22 ms·
Twitter re-examines Elon Musk’s bid, may be more receptive to a deal
- nova22033 5y agoRegardless of who owns or controls twitter, is there anything twitter can do to make more money? IMHO, it's maxed out..
- barnabee 5y agoThey’d make more money from me (and I imagine at least a handful of others) if I could pay to have no ads, tracking, data sharing, or “algorithms” that I don’t explicitly control sorting and filtering content.
- madeofpalk 5y agoI can just turn off 'algorithmic timeline' and get a chronological timeline of tweets from people you follow. I would love to pay for no ads on twitter dot com.
- bezospen15 5y agoNot everything is about money
- McLaren_Ferrari 5y ago
- greenyoda 5y agoArchive with full text of article: https://archive.ph/Qvsl5 https://archive.ph/Qvsl5
- systemvoltage 5y agoI guess HN was wrong (top comments) that Musk couldn't possibly have a way to finance his deal. And here we are.
- greatpostman 5y agoReally hard to imagine the richest and most accomplished dude on the planet not being able to secure funding. Somehow people still think he’s just a showman. At some point in time, accomplishments can’t be explained away
- matthewdgreen 5y agoHe’s not just a showman, but he is a showman. And it’s not like you have to dig back into ancient history to find instances where he invented a bid like this, he basically made up a bid for Tesla a few years ago and lied about having secured financing.
- panick21_ 5y agoYeah that's why there is such a long history of showman starting successful rocket company and other successful high capital businesses. Musk has never admired to having made up the funding. He settled the dispute because it lead to problems with Tesla credit rating, banks didn't want an outstanding dispute with SEC.
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago> lied about having secured financing. He says he did have funding secured. He elaborated on the details in the recent TED talk. Do you have any privileged information about the incident or are you just casually calling someone a liar based on third-hand news you read online?
- evthrowaway 5y ago
- 5y ago
- andersco 5y agoIf Musk acquires Twitter, I will likely be deleting my account. Am I the only one? Would his acquisition spell the beginning of the end for Twitter?
- seattle_spring 5y agoIf it turns into a 4chan-esque dumping ground (sorry, I mean "bastion of free speech") then yes I definitely would stop using Twitter.
- refurb 5y agoIt kind of already is? I mean, jesus, just read the replies from any political post by damn near anyone who is slightly Twitter famous. It's absolute trash heaped upon burning trash heaped upon dog shit.
- askafriend 5y agoSeems a little dramatic to delete your account, don't you think?
- andersco 5y agoIt really depends on if he follows through on what he is proposing, which seems to be to allow for disinformation and hate speech. If that turns out to not be the case, then I might reconsider.
- wellthatsawrap 5y agoYes. The current information coming from Twatter is is perfectly accurate.
- rb666 5y agoSo making it far worse is a good plan?
- wintermutestwin 5y agoThe cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. If the existing Twitter is so bad that Elon needs to buy it and save it, then the value of the userbase is low - particulary considering that the time cost for a user to switch is much lower than say a Myspace to FB shift. I am assuming that Elon is not this much of a dumbass - what am I missing here?
- no_butterscotch 5y ago> The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. No it wouldn't. Literally tons of people would do it and plenty of competitors have tried or are trying. Per the value of the userbase and the cost of switching: well look at some of the competitors I mentioned, the ones Joe Rogan and others flock too when they get a temporary Twitter ban, do they not return immediately after their ban is lifted? The cost of code and marketing can't beat Twitter's network effect. Getting Elon, Joe, and plenty of other personalities to move also is no guarantee that even a slight portion of the userbase switches.
- jayd16 5y agoThis argument is double edged. If on the one hand you argue that the free speech twitter clones are uncompelling, you have to also agree that the proposed features are inconsequential, no? What's the point of Elon shaking things up? I also think its odd to mix altruistic ideas like free speech platforms with profitable network effects. If it's just about speech, why can't such a platform co-exist with Twitter? Why does it need to overtake Twitter?
