to ban that person from making posts? Is this infringing on their free speech? If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person? Is this infringing on their free speech? If someone posts information that misleads people about when and where to vote in an election, is it censorship to ban that person from posting? Is this infringing on their free speech?
- nullc 4y ago> they can't speak to the user that blocked them To be fair, the primary effect of twitter blocking isn't to prevent the user performing the block from seeing the person tweeting, the primary effect is preventing the blocked user from commenting on particular parts of the site-- and preventing third parties from seeing their messages. Reddit recently switched to this model too: if you block someone they can't comment in threads where you've participated unless they're a moderator. I understand why-- just blinding yourself to someone harassing you just lets them defame you unchallenged. But a block function that mutes people is vulnerable to abuse. > If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person god forbid anyone get access to information available for free in every public library in the US, or with 30 seconds searching online.
- Jcowell 4y agoAs far as I’m aware this is incorrect. A user who is blocked by another user is not prevented from commenting in a thread that the blocker participates it. It’s just shown a hidden message thing and they can’t reply to that specific message. If another user comes in and comments , they can reply to that comment. On Reddit , a blocker can make it so that a user cannot participate at all.
- 4y ago
- thawaya3113 4y agoThe real reason the board doesn’t want Elon in charge is because he is trolling them and doesn’t have, or more likely doesn’t want to spend, the money to do what he claims he wants to do. I can offer the board double of what Elon is offering them right now, and also say I will figure out the financing later in the year. Do you think the board would be derelict to turn down my offer?
- jtbayly 4y agoIf they actually thought that, they wouldn’t have adopted a poison pill policy. The only purpose that serves is to prevent what you say won’t happen.
- dhzhzjsbevs 4y agoGo watch the Joe Rogan episode with Jack and Vijaya. Jack is all for all the censorship.
- quantum_solanum 4y ago
- guelo 4y agoElon, the free speech absolutist, won't talk seriously about the spam or moderation needs of a public user forum because he doesn't give a shit about truth. He's all marketing and hype.
- rapsey 4y agoI doubt it is an accident this saga started about a month before Jack leaves the board.
- jerojero 4y agoI find the question of ownership to be really interesting for a platform like twitter that relies, entirely, on user-generated content. It seems to me like share-holder ownership is pretty incapable of dealing with the complexities of being such a global and influential platform. The plutocratic model of 1 share 1 vote and financialization of what is pretty much seen and used as a public service really gets in the way of turning the platform into something that could be truly useful for humanity. I think we are very much due on a change of paradigm when it comes to these sort of services. What is it that twitter users want, what do governments want (many politicians use twitter as an official means of communication), what do workers of the platform want? All of these stakeholders should have a say in what is done with twitter. To me, saying "the board is at fault" and thinking it could be better as a privately owned corporation is also missing the target. Of course, I think these tech billionaires think they can make better decisions for everyone and so to them it is obvious that a truly public form of ownership would be a mistake. It's the benevolent dictator story. To finalise, it would be interesting to see an exploration on technologies that could help stake-ownership management so that we can have firms that are capable of making decisions that make people happier and societies a better place.
- JamisonM 4y agoMeta nee Facebook "solved" this problem by being set up so Zuckerberg would always have effective control of the company, no? Have they arrived at a better place? What does "stake-ownership management" mean?
- giancarlostoro 4y agoFacebook censors things similarly the way Twitter does. Matter of fact, all the major social media platforms do. I've seen friends and family banned for the silliest of things, for years and years now. We've only just now reached a point where politicians are being targeted, which is kind of insane. The problem with censorship and I've posted this on HN plenty of times: Today it's the voice of those you disagree with, tomorrow it's your voice.
- 4y ago
- rmatt2000 4y agoThe entire board ex-Jack owns a little more than 1% of Twitter. It sure sounds like their interests are not well-aligned with those of the company owners.
- adtac 4y agoHow does it work with institutional investors? Like, do Vanguard and Blackrock get to assign a board member each to serve their interests indirectly? Perhaps that explains why.
- bombcar 4y agoInstitutional investors like Vanguard usually just confirm the board in whatever the board is doing. They effectively do NOT "own" the company in a way that would involve them making decisions on it. Sometimes they pass questions on to the shareholders of the funds, which everyone ignores.
- themitigating 4y agoWhich is their choice
- mywittyname 4y ago> Sometimes they pass questions on to the shareholders of the funds, which everyone ignores. Which means that people like me, who vote every time, apparently are reasonably influential.
