4 ms·

> Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of

> Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of money. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

notahacker 4y ago
Yep. It's basically "why wouldn't you accept half your wages if the company really didn't want to pay you the full amount?" or "if you lend somebody something and they decide to keep it, why would you try to get it back?"
rvnx 4y ago
- the_snooze 4y ago
  Musk voluntarily signed a contract to buy Twitter. No one pointed a gun to his head and forced him to do that. Contracts and words matter.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > Selling a company (and even anything in life) has to be a win-win situation, a world where there are only scammers / predators around you would be nightmarish. How isn't this win-win? Musk gets a company for a price he considered acceptable. It's the same company. It's the same price. How was this win-win before when he made the agreement, but not win-win now? > When you force people against their will, wtf business practice. Against their will? He made an agreement to buy it. Does canceling the agreement against Twitter's will somehow not matter at all? > What is the good thing to celebrate about that ? Also when selling companies, employee depend on that. You cannot have an owner who is hostile to your employees. The new owners become hostile because they are not financed enough (because they didn't want the deal), or because the board was hostile and forced the take-over. If Musk really no longer wants Twitter and wants to reach an amicable resolution, he could start by offering $44 billion minus the current market value of Twitter. Twitter might very well accept that or something close to that. Then Musk wouldn't need to own something he doesn't want, but Twitter would still roughly be getting the overall value agreed upon with Musk.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  Ethics are important in business, but insisting on ethical and decorous dealings with someone who is brazenly neither of those things (i.e. blatantly ignoring court rulings) is a fool's game. Assume positive intent and work ethically and in good faith, but if they clearly demonstrate to you that they don't have positive intent, you don't need to be a punching bag.
- solar-ice 4y ago
  Gonna be honest - once you are talking about billions of dollars, nobody gives a shit about ethics. There’s what you contractually agreed to do, and that’s it. Nobody gets to the point where they either have significant control over Twitter or have the money to buy Twitter by being ethical. An ethical person would not have signed an agreement to almost definitely buy Twitter, intentionally giving up several common buyers’ rights on this sort of thing, and then spend the next month and a half trying to get out of it.

notahacker 4y ago

Yep. It's basically "why wouldn't you accept half your wages if the company really didn't want to pay you the full amount?" or "if you lend somebody something and they decide to keep it, why would you try to get it back?"

rvnx 4y ago

the_snooze 4y ago
Musk voluntarily signed a contract to buy Twitter. No one pointed a gun to his head and forced him to do that. Contracts and words matter.
CogitoCogito 4y ago
> Selling a company (and even anything in life) has to be a win-win situation, a world where there are only scammers / predators around you would be nightmarish. How isn't this win-win? Musk gets a company for a price he considered acceptable. It's the same company. It's the same price. How was this win-win before when he made the agreement, but not win-win now? > When you force people against their will, wtf business practice. Against their will? He made an agreement to buy it. Does canceling the agreement against Twitter's will somehow not matter at all? > What is the good thing to celebrate about that ? Also when selling companies, employee depend on that. You cannot have an owner who is hostile to your employees. The new owners become hostile because they are not financed enough (because they didn't want the deal), or because the board was hostile and forced the take-over. If Musk really no longer wants Twitter and wants to reach an amicable resolution, he could start by offering $44 billion minus the current market value of Twitter. Twitter might very well accept that or something close to that. Then Musk wouldn't need to own something he doesn't want, but Twitter would still roughly be getting the overall value agreed upon with Musk.
ryanbrunner 4y ago
Ethics are important in business, but insisting on ethical and decorous dealings with someone who is brazenly neither of those things (i.e. blatantly ignoring court rulings) is a fool's game. Assume positive intent and work ethically and in good faith, but if they clearly demonstrate to you that they don't have positive intent, you don't need to be a punching bag.
solar-ice 4y ago
Gonna be honest - once you are talking about billions of dollars, nobody gives a shit about ethics. There’s what you contractually agreed to do, and that’s it. Nobody gets to the point where they either have significant control over Twitter or have the money to buy Twitter by being ethical. An ethical person would not have signed an agreement to almost definitely buy Twitter, intentionally giving up several common buyers’ rights on this sort of thing, and then spend the next month and a half trying to get out of it.