17 ms·

No surprise there - he has been trying to distance himself for some time. Not surprising they agreed to sell so fast. Now it will Musk's headache (seriously do

No surprise there - he has been trying to distance himself for some time. Not surprising they agreed to sell so fast. Now it will Musk's headache (seriously doubt the deal will go through). Musk's twitter obsession is ruining his reputation. Owning this turd will likely accelerate that.

HWR_14 4y ago
I'm curious why you doubt the deal is going to go through.
- ForHackernews 4y ago
  It only costs him a billion to get out of it. It'll cost him a lot more to go through with it.
  - sealeck 4y ago
    That's not how it works – he has to go through with the deal unless one of the possible reasons he may back out for (and pay the US$1 billion) comes into being.
    - strangattractor 4y ago
      If he says that the bots inflate the number of eyeballs that is reason enough to pull out. He is already publicly implying it.
      - sgarman 4y ago
        Publicly implying won't let him back out for free. He needs to prove twitter acted in bad faith or "material adverse effect." No such evidence has been provided. BTW material adverse effect is an very hard standard to prove it needs to “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner."
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        He waived contingency on due diligence. He has no right to back out on the basis of the due diligence he should have done before he signed the contract. A court can order him to complete the purchase as committed ('specific performance').
        strangattractor 4y ago
        Like reporting inflated numbers. Whatever - then he is stuck with not being able to change anything. Or we will see a protracted court battle. Or Twitter will take their billion and be happy.
        jcranmer 4y ago
        > Or we will see a protracted court battle. Delaware is actually pretty quick with court cases, a couple of months end-to-end.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Musk's twitter account has a famously tenuous relationship with reality. He declined to perform due diligence, and his attempted pullout was contemporaneous with the TSLA stock (which his loan is leveraged against) plummeting. We'll probably see how it all plays out after years of protracted court battles. If I was Jack, I wouldn't want to stick around for that drama either.
    - bfgoodrich 4y ago
    - mikkergp 4y ago
      I’m very confused by all the news articles being wishy wash on this, but while I understand what you say to be the truth, I think the reality is we won’t know what the “actual” consequences are until 1. Musk makes some kind of decision official, 2. Twitter sues to force him to complete the deal and 3. A judge decides.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    As I understand it, it costs him a billion to get out of it only under a list of circumstances, none of which applies. Which means Twitter could go to court and likely would get the court to force Musk to by Twitter at the full $54.20 price.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Does twitter really want a drawn out legal battle with someone who has a history of squirming out of regulatory issues? I feel like I'd much rather take the billion and wash my hands of it.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        Yes, if it means many billions more, Twitter will absolutely go to court over it. Musk avoiding regulatory issues with agencies is a very different thing from incurring the wrath of a court. A judge can order jail time, fines, etc., to bring Musk into compliance with court orders.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  Since he has realized the risk of using Tesla stock to back this purchase - he has acquired investors. Investors will want returns on their investment other than "Free Speech" BS. Some of the things he is proposing will hurt Twatter financially like shutting down bots. It is those very same bots that give the impression that Twitter is influential. Hence he will either not be able to deliver his promises or he will find some excuse not to buy.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Also, bot detection is a quixotic quest. If it were that easy they'd have done it by now.
    - strangattractor 4y ago
      I once worked for a non-profit no less that was trying to use "Article Views" as a new metric to rank academic articles. I did some simple things to filter out some rather obvious bots. Nothing fancy. That reduced the page views %75. Needless to say even the Non-Profit was seduced buy the inflated numbers hoping it would attract more authors. Followers=BullSh*T
    - johannes1234321 4y ago
      Would they? - Bots drive engagement.
      - croes 4y ago
        So investors like bots and getting rid of the bots is a bad idea
        erik_seaberg 4y ago
        Advertisers hate bots. As a user I only hate spammers (which are mostly beggars), but some users worry about bots because they want to believe Twitter can be representative of voters.
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
Ruining his reputation with whom?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  - eric_cc 4y ago
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Downvoters are usually not worried about whether the comment they're downvoting might or might not be correct. I've made some comments where I've been confused as to why they got downvotes, but that wasn't one of them.