- vba616 4y agoWhat do you think their interests are? Mostly their job is to buy all the stocks. If Twitter goes down, you think someone is going to say "oh no, you shouldn't have bought all the stocks"? Well, probably, because people will say anything.
- mwint 4y agoBoth of these investors mentioned have “ESG” policies where they will deliberately influence companies to act in certain political ways, rather than purely for the furtherance of the company. Whether that’s good or bad is up for debate, but the Vangaurds of the world certainly have interests beyond buying and holding all the stocks.
- Stevvo 4y agoI guess you would say that about the board that forced you out.
- matwood 4y agoIn some ways he's right about the boards dysfunction. The board should have fired Dorsey long before they finally forced him out. He's been an absent CEO for a long time, and let Twitter languish while he built Square.
- lvl102 4y agoThey didn’t force him out and they basically asked him to come back even as a part time CEO when NO ONE wanted the job. Jack is Jack. He is not perfect but let’s not be unfair to him. Reviving Twitter is not possible without replacing the board and management.
- Bud 4y ago
- openthc 4y agoYou likely caught grey-text flu because TFA doesn't mention the word "censorship" at all. Perhaps you're on the wrong thread?
- Bud 4y agoI'm referring to the general, overall discussion of this issue. I thought I was being clear about that. But perhaps I was not. Apologies for that. :)
- riffic 4y agopeople get their twitter accounts locked for having incidental background music playing in shared content. This is an amazingly punitive action for a trivial mistake, and Twitter's hands are effectively tied on this (the copyright mafia won this war a long time ago). No one's forcing people to break Twitter's rules, they should have read them before they broke them.
- vaidhy 4y agoIsn’t that twitch? Twitter is text only AFAIK. There is no background music there.
- riffic 4y agoyou can share videos on Twitter. There is a huge contingent of complaints from people banned / suspended on Twitter for DMCA concerns. Examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/search?q=DMCA&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/search?q=DMCA&restrict_sr=o...
- jablongo 4y agoThe concept of censorship is not exclusive to things that violate the first amendment. https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
- jablongo 4y agoWhich current board members were there during the earlier drama that Dorsey is referencing? There are probably just a few that he’s really talking about, the rest are just a rotating cast.
- dnissley 4y agoI think that's his point -- the board is a rotating cast that doesn't have a coherent vision for the company, or a dysfunctional vision if they do have one.
- riffic 4y agothis wikipedia navbox has a section regarding board members: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Twitter_navbox&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Twitter_... for example this revision in 2012 is the first I can find referencing board members: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Twitter_navbox&direction=next&oldid=485469002 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Twitter_... not 100% authoritative but it's a good clue.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mongol 4y agoWhat does Musk have in mind for Twitter? All speculation I have seen has been about free speech issues and similar. But can it be that he sees some kind of cross-pollination opportunities with his other companies? It has been his trademark, to use SpaceX to launch Starlink satellites, or put a Tesla on top of a rocket like a marketing stunt, etc. What can he do with Twitter once he controls it, in relationship to his other companies.
- staunch 4y ago1. Improve the product (make Tweets editable for a period of time and things like that). 2. Run the service as if it was bound by the First Amendment (i.e. only illegal content should be removed, basically how every social network ran prior to a few years ago.) 3. Open source the ranking/spam code on GitHub and accept PRs. He explicitly stated that he does not view it as a money-making opportunity. His goals are altruistic. It may be hard for some (cynical people) to believe that someone would do such a thing but I believe he's completely sincere. He's got the $40 billion to spare and thinks it's important to humanity's ability to progress. I agree. The only reason Zuckerberg gave up on free speech for Facebook was that he was scared of losing revenue. Musk isn't worried about losing the money, which means he can act out of principles rather than fear.
- Jcowell 4y agoAm Ithe only one who see’s value in Twitter’s uneditablity? To me it allows for only two class of tweets: Real & Fake. With the real one easily verifiable against a fake one (archive cross comparisons)
- staunch 4y agoA limited edit window with a changelog seems reasonable to me but yeah I think immutability is elegant, if somewhat inconvenient.
- extheat 4y agoEditing tweets I think has value, even if for a short period of time. The biggest complaints people have are the meaning could change. Which is a fair point, but this is only a problem if you view it in the context of deception. People might write a very strongly worded statement in the moment, then decide to tone down what they’ve written. I don’t view this inherently as a bad thing.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y agoMusk will buy Twitter, destroy it, and lose a lot of money. And we'll all be better off for it.
