17 ms·

Imagine this whole ordeal playing out on a house that was not listed for sale. The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buy

by jjeaff 4y ago

Imagine this whole ordeal playing out on a house that was not listed for sale. The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. His antics are hurting the home's value so you relent to selling and give him an as-is sale contract, which he signs and gives you 24 hrs to respond or he will try to force a sale. All the while, this is of course taking your attention away from your day job and costing you countless thousands in legal bills. Then, soon after signing the contract, the housing market crashes and the buyer claims he peaked in the window and it doesn't look as nice as he imagined (even though he had previously been publicly announcing that your house was crappy on the inside and that he was going to buy it and fix it up) and so he wants to break the deal. You sue to make the deal go through, he countersues that you misrepresented. Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer?

bilsbie 4y ago
A publicly traded company is nothing like a house. I say no to this analogy.
ilikehurdles 4y ago
The investors funding the buyer’s antics.
dragontamer 4y ago
> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. Its so ridiculous. Musk's popularity is largely *BECAUSE* of his Twitter antics. So this "buyer" is basically someone who has come to house-parties / benefited from the house in question for the last decade. And the people arguing against the (current owners) of the house are also the party-guests of that very same house.
- iasay 4y ago
  If his popularity is due to what he posts on twitter it would appear that a large proportion of the human race are deranged morons.
  - HeXetic 4y ago
    With everything that's happened in the past decade, don't we know that already by know?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ctvo 4y ago
    He can be popular due to Twitter and people can also not be deranged morons. Twitter is very popular with a few niche groups: Journalists and people in tech for example. The former is influenced by Elon's antics on Twitter and end up writing news stories or making documentaries [1] about him. People learn about Musk through these respectable publications. The latter group spreads the gospel of Elon's TED talks and press conferences to their friends and family. Being subject matter experts, they're more likely to be believed. Previously the coverage was mostly positive, but Musk's antics on Twitter have caused both the former and some of the latter to turn slightly negative from what I can tell. For example, it's now a common joke that Elon's wealth is partially due to being born wealthy. His family owned emerald mines. I didn't notice that in the popular consciousness until very recently. Phoney Starks is also making it's way into popular usage. 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/video/NYT-Presents/100000008464087/the-new-york-times-presents-elon-musks-crash-course.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/NYT-Presents/100000008464087/t...
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      The emerald mine stuff is super overblown and only matters to people who don't like Musk for other reasons. If owning some natural resource like a mine or two was all it took to become a trailblazing entrepreneur who played a key role in Paypal/Tesla/SpaceX then Musk wouldn't be as popular as he is with many because there would be so many more like him around. Musk is clearly an extraordinary individual even if he sometimes acts like a dickhead and had a small boost from owning emerald mines. But like I mentioned above if owning a profitable mine of some type was all it took to be an entrepreneur at Musk's level we would be drowning in them and he wouldn't be such a big deal in the first place. But in the case of Twitter, Musk clearly seems to be in the wrong here legally.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  - Volundr 4y ago
    I don't think anyone is confused on this point.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Your comment implies that there was a time when he was actually trying to buy the "house" in good faith. I'm not convinced that is true... It gave him a great excuse to liquidate Tesla stock without the market responding as strongly as it normally would when a CEO unloads billions of dollars of shares in a company
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      I think it is actually worse than that, I think he was buying it in good faith. He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone. I know, if I buy 44bn worth then at this rate I will make many many billions ... Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancelled. Best guess is he is down 10bn on where he bid so his loss-porn on this one is pretty sexy.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > I think he was buying it in good faith. My personal theory, which more or less matches Matt Levine's theory from his Bloomberg opinion column... Musk wanted special features on his Twitter account. He made a stink on Twitter about it, hoping to get more features as one of its most popular users. When that wasn't working, he tried to join the Board of Directors to lean heavily onto the CEO to grant special features on his Twitter account. Upon realizing that the board position doesn't come with those kinds of benefits, Musk quit the board, bought 9% of Twitter, and tried to push these "special features on my account" proposal that way. Board still didn't budge. Elon Musk, realizing he has to buy the company to actually get what he wants, starts to buy the company. Then the stock price collapses and its turning out to be a horrible loss. So Musk then starts to throw another tantrum to get out of this one. ------------ The benefits of this theory, is that this "story" proposed by Matt Levine makes every single decision of Elon Musk reasonable (albeit sociopathic, but reasonable and self-serving). From his tantrum in early March 2022 on Twitter, to his 9% buyout, to his flirting as a board member (and then quitting), to the eventual buyout. It also doesn't require "4d chess thinking genius". Each decision, while reasonable, isn't really that advanced or difficult to follow individually. Elon Musk just want special treatment on Twitter. I don't know what that "special treatment" is (maybe a bigger, bluer checkmark. Maybe guarantees on the global Twitter Timeline. Etc. etc. Something along those lines...), but special nonetheless. And as a billionaire, Musk has a number of strategies at his disposal that you or I wouldn't have. Musk is willing to pursue those strategies because he's so rich, and its really not a big deal to his finances. -------- It just fits so neatly to what has happened, that its the most reasonable proposal of his behavior for the past 6 months so far.
- joenot443 4y ago
  > Musk's popularity is largely BECAUSE of his Twitter antics I don't really buy this. I knew loads of Musk fanboys who were crazy about him before Teslas even become available. The 50+ folks that I'm friends with have mostly never used Twitter or read a Musk tweet, but they think Teslas are cool and are reminded that StarLink brought rural Ontario better internet than our own government tried to do for decades. Obviously Musk is an ass on Twitter (and probably in person), but like a lot of neuroatypicals, their talent seemingly makes up for their abrasiveness.