- darawk 5y agoThat's not how network effects work. Network effects lock users into the platform with the users, regardless of whether a new platform with better features comes along. That's the whole point of a network effect.
- Toboe 5y ago>If on the one hand you argue that the free speech twitter clones are uncompelling, you have to also agree that the proposed features are inconsequential, no? No? It is entirely possible to imagine consequential features that are uncompelling: Actively hostile features. >I also think its odd to mix altruistic ideas like free speech platforms with profitable network effects. Why does it need to overtake Twitter? What is the value in Twitter over the "free speech" clones if Twitters audience doesn't have value? Does Twitter have such unique features that couldn't be replicated much cheaper than the buy price?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fredgrott 5y agoThe Elephant in the room is what is being provided. Elon is already at the limits of his hours on a daily basis to devote to things with SpaceX, Boring Company, Tesla, etc. Picture it this way, Twitter is your startup and Elon proposes to buy you out. Would you not question how much time we would devote as part of the buyout talks?
- sjtgraham 5y agoIt’s not relevant. Is anyone expecting him to be the CEO? Far more likely he’s going to appoint competent operators to run Twitter. Whether this is a good outcome for the shareholders is the only germane point up for discussion IMO.
- lozenge 5y agoI haven't seen much evidence he's good at delegating. Such as how he remains in control of his own Twitter despite the SEC warnings and penalties. He doesn't need to spend much time with his companies to damage them.
- manmal 5y agoDon’t you think it would have been very visible if he were bad at delegating? His companies tend to produce results - not always on time, but that’s to be expected in greenfield projects right?
- coffeeblack 5y agoNot only do they produce results, they tend to save humanity while doing so.
- logifail 5y ago> He doesn't need to spend much time with his companies to damage them. Couple of questions spring to mind: 1. Can you define "damage"? "Elon Musk poised to collect $23bn bonus as Tesla beats targets" [0] "Tesla reported record revenue and profits for the first quarter of 2022 [..]"[1] 2. Would you say the current management of Twitter are doing a good job on behalf of their shareholders? "Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates; revenue forecast light"[2] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/21/elon-musk-stands-to-collect-23bn-bonus-as-tesla-surges-ahead https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/21/elon-musk-s... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/2022/04/20/elon-musk-likely-getting-15-billion-in-options-after-teslas-record-quarter/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/2022/04/20/elon-musk-... [2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-misses-ad-revenue-user-growth-estimates-revenue-forecast-light-2022-02-10/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-misses-ad-revenue...
- Traster 5y agoThe valuation for Twitter seems to be basically fair, so it wouldn't be surprising to see this deal eventually close. I think it's fair to say most people's view was that the biggest barrier to closing the deal was Musk actually making an honest offer. Which now, with Morgan Stanley actually standing behind the offer, looks more or less certain. So really it's going to be down to details which are unlikely to be an issue unless Musk uses some pretense to blow up the deal (I don't think that's hugely likely, but I think it's very possible). What I find really interesting personally is that Twitter is a unique entity. It has practically failed to adapt over a decade. That is both good and bad. It has given it a very specific character and a very specific user base. We have seen over the years that it's very easy for social media companies to die rather than adapt. This has been shown in slow trends like people moving on from Facebook or all at once like at Digg. It's very easy to alienate users without attracting new ones. So it'll be very interesting to see what happens there.
- tauntz 5y ago> Which now, with Morgan Stanley actually standing behind the offer, looks more or less certain Morgan Stanley only covers part of the total deal and Musk still needs to find a solid 21 billion from somewhere. That's probably doable for him but definitely not easy. I don't see it as "more or less certain" at least..