    - mustacheemperor 4y ago
      Not engaging with your claim about what is the "correct answer" to this question asked of another user about something they said, I assume this comment is being downvoted because it blatantly violates the site's community guidelines. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. This is an extremely sparse remark about a controversial issue. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Enough said.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        The question was asked generally, not of a particular user. The answer is pretty clear; here's an article in the Washington Post observing that all the complaints about Elon Musk taking over Twitter are Democrats anxious about the idea that this is bad for the Democratic Party: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/musk-purchase-twitter-has-left-right-switching-sides/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/musk-purc...
    - 4y ago
gernb 4y ago
Everyone has their own ideas of what would save twitter or make it stop sucking. For me: * Let me opt out of all recommendations. I only want to see tweets of people I follow or tags I follow. Nothing else. I'll find more people to follow via the people I follow. Do not post random popular news, people, related stuff in my feed, period. * Let me choose the types of tweets I see. Personally I want to see zero of (@person liked, @person replied to, ...) * Remove the 280 character limit (but possibly only show the first N characters in the feed). I don't personally believe the 280 character limit is important to twitter's success. Twitter's difference from most other places is that people are talking from their account, in public. It's one giant flat public forum. It is not FB (friends and family) and it is not Reddit (moderated sub forums). That alone is it's strength. All the 280 character thing does is amplify hyperbole as there is on room for nuance. I'm sure Musk has his own ideas (no censorship?) but as for me, I won't personally use twitter without the changes above. I have an account, I check about once a month or less. I see lots of the stuff above and quit. It's like having a pushy salesperson following you around and constantly recommending stuff. Rather than more sales I'd just leave for another store.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  I agree with all but the 280 character limit.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  > * Let me choose the types of tweets I see. Personally I want to see zero of (@person liked, @person replied to, ...) or even better make that a whitelist or blacklist option. There are some people who retweet way too much but others I'm perfectly happy to see them from.
  - YATA2 4y ago
    - belval 4y ago
      > The term "blacklist" arose from "black book" almost 100 years prior. "Black book" does not appear to have any etymology or sources that support ties to race, instead coming from the 1400s referring "to a list of people who had committed crimes or fallen out of favor with leaders" and popularized by King Henry VIII's literal usage of a book bound in black.[16] Others also note the prevalence of positive and negative connotations to "white" and "black" in the bible, predating attributions to skin tone and slavery.[17] It wasn't until the 1960s Black Power movement that "Black" became a widespread word to refer to one's race as a person of color in America[18] (alternate to African-American) lending itself to the argument that the negative connotation behind "black" and "blacklist" both predate attribution to race. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing)
xwdv 4y ago
People shit on Musk, but that only makes the potential for massive gains to his reputation even greater if he actually is able to turn Twitter around and make it into a respectable social network again. People like you, will eat crow.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  I personally like him and what he has been trying to do. But he is not a God. I simply think this Twitter is an necessary mistake that will divert his attention from import thangs.
  - nick__m 4y ago
    ...Twitter is an necessary mistake... I think you maybe meant unnecessary.
- croes 4y ago
  Musks plans for Twitter would actually collide with many nations laws.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Not really. Social media companies already selectively block some content based on user location in order to comply with national laws.
    - croes 4y ago
      It's more complex to selectively block than to hide a tweet for all = higher costs for Twitter. I think Musk underestimates how complicated social media is.
- vkou 4y ago
  The person most damaging to his reputation is Musk himself. See: Sec censures, pedo guy in Thailand, harassing flight attendants, full self-driving next year.
- 4y ago
vkou 4y ago
Musk never wanted to buy Twitter he just wanted cover for dumping his Tesla stock ahead of the downturn.
- prawn 4y ago
  Surely a cleaner way of doing this would be saying that he's pulling back cash to stockpile for a new moonshot idea. Then use 12-18 months to come up with something. The Twitter thing has been pretty ridiculous.
- ledauphin 4y ago
  I'm not one for conspiracies but this seems extremely plausible to me.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  I like this one too. He shouldn't have signed that prenup. Kind of left him on the hook for some alimony. I thought it was a new trolling tactic.