  - wahern 4y ago
    > I don't really buy this. I think you're both correct. My experience is as you described, but Musk has also developed a following among political conservatives attracted to his abrasive, thumb-nosing antics.
    - jollybean 4y ago
      It's not 'conservatives' as 1/2 of them loath that stuff - and 'agitation' is traditionally an artifact of leftist populism (with traditional conservatives usually being small-c, establishment, older etc.) - it's more a bit of a businessy libertarianism, with hints of anti establishmentism that's in many ways more popular among the youth. Also, it's a hugely populist and international appeal, spreading his 'Noisy Tweets' around the globe. See how much more popular he is now that he makes 'controversial' statements [1] It's as PR trick as old as time. Edit: but yes, technically he has taken a public shift to the 'Current American Right' in the mysterious political situation we are in, that's fair to say. Just wanted to indicate it's a 'new and kind of specific normal'. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=%2Fm%2F03nzf1 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=%...
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        I appreciate your analysis, but would like to add that I feel that "traditional conservatives" seem to have largely disappeared or become voiceless not only in the US but also in other places like e.g. the UK. I imagine in decades prior traditional conservatives would have found people like Trump or Boris Johnson obscene and distasteful. However, I don't see many of that old guard speak out against them. It seems with the reducing success projections due to changing demographics, many see winning as more important than values. Or at least that is my only explanation.
- viraptor 4y ago
  > Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. What's the path from the masses on twitter and courts which will hear the case? Public opinion doesn't matter here. The case over the contract doesn't even have a jury if I understand correctly.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > Public opinion doesn't matter here. Public opinion doesn't matter with regards to winners/losers of the case. But public opinion matters from the perspective of Elon Musk continuing to build his brand and grow his fanbase. Even if Elon Musk loses the court case, he still want to turn this whole charade into a positive for himself. IE: Fail upwards, etc. etc.
762236 4y ago
[flagged]
- root_axis 4y ago
  Even if we grant the accusations of enforcing a leftist orthodoxy, that's twitter's prerogative, you may not like left wing people but they are allowed to have a website that caters to a left wing audience.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    What personal consequences do you think should come to the members of the administration that sent lists of accounts to Twitter and other social media companies requesting bans?
    - root_axis 4y ago
      I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, could you please provide a link?
      - Consultant32452 4y ago
        Here's the first article that popped up. Easy to find from a simple google search. https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for...
- jscottmiller 4y ago
  >They repeatedly demonstrate that they are a company of bullies, with how they ban people from their service that don't conform to the left orthodoxy. So the manner in which they conduct their private business, which is well within the rule of law, makes them ineligible for protection from those violating securities and contract law?
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
wnevets 4y ago
> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? The buyer is rich and if I side with the buyer maybe one day I'll be rich too!
- int_19h 4y ago
  I think it usually works the other way around: "one day I'll be rich, so ..."
jjoonathan 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WShMzwT-nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WShMzwT-nM For best experience, read it with the Benny Hill theme in a background tab.
demarq 4y ago
I go to a mercedes shop to buy a car I can show off with, arrange a loan then get demoted and paid less. I'm "effectively" too broke to buy the mercedes. So I return the next day and claim "the lights are to curved!" Is the way I look at it. TLDR: The worlds richest man, insecure about his wealth decided to show off and failed due to a lack of wealth. To somehow save face he claims that his change of heart is not financially motivated. Lesson, no one in this world is above being insecure about their wealth or status. It just happened to the worlds richest dude.
throwawayacc2 4y ago
I am, not because I think “the buyer is right” but because I hate the seller with a passion. Twitter has done terrible harm to society and whatever and whoever does it harm, it’s doing a good job in my book.
- breakfastduck 4y ago
  Quite funny than the person doing twitter 'harm' is exactly the kind of famous, pompous narcissistic asshole their entire platform has been built around enabling.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    If it helps, I think both twitter and musk are two turds. I like seeing turds suffer and harming each other. Best outcome for my personal satisfaction would be twitter gets dragged for years in the courts and loses tons of money and at the end musk is forced to pay that billion dollars or however much the break clause is. Both side can go f themselves.
Banana699 4y ago
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Legally ? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. The contract states the place of the law. Specifically: in the Delaware Chancery Court. The contract also states the time and conditions of the contract. Have you read the contract? Its public. Furthermore, the date of the court case has been set for October. It seems unlikely that Delaware law is going to change dramatically between then and now.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    How does any of this change or contradict what I said? And doesn't the US legal system allow for escalation to the Supreme Court, which can override lower courts? So technically whatever the Delware Court is not the final say on whatever happens. >Trial date set to October This is so so awesome, I will get to see Twatter defenders rage and fume for 2 more months? ^__^
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. There's no twist or turn of the law I can possibly imagine between today, and October, in the Delaware Court of Chicanery. There is a reason why contract laws are written to be argued in this court. Its considered one of the most straightforward courts in the entire country, with legal expertise / judges who specialize in corporate contract law. -------- But sure, I'm all ears. What kind of "surprise legal twist" do you think will happen over the next 2 months? I really don't think its too complicated of a court case. Its just fun / fascinating to watch from the perspective of internet celebrities. In any case: the time has been set. October 2022. The location has been set, Delaware Court of Chicanery. The arguments have been set: we know what Elon is seeking to argue, and we know what Twitter is seeking to argue. Not much else to hypothesize here, really.
jawns 4y ago