- QuikAccount 4y agoPeople seem to think that if Twitter dies, Mastodon will rise up or that we will return to forums or something. If Twitter dies a bunch of replacements will rise up until one of them is ordained as the winner and everyone moves to that new platform. We've seen this happen over and over and over with various platforms.
- riffic 4y agonot only that but dominant platforms have always evolved, going from mass media consisting of newspapers, to radio, to newsreels, to broadcast television, and then to primitive dialup services like AOL and Prodigy. I would expect this will continue to evolve, from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc, to standards-compliant interoperable services. The audience, or in other words the public, always catch up and move to the next dominant platform. This is one reason why I think arguments about network effects are one to be taken with a grain of salt. The public will go wherever the content is. Twitter's audience is not going to remain as valuable as it previously was (ahem, mismanagement may be one reason for this).
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y agoNo, but it is a chance for something better to replace it.
- QuikAccount 4y agoWhat would make a replacement better in your eyes? Anything that reaches critical mass in the public will have the same sort of censoring and filtering.
- themitigating 4y agoWhy wouldn't the same situation occur?
- anonygler 4y agoJust realized Fei Fei Li is on the twitter board. What in the world could this person contribute? Is she some 0.1% socialite? How useless.
- atty 4y agoI assume you did no research on her before commenting - she’s a very successful computer scientist and spent (a little) time as a VP at Google Cloud. While I don’t know if her background makes her the most qualified to be on a board, she is most certainly not a socialite or completely useless.
- anonygler 4y agoShe did fuck all at google cloud. Far as I can tell she has the credibility of a TED Talk speaker. Why is she trotted out all over the valley? She definitely seems to be more of a socialite than anything else.
- themitigating 4y agoDoes she seem more like a socialite because you don't like the Twitter board members?
- kvathupo 4y agoShe's a world-class researcher in computer vision. If anyone should be on the board, it's an accomplished computer science researcher who has mentored many young people at Silicon Valley U. I find it quite curious that you single her out.
- dchftcs 4y agoSounds like the person you're replying to worked in the vicinity of her business unit, and was bitter about her as a VP. It's a common situation someone with good external credentials get parachuted into a role that they're ultimately not fit for, drove initiatives that only wasted resources, and left behind a mess that others had to clean up. All while they're hailed as Jesus's second coming. I don't know how Fei Fei Li performed, and don't want to pass judgment on that matter. Just if that was indeed the case, I could understand the frustration. Companies would rather spend 10 million poaching someone useless and let them spend 100 million on something useless, than to invest the same in existing good engineers and scientists that continue to deliver. Even worse is to keep watching those people failing upwards. This is more commonly a stereotype for MBA executives, but is often also true for academics that get significant appointments outside a research institution without the experience of managing a business project.
- encryptluks2 4y agoI find it hilarious that Dorsey acts like this hands were tied the entire time.
- thawaya3113 4y agoThis is such a bullshit argument unless Dorsey thinks he himself was the reason Twitter sucked, because the Twitter board had him running the company for most of the last few years where Twitter went from becoming the center of conversation to a universally agreed blot on humanity.
- helsinkiandrew 4y agoI'm guessing the board will have spoken to most large shareholders and they've indicated that they don't want to accept Musks Bid. I don't think any large share holder has come out publicly in favour. It's below the price Twitter was most of last year and if they agree that Twitter has economic potential selling isn't in their interest. https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/1514615956986757127 https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/151461595698675712... Ironically, a way that Musk could get support is by offering to let some large share holders retain their ownership (and screw the retail investors). But he's said he "doesn't care about the economics at all" - which isn't going to impress many investment funds.
- systemvoltage 4y agoThis is silly. I don't think instituational investors such as Vangard would take what he said in the TED interview literally "Doesn't care about the economics at all". He has said that about Tesla indirectly and it is one of the most extraordinary companies ever. What he meant is he wants to build a great product.
- mywittyname 4y agoI would vote against Musk's bid, but that's because I think the offer was clearly a publicity stunt. He wanted it to be rejected so he someone would listen to him complain able the board. He's at least $50 off from making a genuine offer. Or, $150 per share, if he wants to back up that claim about not caring about the economics.
- jdrc 4y agoAnother way out of this mess is to sell to a chinese buyer. They may censor anyone who is critical of china, but at least they ll treat left and right equally bad.
- lampshades 4y agoYou forgot to add an /s at the end.
- president 4y agoWhy buy when their bots and shills sway public opinion on Twitter organically?
- niklasbuschmann 4y agoDumb legal question: Why can a poison pill dilute away a single shareholder’s stake, but doing some scheme where 51% of the shareholders dilute away the stake of the remaining 49% is illegal?