HWR_14 4y ago

I'm curious why you doubt the deal is going to go through.

ForHackernews 4y ago
It only costs him a billion to get out of it. It'll cost him a lot more to go through with it.
- sealeck 4y ago
  That's not how it works – he has to go through with the deal unless one of the possible reasons he may back out for (and pay the US$1 billion) comes into being.
  - strangattractor 4y ago
    If he says that the bots inflate the number of eyeballs that is reason enough to pull out. He is already publicly implying it.
    - sgarman 4y ago
      Publicly implying won't let him back out for free. He needs to prove twitter acted in bad faith or "material adverse effect." No such evidence has been provided. BTW material adverse effect is an very hard standard to prove it needs to “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner."
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      He waived contingency on due diligence. He has no right to back out on the basis of the due diligence he should have done before he signed the contract. A court can order him to complete the purchase as committed ('specific performance').
      - strangattractor 4y ago
        Like reporting inflated numbers. Whatever - then he is stuck with not being able to change anything. Or we will see a protracted court battle. Or Twitter will take their billion and be happy.
        jcranmer 4y ago
        > Or we will see a protracted court battle. Delaware is actually pretty quick with court cases, a couple of months end-to-end.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Musk's twitter account has a famously tenuous relationship with reality. He declined to perform due diligence, and his attempted pullout was contemporaneous with the TSLA stock (which his loan is leveraged against) plummeting. We'll probably see how it all plays out after years of protracted court battles. If I was Jack, I wouldn't want to stick around for that drama either.
  - bfgoodrich 4y ago
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    I’m very confused by all the news articles being wishy wash on this, but while I understand what you say to be the truth, I think the reality is we won’t know what the “actual” consequences are until 1. Musk makes some kind of decision official, 2. Twitter sues to force him to complete the deal and 3. A judge decides.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  As I understand it, it costs him a billion to get out of it only under a list of circumstances, none of which applies. Which means Twitter could go to court and likely would get the court to force Musk to by Twitter at the full $54.20 price.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Does twitter really want a drawn out legal battle with someone who has a history of squirming out of regulatory issues? I feel like I'd much rather take the billion and wash my hands of it.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      Yes, if it means many billions more, Twitter will absolutely go to court over it. Musk avoiding regulatory issues with agencies is a very different thing from incurring the wrath of a court. A judge can order jail time, fines, etc., to bring Musk into compliance with court orders.
strangattractor 4y ago
Since he has realized the risk of using Tesla stock to back this purchase - he has acquired investors. Investors will want returns on their investment other than "Free Speech" BS. Some of the things he is proposing will hurt Twatter financially like shutting down bots. It is those very same bots that give the impression that Twitter is influential. Hence he will either not be able to deliver his promises or he will find some excuse not to buy.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Also, bot detection is a quixotic quest. If it were that easy they'd have done it by now.
  - strangattractor 4y ago
    I once worked for a non-profit no less that was trying to use "Article Views" as a new metric to rank academic articles. I did some simple things to filter out some rather obvious bots. Nothing fancy. That reduced the page views %75. Needless to say even the Non-Profit was seduced buy the inflated numbers hoping it would attract more authors. Followers=BullSh*T
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    Would they? - Bots drive engagement.
    - croes 4y ago
      So investors like bots and getting rid of the bots is a bad idea
      - erik_seaberg 4y ago
        Advertisers hate bots. As a user I only hate spammers (which are mostly beggars), but some users worry about bots because they want to believe Twitter can be representative of voters.