Imagine it playing out in a romance! "You cad. I never wanted to marry you, but I felt compelled to accept your proposal. But now that you are trying to back out, I am trying to force you to marry me, you idiot." Although in this case, contrary to what it's arguing, Twitter doesn't actually want the marriage to happen. It just wants to keep the $1B engagement ring.
- vehementi 4y ago
  You're not caught up with things. Twitter is suing to force the deal to go through at the original price, not to get the $1B.
  - jawns 4y ago
    I'm aware of the latest developments, but let's work through this. There are basically two categories of Twitter shareholders: Those who are invested in the business's long-term success, and those who could care less about the business and want to dump the stock as soon as they can get a good price for it. Right now, the latter category want the sale to go through so they can divest; they don't care if Twitter burns to the ground afterward. But what is the outcome that people invested in Twitter's long-term success actually want? Twitter's lawyers are arguing that Musk is an incompetent businessman who made a really terrible knee-jerk decision, and in the same breath they're saying that he should be compelled to be made Twitter's new owner -- an unwilling, incompetent owner who will likely tank the business even if he doesn't make any more stupid decisions, just by virtue of how this all played out. These people, one would think, would prefer to get the $1B parting fee and be done with Musk, even if that means passing up on the potential for a short-term gain that an outright sale might give them. Similarly, in a romance, whatever short-term benefits you might get by having a wedding, they're never going to be worth the trouble if it means marrying a terrible person.
    - vehementi 4y ago
      Granted such people exist but twitter i.e. the board acting in shareholders interest, in fact wants the deal to go through, not to get the $1B thing.
ErikVandeWater 4y ago
Well this analogy leaves out Twitter censorship, which makes Twitter unlikeable.
- bhouston 4y ago
  I think Twitter is in a tough spot when it comes to deciding how to handle hate speech and harassment. In many ways they are like Amnesty International in that no matter which human rights issue they report on, there will be a contingent that says, well everything else you says is true, but the stuff you said about me is completely wrong and you've loss all credibility. It is a hard spot to be in trying to be neutral in a world of actors who only want the other side criticized or censored and never themselves. I am glade I do not have such a role. I wouldn't be able to take the constant flak from all directions for actions or inaction.
- 1270018080 4y ago
  Adding to the analogy: The current owners of the home regularly remove swastikas spraypainted on their house by vandals, and some people call this a violation of free speech.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    Removing swastikas graffitied all over the place, political correctness gone mad.
    - Banana699 4y ago
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    - 1270018080 4y ago
      This further adds to my point that there's no violation of free speech taking place.
santiagobasulto 4y ago
Except this is not a house. It’s a public company. And a lot of people own a piece of that company. And a lot of them were unhappy about how Twitter’s leadership was running things. I honestly don’t care, I’m not on either side. But this was not a house sale, and Musk wasn’t a crazy dude approaching a home owner. He had a lot of support from shareholders since day 1.
- powerhour 4y ago
  Analogies are like cars, they're never perfect but that's OK.
- pavlov 4y ago
  Yes. And he promised those shareholders $54.20 per share, signed the contract, and now the same shareholders are suing to get the money. They don’t care what happens to Twitter if Musk takes over since they’ll have cash instead of shares at that point and can reinvest in something more promising.
  - bobobob420 4y ago
    Why would he buy the company after the stock crashed? He could buy the company for way cheaper publicly. Who cares what the contract says, theres different rules for billionaires than there are for the contracts I sign. No sane person would go through with it after the stock crashed, its not a financially smart move. A lot of geniuses in this thread but lack basic social and common aptitude as usual. Life is not a fantasy, its corrupt and rich people can do what they want.
    - willis936 4y ago
      It crashed because of his antics. The house was appraised and you signed a contract to buy it as-is. Then you take a hammer to every window and pipe then try to use that to negotiate a lower price. Sorry, that is not how it works. It's clear that this is a continuation of Musk's feud with Twitter's management. His goal from the onset was to damage Twitter.
Kye 4y ago
This would make a perfect episode if Knight Rider ever got another reboot.
breakfastduck 4y ago
Except it's kinda funny because the 'homeowner' has spent 10 years developing the primordial cesspool that the buyer has evolved out of and it's kinda funny that some famous rich narcissist they've built an entire social network around empowering is now fucking them over.
tomcam 4y ago
It appears to me that the seller was, in your analogy, misrepresenting the condition of the house. This is my totally unscientific analysis based on my private random sample of accounts I interact with, so, not particularly robust as a decision making tool for a big sale.
- lazide 4y ago
  In the analogy, the contract was done with no intentional representations by the seller at all, and the buyer waived contingencies/bought as-is. It’s almost impossible for a seller to misrepresent anything material in that situation.
  - d110af5ccf 4y ago
    The issue being that Twitter actually did (afaik) make various representations about bots, spam, paid actors, etc and the validity of those representations was later called into question. So the analogy as originally proposed at the top of this thread is a misrepresentation.
    - lazide 4y ago
      None beyond their normal public filings I believe, which are highly qualified and if wrong beyond those qualifications they’d have been in hot water a long time ago. In the analogy, it would be like claiming the Public appraisals/tax records with the county were lies all of the sudden (when they aren’t) to try to get out of the deal. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
davesque 4y ago
You left out the part where the buyer will also destroy the city in which the house is located purely out of spite if he is forced to go through with the purchase. That is, I fully expect Musk to go full troll mode and reverse bans on all the bad actors who have been rightfully kicked off the platform if he's forced to buy Twitter. He'll claim it's for free speech when it's really just to own the libs.
- macinjosh 4y ago
  Just like the libs blocked every account they could to own the conservatives in the name of protecting feelings.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Their house, their rules. See 'Truth (sic) Social' for another example.
- Banana699 4y ago
  >He'll claim it's for free speech when it's really just to own the libs Those 2 goals are aligned.
- arlcode 4y ago