- 7speter 5y ago> Morgan Stanley only covers part of the total deal and Musk still needs to find a solid 21 billion from somewhere Is Musk’s reputation so bad that he, the owner of a car company that turned the car industry on its head (by proving that electric cars were possible) and pushed a massive paradigm shift in the lithium ion battery industry/market (maybe helped with the meteoric rise in demand mobile devices in the last decade as well, admittedly) not be able to find and convince a consortium of investors to put money towards the buy out? Maybe I’m too stuck on thinking of this as like the purchase of a sports team…
- brtkdotse 5y ago
- rieTohgh6 5y agoWasn't that a one time offer that they already rejected? I expect that now the offered terms would be worse.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- arc-in-space 5y agoNo, I don't believe it's been formally rejected.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jbverschoor 5y agoThe should be, otherwise they're facing a lot of legal issues.
- tauntz 5y agoNo matter what Twitter does, they face legal issues. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they accept the deal at the proposed price, then the board will definitely get sued by the ones who bought TWTR at a higher valuation. If they refuse the deal, then the board will definitely get sued by people who bought TWTR at a lower valuation. No matter what they'll do, there's going to be _someone_ who's going to sue them.
- chrisan 5y agoI have a question for those who say things along the lines of twitter becoming "more open platform, with reduced censorship of unpopular people and ideas" Wasn't the only "censorship" twitter has done simply against harmful misinformation and hate speech? What exactly is twitter censoring that's outside of those two? I haven't used HN long enough to know why I can reply to some posts but not others, so sorry for this top level
- jaspax 5y agoTwitter said that their censorship was against misinformation and hate speech. A great many people noticed that their actual implementation was erratic, inconsistent, and partisan, and would like for them to stop.
- skocznymroczny 5y ago> harmful misinformation and hate speech? that's the problem. These days anything you don't agree with can be considered harmful misinformation and hate speech. A year ago, doubting the almost 100% efficiency of masks or vaccines was "harmful, dangerous and may result in deaths", these days it's "common sense and valid skepticism".
- next_xibalba 5y agoHere is a just one major example of censorship that was neither misinformation nor hate speech: The Hunter Biden laptop story. This story was broken by the right-leaning New York Post. Twitter banned its sharing in the weeks before the election, claiming it to be misinformation (with the implication that the leaking of its contents was part of a Russian plot). ~2 years later (when its relevance is greatly diminished) both the Washington Post [1] and the New York Times [2] have confirmed the major aspects of this story. This was a coordinated censorship campaign, and a free speech platform would have allowed it to get the the sunlight it deserved. Now, does it appear the NY Post's coverage was slanted and, in some areas, inaccurate? Yes. But that is where the rest of the media (including and especially Twitter) should have stepped in to perform its function in an open society: producing more and better speech. [1] https://archive.ph/znP14 https://archive.ph/znP14 [2] https://archive.ph/i3Ip8 https://archive.ph/i3Ip8
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bezospen15 5y agoThe board is simply obligated to entertain the offer, they will reject as it is not in the best long term interest of the share holders. Yes it is monetarily competitive but also Twitter will basically lose most of their users if Elon is in charge. It's no secret that he has alt right motives. A billionaire should not be able to do this in the first place.
- bigbluedots 5y agoWhat are 'alt right motives'?
- EricE 5y agoAnything that doesn’t fit the OP’s worldview, apparently. Same reason racist, -phobe and -ist have pretty much lost all meaning in modern discourse.
- twox2 5y ago"It's no secret that he has alt right motives." If it's no secret, can you cite some sources?
- yurishimo 5y agoI'd consider myself pretty far left, especially by American standards, but Musk is in no way some sort of crypto (in the traditional sense) fascist. He's got some pretty libertarian views on free speech, a blind spot for PoC, and that's about it. I'd hardly categorize that as "alt right".
- brnt 5y agoActually, libertarianism is entirely constructed by what you can call alt-right circles. See Jane Mayer's Dark Money.
- mixedCase 5y agoLibertarianism is literally just liberalism before modern day US liberals coopted the name, hence the alternative label "classical liberal". In the rest of the world being a "liberal" still means the same thing. Feel free to summarize the point if there's any.