7 ms·

But a public company has higher public transparency obligations than a private one. Why do you think being afraid of Elon will make them more transparent than b

But a public company has higher public transparency obligations than a private one. Why do you think being afraid of Elon will make them more transparent than being afraid of the SEC?

christkv 4y ago
They are worried about the lawsuits that would be filed against the board and the executive if they find fraud after the deal closes.
mdorazio 4y ago
Cynically, the SEC will only issue fines in most cases. Elon will (according to accounts from friends who have worked at his companies) fire leadership without hesitation and possibly publicly shame them, too.
- martythemaniak 4y ago
  > and possibly publicly shame them, too You accidentally hit upon what "free speech" means when used by whales. If Musk berates and bullies an employee with endless racist and sexist slurs, he'd get in trouble. But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech.
  - wholien 4y ago
    > But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech. What does "points his mock armies at the same employee" mean here? Any examples?
    - res0nat0r 4y ago
      https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter-executive-drawing-employee-backlash-11651118870 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter...
      - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
        The WSJ has been busy: https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736 https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Yeah, like when Politico recently pointed out the FDA was told about infected baby formula months before several babies were killed by it. Obviously Politico is just gathering their mooks to subject the poor gentle souls of Abbott and the FDA to abuse. We can't disclose wrongdoing - think of the mean things people might say.
    - chowells 4y ago
      This is missing the point so badly it seems almost intentional. Public outcry at the actions of the government is entirely different from incited bullying of individuals with no public presence.
      - gjsman-1000 4y ago
        "incited bullying of individuals with no public presence" Elon Musk never even mentioned her - he simply referred to Twitter's actions as "obviously incredibly inappropriate" and linked to an article that happened to mention her. > "bullying of individuals with no public presence" You can't be serious. This person is literally responsible for burying the Hunter Biden laptop story and is personally responsible for banning Trump. That's a public position whether you like it or not. I don't think anyone would think we can stop criticizing Putin the moment he exits office. Imagine if Jack Dorsey ran Twitter without a Twitter account. That would not negate your ability to criticize his leadership even if he never spoke.
      - decremental 4y ago
        She has a pretty big public presence. She was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack. Calling someone out for being terrible never seemed to bother anyone until apparently 5 seconds ago.
        gkop 4y ago
        Huh? Punching down has never been considered classy.
  - macinjosh 4y ago
    1. This "employee" is in a very high position and makes $17 million/year. 2. She is in charge of Twitter's censorship team. She can send an email and block and ban every single account that tweeted something abusive at her. I think she can handle some criticism.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      This "employee" is also the very person who chose to A.) Block President Trump and B.) Ban the story about Hunter Bidens's laptop from the New York Post, which was declared real by the NYT two years later. Furthermore, Elon did not berate her by name or handle, he just said that what Twitter did was "obviously incredibly inappropriate" with a link to a story mentioning her, even though he did not mention her by name. She's calling it abusive, not because Elon called her names (he never mentioned her, just the story) even though she was behind the biggest bans and censorship. She's upset that her power has been exposed and she might have some accountability for her decisions. For how powerful she is, imagine if we weren't allowed to criticize the President, or a member of Congress, or Jeff Bezos, or even Elon Musk himself because it might hurt their feelings. When you are in a position of that much power, criticism must come with it, and you don't get to complain about that.
      - Amezarak 4y ago
        Yes, this is totally bizarre. You have enormously powerful people shaping the public discourse not only crying foul at idea they might face the slightest bit of accountability, but also successfully lobbying other people to defend them from any public criticism. Then we have to listen to them sanctimoniously talk about how "disinformation" threatens democracy, or whatever! Faceless Twitter employees shaping political discourse during an election get a free pass, though? Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with using their power to shape and weaponize discourse against other people! For example, the news media regularly unmasks regular Twitter users simply for having a huge following with non-media approved opinions and then shrugs when they face death threats. But...don't you dare talk about the journalist that did it!
      - myko 4y ago
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  It is never a good sign when a leader holds others to standards they themselves aren't held to.
  - nullc 4y ago
    Counterargument: If you hire someone make a painting of your dog, would you hold their work to a higher standard than if you had done the work yourself?
    - JaimeThompson 4y ago
      I expect leaders to lead by example and to not punish others for behaving the same way leadership does. Leaders trashing workers isn't them doing the job they are paid to do.