  Very unlikely for him to deliberately destroy Twitter. Most of the deal is financed by banks and they have a vested interest in Twitter having at least a shot at being more valuable or profitable. He is but it with cash but (mostly) not his own so deliberately running the company into the ground could make him liable for damages.
biomcgary 4y ago
Not the best analogy. In many (most?) US states, the buyer can just walk away from purchasing a house at any time for just the earnest money, typically 1%.
- bialpio 4y ago
  You may need to have a reason that's called out in the deal to walk away from the deal. If you've e.g. waived inspection contingency and later find some issue w/ the house, you may be forced to close the deal anyway (there may be other contingencies like problems w/ securing financing, but I think that ship has sailed for Elon as well). Not a lawyer, but I expect there may be some way to walk away if you can prove the seller knew about the defect - that also doesn't seem applicable to Twitter deal, since IIUC Twitter gave Elon access to the data they have. We'll see how it plays in court, but I think it's a decent analogy.
throwawaycities 4y ago
It’s almost as if Musk used a smoke screen to sell $8.5B in Tesla stock before the crash while redirecting attention to Twitter so as to not raise suspicion about selling his own stock…and then instead of going through with the deal he allegedly sold his Tesla stock to complete, he wants to back-out without paying the $1B penalty. But that can’t be it and what really happened, Musk is buying Twitter for us and restoring our Free Speech…right?
- conradev 4y ago
  Musk is (was?) not selling Tesla stock. It would be very hard to sell $8.5B of stock without completely crashing its value. He was taking out a loan secured against that stock.
  - throwawaycities 4y ago
    According to this regulatory filing with the SEC, and others, he did, as I said a smoke screen to distract from the fact he most certainly did crash the stock as you suggest. A total sale of about $8.5B, but the total Twitter purchase price was $44B and that difference is where you are likely getting the idea of the loan against his remaining stock. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001494730/000089924322015991/xslF345X03/doc4.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001494730/000089924...
  - Kranar 4y ago
    It's a matter of public record that MUSK ELON REEVE sold precisely $8,517,410,779 worth of Tesla stock between April 26th and April 28th [1]. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/insider-transactions?p=TSLA https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/insider-transactions?p=...
- Mo3 4y ago
  Ding ding ding
- xmprt 4y ago
  From my understanding, there's literally no way to get out of the $1B penalty even if he proves everything that he claims about Twitter bots. What he's trying to get out of right now, is buying Twitter at the price he originally said.
bko 4y ago
> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? I don't know. It just strikes me as weird as forcing someone to buy something that they don't want to own or run. Especially after fighting it for months and even adopting a poison pill. Imagine if you agreed to buy a house for $1 million and the housing market crashes and the house is worth $500k. And now multiply those values by 50,000. Why wouldn't you try to get out of the deal?
- bink 4y ago
  > forcing someone to buy something that they don't want to own or run After they signed a contract to do so... and that is the entire purpose of writing up the contract.
winternett 4y ago
As someone who has been on Twitter for years almost every day, both parties acted in bad faith. Twitter bots are out of control and hard to detect because of newer SMM/bot tech scheduled tweets, and bot runners have had ages to perfect their craft on Twitter, because they were allowed to run free for so long. It's been TOTAL HELL for undiscovered user accounts to break ground on Twitter for almost a decade now at least, and many authentic people have simply stopped logging in long ago. Last time I looked, Twitter's ad minimum was $50, which is far too much of a gamble for someone small who just wants to grow followers on the platform, and chances are high that they'll often only attract bot accounts as followers if they gamble that money/ There are authentic accounts on Twitter, but it is nowhere near as vibrant as it once was, there is far too much run by scripting on the site and not enough support and fair human moderation. Elon as well likely realized the market crash, and how much it would take to bring Twitter back to prominence (which is a risk either way) and then decided to back out. Even with major functional changes there is still a wild risk that Twitter can be too "burnt out" to bring a user base back in. Just my opinion, but I think everyone is waiting for something totally new to replace Twitter, and it would cost a lot less than the Twitter acquisition fee to build a new app from scratch. (And no, "something new" does not mean TikTok or even Truth Social). :{
- alexb_ 4y ago
  What circles are you in? I basically never, ever see bots on Twitter, let alone enough to suggest that Twitter is "nowhere near as vibrant as it once was".
  - glenngillen 4y ago
    Same. And in any event Twitter has never claimed the platform isn’t rife with bots, all their reporting about it has been around what % of mDAU they represent. Where m is “monetizeable”. They didn’t want to sell, Musk forced them into this negotiation on the basis of the whole bots thing. It’s staggering to me anybody is giving him even an ounce of benefit of the doubt here. From the very beginning he’s acted in bad faith and like he knows he’s unable to be held accountable for anything should he not want to be held accountable.
COGlory 4y ago
I hate Twitter. They are turning a huge profit with massive negative externalities to society. I hope this whole ordeal costs them billions.
brigandish 4y ago
> All the while, this is of course taking your attention away from your day job If the Project Veritas videos are anything to go by then there's not much attention being given to the day job in the first place.
eru 4y ago
> The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. It's more complicated. The incumbent management of Twitter are not the owners of Twitter. Initially, Musk bought shares of Twitter on the open market from willing sellers (previous homeowners in your analogy). Because of various regulations he could not just keep doing that, and instead had to go via the complicated takeover route. Twitter's incumbent management is a bit like the janitor in an apartment block, not the homeowner. (Just to be clear, I am not making any moral arguments here. And when in doubt, I defer to whatever Matt Levine says on the topic. I have opinions on 'hostile' takeovers, but this comment is not trying to express any opinion on whether the 'janitor' should have a right to interfere with 'homeowners' who are willing to sell.)
- jjeaff 4y ago
  I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property. The janitors at Twitter HQ are like the janitor that cleans a property.
  - eru 4y ago
    > I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property. Are you referring to Twitter management also holding shares? Or some other aspect? For my argument, it's perfectly fine if some shareholders are also employees. In their role as shareholders, they would still be selling voluntarily (or not selling, as the case may be).