- goodoldneon 4y agoIs it illegal for 51% of shareholders to dilute away the stake of the remaining 49%? Serious question -- I don't know. AFAIK (IANAL), companies have few restrictions on stock dilution as long as the dilution is in the best interest of the shareholders. You can make a legally defensible argument that one actor is bad and should be diluted, but it's probably hard to make a legally defensible argument for selectively diluting shares of idle shareholders.
- ffggvv 4y agoseems arbitrary whats considered a "bad actor". maybe i think climate activist shareholders in energy companies are hostile / bad actors. Can i selectively dilute them out?
- goodoldneon 4y agoAre they actively attempting a hostile takeover and the board thinks that they'll hurt the company? Then I think that'd be legal. Otherwise I don't see how you could make a legally defensible argument around diluting shareholders just because of their beliefs
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jedberg 4y ago> But even an unintended or informal campaign by two of the most important players in this battle—who reach a combined 90 million people on Twitter That's some lazy journalism. They just added the two follower accounts and then rounded up by 1M. My guess is there is a big overlap between the two groups followers (and it should be noted that Musk has 82.4M of those ~90)
- bsimpson 4y agoThe entire thing is lazy. At this rate, we're gonna get a Weekend Update segment where they literally just read Twitter on air, and it will be indecipherable from what passes for "news" on most of these sites. "This week's biggest critique of Biden's plan came from @massiveanus47, who wrote…"
- gigaflop 4y agoThat's the direction most 'journalism' takes. Minimal effort, lots of filler to pad out space, the one thing you actually cared about buried in the second-to-last paragraph, but not completely answered. The biggest example of this I see is when I search for info about student loan cancellation or suspension. One particular website, which is known for paywalls and usually has some sort of "X free articles" popup, hosts what amounts to an editorial column by some guy, who always seems to have articles on the topic, but barely provides any kind of real information. Of course, there are link callouts to other articles on that site, written by the same guy, which look like they'll be informative. They're usually not. They still eat up one of those "X free articles" slots and try to bombard you with ads, however!
- belter 4y agoTaking into account Elon Musk is limited in the amount of stock he can sell from Tesla, the first conclusion is he does not have the money to buy Twitter. The offer: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465... mentions all cash. 43 billion in cash is a lot of dow, but the offer does not specify where the money is coming from. Are frivolous purchase offers also subject to possible lawsuits, or should I get my buddies together, and also make an offer for Twitter? "Twitter board gets an 'F' for dealing with Elon Musk: former SEC chairman" https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-board-gets-an-f-for-dealing-with-elon-musk-former-sec-chairman-163756232.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-board-gets-an-f-for-d...
- lvl102 4y agoMorgan Stanley is basically going to finance it with TSLA shares as collateral.
- belter 4y agoCould be, but is not mentioned in the offer. Also maybe most of those shares are also already offered as collateral for something else.
- hackerfromthefu 4y agoCan you provide sources or any meaningful numbers beyond handway 'most' regarding which of his shares are used as collateral? His NW went from 20B to 270B in last 2 years. If your house went from 200k to 2.7M, the bank will somehow find it in their heart to lend you a lot more dollas than before ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Doing the actual maths 40B is chump change and he could probably borrow couple hundred B or more if the things he's buying also have market value banks will lend on. Unless he's somehow borrowed hundreds of Bills in the last 2 years? Any sources for that, I looked because of what you said but didn't see any actual info on loans beyond .5B in 2020 which is a fifth of a percent of his NW. Literally < 1% of his NW ??
- yumraj 4y agoWow, I find Jack Dorsey's conduct in this highly questionable. He left (or was he asked to leave?) as the CEO and is now trying to topple the current management. If he was so much in favor of this, why did he not do this while he was the CEO, which was till a few weeks ago.
- outside1234 4y agoYes - this all has the feel of corporate "kabuki theatre."
- Jxl180 4y agoI don’t think this decision has anything to do with the CEO — this is strictly a matter for the board of which Dorsey is still a member.
- coffeeblack 4y agoMaybe he just didn’t have the spine to keep Twitter free. Maybe he was actually honest in his second Joe Rogan interview, and he really didn’t understand what was going on at Twitter. And maybe now he sees a chance to return Twitter to be a free speech platform again. Anyway, I wish them all the best.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago>(In Musk’s mind, if they were large shareholders, they wouldn’t be able to mistake the great offer he’s made for the business.) Apparently Forbes now deals in parapsychology. Interesting field for them to branch out into.