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago

Ruining his reputation with whom?

thaumasiotes 4y ago
- eric_cc 4y ago
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    Downvoters are usually not worried about whether the comment they're downvoting might or might not be correct. I've made some comments where I've been confused as to why they got downvotes, but that wasn't one of them.
  - mustacheemperor 4y ago
    Not engaging with your claim about what is the "correct answer" to this question asked of another user about something they said, I assume this comment is being downvoted because it blatantly violates the site's community guidelines. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. This is an extremely sparse remark about a controversial issue. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Enough said.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      The question was asked generally, not of a particular user. The answer is pretty clear; here's an article in the Washington Post observing that all the complaints about Elon Musk taking over Twitter are Democrats anxious about the idea that this is bad for the Democratic Party: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/musk-purchase-twitter-has-left-right-switching-sides/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/musk-purc...
  - 4y ago

gernb 4y ago

Everyone has their own ideas of what would save twitter or make it stop sucking. For me: * Let me opt out of all recommendations. I only want to see tweets of people I follow or tags I follow. Nothing else. I'll find more people to follow via the people I follow. Do not post random popular news, people, related stuff in my feed, period. * Let me choose the types of tweets I see. Personally I want to see zero of (@person liked, @person replied to, ...) * Remove the 280 character limit (but possibly only show the first N characters in the feed). I don't personally believe the 280 character limit is important to twitter's success. Twitter's difference from most other places is that people are talking from their account, in public. It's one giant flat public forum. It is not FB (friends and family) and it is not Reddit (moderated sub forums). That alone is it's strength. All the 280 character thing does is amplify hyperbole as there is on room for nuance. I'm sure Musk has his own ideas (no censorship?) but as for me, I won't personally use twitter without the changes above. I have an account, I check about once a month or less. I see lots of the stuff above and quit. It's like having a pushy salesperson following you around and constantly recommending stuff. Rather than more sales I'd just leave for another store.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
I agree with all but the 280 character limit.
rtkwe 4y ago
> * Let me choose the types of tweets I see. Personally I want to see zero of (@person liked, @person replied to, ...) or even better make that a whitelist or blacklist option. There are some people who retweet way too much but others I'm perfectly happy to see them from.
- YATA2 4y ago
  - belval 4y ago
    > The term "blacklist" arose from "black book" almost 100 years prior. "Black book" does not appear to have any etymology or sources that support ties to race, instead coming from the 1400s referring "to a list of people who had committed crimes or fallen out of favor with leaders" and popularized by King Henry VIII's literal usage of a book bound in black.[16] Others also note the prevalence of positive and negative connotations to "white" and "black" in the bible, predating attributions to skin tone and slavery.[17] It wasn't until the 1960s Black Power movement that "Black" became a widespread word to refer to one's race as a person of color in America[18] (alternate to African-American) lending itself to the argument that the negative connotation behind "black" and "blacklist" both predate attribution to race. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing)

xwdv 4y ago

People shit on Musk, but that only makes the potential for massive gains to his reputation even greater if he actually is able to turn Twitter around and make it into a respectable social network again. People like you, will eat crow.

strangattractor 4y ago
I personally like him and what he has been trying to do. But he is not a God. I simply think this Twitter is an necessary mistake that will divert his attention from import thangs.
- nick__m 4y ago
  ...Twitter is an necessary mistake... I think you maybe meant unnecessary.
croes 4y ago
Musks plans for Twitter would actually collide with many nations laws.
- nradov 4y ago
  Not really. Social media companies already selectively block some content based on user location in order to comply with national laws.
  - croes 4y ago
    It's more complex to selectively block than to hide a tweet for all = higher costs for Twitter. I think Musk underestimates how complicated social media is.
vkou 4y ago
The person most damaging to his reputation is Musk himself. See: Sec censures, pedo guy in Thailand, harassing flight attendants, full self-driving next year.
4y ago

vkou 4y ago

Musk never wanted to buy Twitter he just wanted cover for dumping his Tesla stock ahead of the downturn.

prawn 4y ago
Surely a cleaner way of doing this would be saying that he's pulling back cash to stockpile for a new moonshot idea. Then use 12-18 months to come up with something. The Twitter thing has been pretty ridiculous.
ledauphin 4y ago
I'm not one for conspiracies but this seems extremely plausible to me.
strangattractor 4y ago
I like this one too. He shouldn't have signed that prenup. Kind of left him on the hook for some alimony. I thought it was a new trolling tactic.