by jjeaff 4y ago

bilsbie 4y ago

A publicly traded company is nothing like a house. I say no to this analogy.

ilikehurdles 4y ago

The investors funding the buyer’s antics.

dragontamer 4y ago

> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. Its so ridiculous. Musk's popularity is largely *BECAUSE* of his Twitter antics. So this "buyer" is basically someone who has come to house-parties / benefited from the house in question for the last decade. And the people arguing against the (current owners) of the house are also the party-guests of that very same house.

iasay 4y ago
If his popularity is due to what he posts on twitter it would appear that a large proportion of the human race are deranged morons.
- HeXetic 4y ago
  With everything that's happened in the past decade, don't we know that already by know?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ctvo 4y ago
  He can be popular due to Twitter and people can also not be deranged morons. Twitter is very popular with a few niche groups: Journalists and people in tech for example. The former is influenced by Elon's antics on Twitter and end up writing news stories or making documentaries [1] about him. People learn about Musk through these respectable publications. The latter group spreads the gospel of Elon's TED talks and press conferences to their friends and family. Being subject matter experts, they're more likely to be believed. Previously the coverage was mostly positive, but Musk's antics on Twitter have caused both the former and some of the latter to turn slightly negative from what I can tell. For example, it's now a common joke that Elon's wealth is partially due to being born wealthy. His family owned emerald mines. I didn't notice that in the popular consciousness until very recently. Phoney Starks is also making it's way into popular usage. 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/video/NYT-Presents/100000008464087/the-new-york-times-presents-elon-musks-crash-course.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/NYT-Presents/100000008464087/t...
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    The emerald mine stuff is super overblown and only matters to people who don't like Musk for other reasons. If owning some natural resource like a mine or two was all it took to become a trailblazing entrepreneur who played a key role in Paypal/Tesla/SpaceX then Musk wouldn't be as popular as he is with many because there would be so many more like him around. Musk is clearly an extraordinary individual even if he sometimes acts like a dickhead and had a small boost from owning emerald mines. But like I mentioned above if owning a profitable mine of some type was all it took to be an entrepreneur at Musk's level we would be drowning in them and he wouldn't be such a big deal in the first place. But in the case of Twitter, Musk clearly seems to be in the wrong here legally.
moralestapia 4y ago
- Volundr 4y ago
  I don't think anyone is confused on this point.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Your comment implies that there was a time when he was actually trying to buy the "house" in good faith. I'm not convinced that is true... It gave him a great excuse to liquidate Tesla stock without the market responding as strongly as it normally would when a CEO unloads billions of dollars of shares in a company
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    I think it is actually worse than that, I think he was buying it in good faith. He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone. I know, if I buy 44bn worth then at this rate I will make many many billions ... Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancelled. Best guess is he is down 10bn on where he bid so his loss-porn on this one is pretty sexy.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > I think he was buying it in good faith. My personal theory, which more or less matches Matt Levine's theory from his Bloomberg opinion column... Musk wanted special features on his Twitter account. He made a stink on Twitter about it, hoping to get more features as one of its most popular users. When that wasn't working, he tried to join the Board of Directors to lean heavily onto the CEO to grant special features on his Twitter account. Upon realizing that the board position doesn't come with those kinds of benefits, Musk quit the board, bought 9% of Twitter, and tried to push these "special features on my account" proposal that way. Board still didn't budge. Elon Musk, realizing he has to buy the company to actually get what he wants, starts to buy the company. Then the stock price collapses and its turning out to be a horrible loss. So Musk then starts to throw another tantrum to get out of this one. ------------ The benefits of this theory, is that this "story" proposed by Matt Levine makes every single decision of Elon Musk reasonable (albeit sociopathic, but reasonable and self-serving). From his tantrum in early March 2022 on Twitter, to his 9% buyout, to his flirting as a board member (and then quitting), to the eventual buyout. It also doesn't require "4d chess thinking genius". Each decision, while reasonable, isn't really that advanced or difficult to follow individually. Elon Musk just want special treatment on Twitter. I don't know what that "special treatment" is (maybe a bigger, bluer checkmark. Maybe guarantees on the global Twitter Timeline. Etc. etc. Something along those lines...), but special nonetheless. And as a billionaire, Musk has a number of strategies at his disposal that you or I wouldn't have. Musk is willing to pursue those strategies because he's so rich, and its really not a big deal to his finances. -------- It just fits so neatly to what has happened, that its the most reasonable proposal of his behavior for the past 6 months so far.
joenot443 4y ago
> Musk's popularity is largely BECAUSE of his Twitter antics I don't really buy this. I knew loads of Musk fanboys who were crazy about him before Teslas even become available. The 50+ folks that I'm friends with have mostly never used Twitter or read a Musk tweet, but they think Teslas are cool and are reminded that StarLink brought rural Ontario better internet than our own government tried to do for decades. Obviously Musk is an ass on Twitter (and probably in person), but like a lot of neuroatypicals, their talent seemingly makes up for their abrasiveness.
- wahern 4y ago
  > I don't really buy this. I think you're both correct. My experience is as you described, but Musk has also developed a following among political conservatives attracted to his abrasive, thumb-nosing antics.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    It's not 'conservatives' as 1/2 of them loath that stuff - and 'agitation' is traditionally an artifact of leftist populism (with traditional conservatives usually being small-c, establishment, older etc.) - it's more a bit of a businessy libertarianism, with hints of anti establishmentism that's in many ways more popular among the youth. Also, it's a hugely populist and international appeal, spreading his 'Noisy Tweets' around the globe. See how much more popular he is now that he makes 'controversial' statements [1] It's as PR trick as old as time. Edit: but yes, technically he has taken a public shift to the 'Current American Right' in the mysterious political situation we are in, that's fair to say. Just wanted to indicate it's a 'new and kind of specific normal'. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=%2Fm%2F03nzf1 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=%...
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      I appreciate your analysis, but would like to add that I feel that "traditional conservatives" seem to have largely disappeared or become voiceless not only in the US but also in other places like e.g. the UK. I imagine in decades prior traditional conservatives would have found people like Trump or Boris Johnson obscene and distasteful. However, I don't see many of that old guard speak out against them. It seems with the reducing success projections due to changing demographics, many see winning as more important than values. Or at least that is my only explanation.
viraptor 4y ago
> Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. What's the path from the masses on twitter and courts which will hear the case? Public opinion doesn't matter here. The case over the contract doesn't even have a jury if I understand correctly.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Public opinion doesn't matter here. Public opinion doesn't matter with regards to winners/losers of the case. But public opinion matters from the perspective of Elon Musk continuing to build his brand and grow his fanbase. Even if Elon Musk loses the court case, he still want to turn this whole charade into a positive for himself. IE: Fail upwards, etc. etc.