But a public company has higher public transparency obligations than a private one. Why do you think being afraid of Elon will make them more transparent than being afraid of the SEC?

christkv 4y ago

They are worried about the lawsuits that would be filed against the board and the executive if they find fraud after the deal closes.

mdorazio 4y ago

Cynically, the SEC will only issue fines in most cases. Elon will (according to accounts from friends who have worked at his companies) fire leadership without hesitation and possibly publicly shame them, too.

martythemaniak 4y ago
> and possibly publicly shame them, too You accidentally hit upon what "free speech" means when used by whales. If Musk berates and bullies an employee with endless racist and sexist slurs, he'd get in trouble. But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech.
- wholien 4y ago
  > But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech. What does "points his mock armies at the same employee" mean here? Any examples?
  - res0nat0r 4y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter-executive-drawing-employee-backlash-11651118870 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter...
    - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
      The WSJ has been busy: https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736 https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Yeah, like when Politico recently pointed out the FDA was told about infected baby formula months before several babies were killed by it. Obviously Politico is just gathering their mooks to subject the poor gentle souls of Abbott and the FDA to abuse. We can't disclose wrongdoing - think of the mean things people might say.
  - chowells 4y ago
    This is missing the point so badly it seems almost intentional. Public outcry at the actions of the government is entirely different from incited bullying of individuals with no public presence.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      "incited bullying of individuals with no public presence" Elon Musk never even mentioned her - he simply referred to Twitter's actions as "obviously incredibly inappropriate" and linked to an article that happened to mention her. > "bullying of individuals with no public presence" You can't be serious. This person is literally responsible for burying the Hunter Biden laptop story and is personally responsible for banning Trump. That's a public position whether you like it or not. I don't think anyone would think we can stop criticizing Putin the moment he exits office. Imagine if Jack Dorsey ran Twitter without a Twitter account. That would not negate your ability to criticize his leadership even if he never spoke.
    - decremental 4y ago
      She has a pretty big public presence. She was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack. Calling someone out for being terrible never seemed to bother anyone until apparently 5 seconds ago.
      - gkop 4y ago
        Huh? Punching down has never been considered classy.
- macinjosh 4y ago
  1. This "employee" is in a very high position and makes $17 million/year. 2. She is in charge of Twitter's censorship team. She can send an email and block and ban every single account that tweeted something abusive at her. I think she can handle some criticism.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    This "employee" is also the very person who chose to A.) Block President Trump and B.) Ban the story about Hunter Bidens's laptop from the New York Post, which was declared real by the NYT two years later. Furthermore, Elon did not berate her by name or handle, he just said that what Twitter did was "obviously incredibly inappropriate" with a link to a story mentioning her, even though he did not mention her by name. She's calling it abusive, not because Elon called her names (he never mentioned her, just the story) even though she was behind the biggest bans and censorship. She's upset that her power has been exposed and she might have some accountability for her decisions. For how powerful she is, imagine if we weren't allowed to criticize the President, or a member of Congress, or Jeff Bezos, or even Elon Musk himself because it might hurt their feelings. When you are in a position of that much power, criticism must come with it, and you don't get to complain about that.
    - Amezarak 4y ago
      Yes, this is totally bizarre. You have enormously powerful people shaping the public discourse not only crying foul at idea they might face the slightest bit of accountability, but also successfully lobbying other people to defend them from any public criticism. Then we have to listen to them sanctimoniously talk about how "disinformation" threatens democracy, or whatever! Faceless Twitter employees shaping political discourse during an election get a free pass, though? Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with using their power to shape and weaponize discourse against other people! For example, the news media regularly unmasks regular Twitter users simply for having a huge following with non-media approved opinions and then shrugs when they face death threats. But...don't you dare talk about the journalist that did it!
    - myko 4y ago
JaimeThompson 4y ago
It is never a good sign when a leader holds others to standards they themselves aren't held to.
- nullc 4y ago
  Counterargument: If you hire someone make a painting of your dog, would you hold their work to a higher standard than if you had done the work yourself?
  - JaimeThompson 4y ago
    I expect leaders to lead by example and to not punish others for behaving the same way leadership does. Leaders trashing workers isn't them doing the job they are paid to do.