762236 4y ago

[flagged]

root_axis 4y ago
Even if we grant the accusations of enforcing a leftist orthodoxy, that's twitter's prerogative, you may not like left wing people but they are allowed to have a website that caters to a left wing audience.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  What personal consequences do you think should come to the members of the administration that sent lists of accounts to Twitter and other social media companies requesting bans?
  - root_axis 4y ago
    I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, could you please provide a link?
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      Here's the first article that popped up. Easy to find from a simple google search. https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for...
jscottmiller 4y ago
>They repeatedly demonstrate that they are a company of bullies, with how they ban people from their service that don't conform to the left orthodoxy. So the manner in which they conduct their private business, which is well within the rule of law, makes them ineligible for protection from those violating securities and contract law?
- TechBro8615 4y ago

wnevets 4y ago

> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? The buyer is rich and if I side with the buyer maybe one day I'll be rich too!

int_19h 4y ago
I think it usually works the other way around: "one day I'll be rich, so ..."

jjoonathan 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WShMzwT-nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WShMzwT-nM For best experience, read it with the Benny Hill theme in a background tab.

demarq 4y ago

I go to a mercedes shop to buy a car I can show off with, arrange a loan then get demoted and paid less. I'm "effectively" too broke to buy the mercedes. So I return the next day and claim "the lights are to curved!" Is the way I look at it. TLDR: The worlds richest man, insecure about his wealth decided to show off and failed due to a lack of wealth. To somehow save face he claims that his change of heart is not financially motivated. Lesson, no one in this world is above being insecure about their wealth or status. It just happened to the worlds richest dude.

throwawayacc2 4y ago

I am, not because I think “the buyer is right” but because I hate the seller with a passion. Twitter has done terrible harm to society and whatever and whoever does it harm, it’s doing a good job in my book.

breakfastduck 4y ago
Quite funny than the person doing twitter 'harm' is exactly the kind of famous, pompous narcissistic asshole their entire platform has been built around enabling.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  If it helps, I think both twitter and musk are two turds. I like seeing turds suffer and harming each other. Best outcome for my personal satisfaction would be twitter gets dragged for years in the courts and loses tons of money and at the end musk is forced to pay that billion dollars or however much the break clause is. Both side can go f themselves.

Banana699 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago
> Legally ? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. The contract states the place of the law. Specifically: in the Delaware Chancery Court. The contract also states the time and conditions of the contract. Have you read the contract? Its public. Furthermore, the date of the court case has been set for October. It seems unlikely that Delaware law is going to change dramatically between then and now.
- Banana699 4y ago
  How does any of this change or contradict what I said? And doesn't the US legal system allow for escalation to the Supreme Court, which can override lower courts? So technically whatever the Delware Court is not the final say on whatever happens. >Trial date set to October This is so so awesome, I will get to see Twatter defenders rage and fume for 2 more months? ^__^
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. There's no twist or turn of the law I can possibly imagine between today, and October, in the Delaware Court of Chicanery. There is a reason why contract laws are written to be argued in this court. Its considered one of the most straightforward courts in the entire country, with legal expertise / judges who specialize in corporate contract law. -------- But sure, I'm all ears. What kind of "surprise legal twist" do you think will happen over the next 2 months? I really don't think its too complicated of a court case. Its just fun / fascinating to watch from the perspective of internet celebrities. In any case: the time has been set. October 2022. The location has been set, Delaware Court of Chicanery. The arguments have been set: we know what Elon is seeking to argue, and we know what Twitter is seeking to argue. Not much else to hypothesize here, really.

jawns 4y ago

Imagine it playing out in a romance! "You cad. I never wanted to marry you, but I felt compelled to accept your proposal. But now that you are trying to back out, I am trying to force you to marry me, you idiot." Although in this case, contrary to what it's arguing, Twitter doesn't actually want the marriage to happen. It just wants to keep the $1B engagement ring.

vehementi 4y ago
You're not caught up with things. Twitter is suing to force the deal to go through at the original price, not to get the $1B.
- jawns 4y ago
  I'm aware of the latest developments, but let's work through this. There are basically two categories of Twitter shareholders: Those who are invested in the business's long-term success, and those who could care less about the business and want to dump the stock as soon as they can get a good price for it. Right now, the latter category want the sale to go through so they can divest; they don't care if Twitter burns to the ground afterward. But what is the outcome that people invested in Twitter's long-term success actually want? Twitter's lawyers are arguing that Musk is an incompetent businessman who made a really terrible knee-jerk decision, and in the same breath they're saying that he should be compelled to be made Twitter's new owner -- an unwilling, incompetent owner who will likely tank the business even if he doesn't make any more stupid decisions, just by virtue of how this all played out. These people, one would think, would prefer to get the $1B parting fee and be done with Musk, even if that means passing up on the potential for a short-term gain that an outright sale might give them. Similarly, in a romance, whatever short-term benefits you might get by having a wedding, they're never going to be worth the trouble if it means marrying a terrible person.
  - vehementi 4y ago
    Granted such people exist but twitter i.e. the board acting in shareholders interest, in fact wants the deal to go through, not to get the $1B thing.

ErikVandeWater 4y ago

Well this analogy leaves out Twitter censorship, which makes Twitter unlikeable.

bhouston 4y ago
I think Twitter is in a tough spot when it comes to deciding how to handle hate speech and harassment. In many ways they are like Amnesty International in that no matter which human rights issue they report on, there will be a contingent that says, well everything else you says is true, but the stuff you said about me is completely wrong and you've loss all credibility. It is a hard spot to be in trying to be neutral in a world of actors who only want the other side criticized or censored and never themselves. I am glade I do not have such a role. I wouldn't be able to take the constant flak from all directions for actions or inaction.
1270018080 4y ago
Adding to the analogy: The current owners of the home regularly remove swastikas spraypainted on their house by vandals, and some people call this a violation of free speech.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  Removing swastikas graffitied all over the place, political correctness gone mad.
  - Banana699 4y ago
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  - 1270018080 4y ago
    This further adds to my point that there's no violation of free speech taking place.

santiagobasulto 4y ago

Except this is not a house. It’s a public company. And a lot of people own a piece of that company. And a lot of them were unhappy about how Twitter’s leadership was running things. I honestly don’t care, I’m not on either side. But this was not a house sale, and Musk wasn’t a crazy dude approaching a home owner. He had a lot of support from shareholders since day 1.

powerhour 4y ago
Analogies are like cars, they're never perfect but that's OK.
pavlov 4y ago
Yes. And he promised those shareholders $54.20 per share, signed the contract, and now the same shareholders are suing to get the money. They don’t care what happens to Twitter if Musk takes over since they’ll have cash instead of shares at that point and can reinvest in something more promising.
- bobobob420 4y ago
  Why would he buy the company after the stock crashed? He could buy the company for way cheaper publicly. Who cares what the contract says, theres different rules for billionaires than there are for the contracts I sign. No sane person would go through with it after the stock crashed, its not a financially smart move. A lot of geniuses in this thread but lack basic social and common aptitude as usual. Life is not a fantasy, its corrupt and rich people can do what they want.
  - willis936 4y ago
    It crashed because of his antics. The house was appraised and you signed a contract to buy it as-is. Then you take a hammer to every window and pipe then try to use that to negotiate a lower price. Sorry, that is not how it works. It's clear that this is a continuation of Musk's feud with Twitter's management. His goal from the onset was to damage Twitter.

Kye 4y ago

This would make a perfect episode if Knight Rider ever got another reboot.

breakfastduck 4y ago

Except it's kinda funny because the 'homeowner' has spent 10 years developing the primordial cesspool that the buyer has evolved out of and it's kinda funny that some famous rich narcissist they've built an entire social network around empowering is now fucking them over.

tomcam 4y ago

It appears to me that the seller was, in your analogy, misrepresenting the condition of the house. This is my totally unscientific analysis based on my private random sample of accounts I interact with, so, not particularly robust as a decision making tool for a big sale.

lazide 4y ago
In the analogy, the contract was done with no intentional representations by the seller at all, and the buyer waived contingencies/bought as-is. It’s almost impossible for a seller to misrepresent anything material in that situation.
- d110af5ccf 4y ago
  The issue being that Twitter actually did (afaik) make various representations about bots, spam, paid actors, etc and the validity of those representations was later called into question. So the analogy as originally proposed at the top of this thread is a misrepresentation.
  - lazide 4y ago
    None beyond their normal public filings I believe, which are highly qualified and if wrong beyond those qualifications they’d have been in hot water a long time ago. In the analogy, it would be like claiming the Public appraisals/tax records with the county were lies all of the sudden (when they aren’t) to try to get out of the deal. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.

davesque 4y ago

You left out the part where the buyer will also destroy the city in which the house is located purely out of spite if he is forced to go through with the purchase. That is, I fully expect Musk to go full troll mode and reverse bans on all the bad actors who have been rightfully kicked off the platform if he's forced to buy Twitter. He'll claim it's for free speech when it's really just to own the libs.

macinjosh 4y ago
Just like the libs blocked every account they could to own the conservatives in the name of protecting feelings.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Their house, their rules. See 'Truth (sic) Social' for another example.
Banana699 4y ago
>He'll claim it's for free speech when it's really just to own the libs Those 2 goals are aligned.
arlcode 4y ago
Very unlikely for him to deliberately destroy Twitter. Most of the deal is financed by banks and they have a vested interest in Twitter having at least a shot at being more valuable or profitable. He is but it with cash but (mostly) not his own so deliberately running the company into the ground could make him liable for damages.

biomcgary 4y ago

Not the best analogy. In many (most?) US states, the buyer can just walk away from purchasing a house at any time for just the earnest money, typically 1%.

bialpio 4y ago
You may need to have a reason that's called out in the deal to walk away from the deal. If you've e.g. waived inspection contingency and later find some issue w/ the house, you may be forced to close the deal anyway (there may be other contingencies like problems w/ securing financing, but I think that ship has sailed for Elon as well). Not a lawyer, but I expect there may be some way to walk away if you can prove the seller knew about the defect - that also doesn't seem applicable to Twitter deal, since IIUC Twitter gave Elon access to the data they have. We'll see how it plays in court, but I think it's a decent analogy.

throwawaycities 4y ago

It’s almost as if Musk used a smoke screen to sell $8.5B in Tesla stock before the crash while redirecting attention to Twitter so as to not raise suspicion about selling his own stock…and then instead of going through with the deal he allegedly sold his Tesla stock to complete, he wants to back-out without paying the $1B penalty. But that can’t be it and what really happened, Musk is buying Twitter for us and restoring our Free Speech…right?

conradev 4y ago
Musk is (was?) not selling Tesla stock. It would be very hard to sell $8.5B of stock without completely crashing its value. He was taking out a loan secured against that stock.
- throwawaycities 4y ago
  According to this regulatory filing with the SEC, and others, he did, as I said a smoke screen to distract from the fact he most certainly did crash the stock as you suggest. A total sale of about $8.5B, but the total Twitter purchase price was $44B and that difference is where you are likely getting the idea of the loan against his remaining stock. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001494730/000089924322015991/xslF345X03/doc4.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001494730/000089924...
- Kranar 4y ago
  It's a matter of public record that MUSK ELON REEVE sold precisely $8,517,410,779 worth of Tesla stock between April 26th and April 28th [1]. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/insider-transactions?p=TSLA https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/insider-transactions?p=...
Mo3 4y ago
Ding ding ding
xmprt 4y ago
From my understanding, there's literally no way to get out of the $1B penalty even if he proves everything that he claims about Twitter bots. What he's trying to get out of right now, is buying Twitter at the price he originally said.

bko 4y ago

> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? I don't know. It just strikes me as weird as forcing someone to buy something that they don't want to own or run. Especially after fighting it for months and even adopting a poison pill. Imagine if you agreed to buy a house for $1 million and the housing market crashes and the house is worth $500k. And now multiply those values by 50,000. Why wouldn't you try to get out of the deal?

bink 4y ago
> forcing someone to buy something that they don't want to own or run After they signed a contract to do so... and that is the entire purpose of writing up the contract.

winternett 4y ago

As someone who has been on Twitter for years almost every day, both parties acted in bad faith. Twitter bots are out of control and hard to detect because of newer SMM/bot tech scheduled tweets, and bot runners have had ages to perfect their craft on Twitter, because they were allowed to run free for so long. It's been TOTAL HELL for undiscovered user accounts to break ground on Twitter for almost a decade now at least, and many authentic people have simply stopped logging in long ago. Last time I looked, Twitter's ad minimum was $50, which is far too much of a gamble for someone small who just wants to grow followers on the platform, and chances are high that they'll often only attract bot accounts as followers if they gamble that money/ There are authentic accounts on Twitter, but it is nowhere near as vibrant as it once was, there is far too much run by scripting on the site and not enough support and fair human moderation. Elon as well likely realized the market crash, and how much it would take to bring Twitter back to prominence (which is a risk either way) and then decided to back out. Even with major functional changes there is still a wild risk that Twitter can be too "burnt out" to bring a user base back in. Just my opinion, but I think everyone is waiting for something totally new to replace Twitter, and it would cost a lot less than the Twitter acquisition fee to build a new app from scratch. (And no, "something new" does not mean TikTok or even Truth Social). :{

alexb_ 4y ago
What circles are you in? I basically never, ever see bots on Twitter, let alone enough to suggest that Twitter is "nowhere near as vibrant as it once was".
- glenngillen 4y ago
  Same. And in any event Twitter has never claimed the platform isn’t rife with bots, all their reporting about it has been around what % of mDAU they represent. Where m is “monetizeable”. They didn’t want to sell, Musk forced them into this negotiation on the basis of the whole bots thing. It’s staggering to me anybody is giving him even an ounce of benefit of the doubt here. From the very beginning he’s acted in bad faith and like he knows he’s unable to be held accountable for anything should he not want to be held accountable.

COGlory 4y ago

I hate Twitter. They are turning a huge profit with massive negative externalities to society. I hope this whole ordeal costs them billions.

brigandish 4y ago

> All the while, this is of course taking your attention away from your day job If the Project Veritas videos are anything to go by then there's not much attention being given to the day job in the first place.

eru 4y ago

> The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. It's more complicated. The incumbent management of Twitter are not the owners of Twitter. Initially, Musk bought shares of Twitter on the open market from willing sellers (previous homeowners in your analogy). Because of various regulations he could not just keep doing that, and instead had to go via the complicated takeover route. Twitter's incumbent management is a bit like the janitor in an apartment block, not the homeowner. (Just to be clear, I am not making any moral arguments here. And when in doubt, I defer to whatever Matt Levine says on the topic. I have opinions on 'hostile' takeovers, but this comment is not trying to express any opinion on whether the 'janitor' should have a right to interfere with 'homeowners' who are willing to sell.)

jjeaff 4y ago
I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property. The janitors at Twitter HQ are like the janitor that cleans a property.
- eru 4y ago
  > I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property. Are you referring to Twitter management also holding shares? Or some other aspect? For my argument, it's perfectly fine if some shareholders are also employees. In their role as shareholders, they would still be selling voluntarily (or not selling, as the case may be).