3 ms·

Their point is that no one was financially hurt. Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about people getting physically hurt, unless I’m missing something.

ethanbond 4y ago
You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for?
- wartijn_ 4y ago
  I think you meant to reply to my other comment[0], since that's where I did make that argument? But as to your questions: > You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Fair point, I imagine the last couple of months have not been great for many Twitter-employees. > Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for? As far as I know the shareholders don't directly pay for the lawyers, that money comes from some financial reserve Twitter has. In normal circumstances massive legal costs can reduce the value of a company, but in this case the shareholders will be able to sell each share for the same $54.20 as before the lawsuit. If the company becomes less valuable because of this, that's the problem of the next owner of the company. Since Musk will end up owning Twitter, he'll end up paying for the lawyers on both sides of this suit. Or am I missing something? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570
  - llamaimperative 4y ago
    Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. So no biggie, right?! Time value of money is a thing. Time under stress is also a real thing, and Musk seems to relish in putting other people in it.
    - wartijn_ 4y ago
      > Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. Only if you take really specific statements and turn them into a general theory. But this discussion isn't about theoretical thefts and deathbeds, it's one about the reality that Musk is buying Twitter[0]. There is no "army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for", because the current shareholders won't have to pay anything. Twitter is paying for the lawyers and Musk will and up owning Twitter. That's not some moral judgement, it's a description of the facts. Nothing I've said so far is in defense of what Musk does. To be clear: I behavior is justifiable. He created this mess by making really dumb decisions and then trying everything to get out of this situation by not caring about anything or anyone but himself. It has been a huge waste of time and money. But as it turns out, Musk will be the one owning a company he doesn't want, and as that owner he'll be the one paying for that wasted time and for the costs made by both parties of the lawsuit. It just seems that the person that's by far the most hurt by Musks actions is Musk himself. [0]In this entire comment I'm assuming the deal actually goes through.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
        There are a few other parties that could claim some sort of injury, although I don't know how much of a legal case any of them would have. Some employees may have suffered undue emotional distress due to the excess uncertainty. Anyone who sold TWTR while the price was depressed due to Musk's unjustified legal maneuvering certainly suffered economic injury. Elon's creditors and co-investors may view his maneuvering as having damaged the asset, thus decreasing their expected returns. To reiterate: I don't know if any of these people have a legal claim. And I acknowledge that Musk certainly injured himself the most. But the economic injuries suffered by these other parties are not trivial.
        kcplate 4y ago
        > Some employees may have suffered undue emotional distress due to the excess uncertainty. That is absolutely hilarious but also sad that people in 2022 are so fragile that they would try to claim such nonsense in all seriousness.

ethanbond 4y ago

You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for?

wartijn_ 4y ago
I think you meant to reply to my other comment[0], since that's where I did make that argument? But as to your questions: > You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Fair point, I imagine the last couple of months have not been great for many Twitter-employees. > Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for? As far as I know the shareholders don't directly pay for the lawyers, that money comes from some financial reserve Twitter has. In normal circumstances massive legal costs can reduce the value of a company, but in this case the shareholders will be able to sell each share for the same $54.20 as before the lawsuit. If the company becomes less valuable because of this, that's the problem of the next owner of the company. Since Musk will end up owning Twitter, he'll end up paying for the lawyers on both sides of this suit. Or am I missing something? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570
- llamaimperative 4y ago
  Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. So no biggie, right?! Time value of money is a thing. Time under stress is also a real thing, and Musk seems to relish in putting other people in it.
  - wartijn_ 4y ago
    > Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. Only if you take really specific statements and turn them into a general theory. But this discussion isn't about theoretical thefts and deathbeds, it's one about the reality that Musk is buying Twitter[0]. There is no "army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for", because the current shareholders won't have to pay anything. Twitter is paying for the lawyers and Musk will and up owning Twitter. That's not some moral judgement, it's a description of the facts. Nothing I've said so far is in defense of what Musk does. To be clear: I behavior is justifiable. He created this mess by making really dumb decisions and then trying everything to get out of this situation by not caring about anything or anyone but himself. It has been a huge waste of time and money. But as it turns out, Musk will be the one owning a company he doesn't want, and as that owner he'll be the one paying for that wasted time and for the costs made by both parties of the lawsuit. It just seems that the person that's by far the most hurt by Musks actions is Musk himself. [0]In this entire comment I'm assuming the deal actually goes through.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
      There are a few other parties that could claim some sort of injury, although I don't know how much of a legal case any of them would have. Some employees may have suffered undue emotional distress due to the excess uncertainty. Anyone who sold TWTR while the price was depressed due to Musk's unjustified legal maneuvering certainly suffered economic injury. Elon's creditors and co-investors may view his maneuvering as having damaged the asset, thus decreasing their expected returns. To reiterate: I don't know if any of these people have a legal claim. And I acknowledge that Musk certainly injured himself the most. But the economic injuries suffered by these other parties are not trivial.
      - kcplate 4y ago
        > Some employees may have suffered undue emotional distress due to the excess uncertainty. That is absolutely hilarious but also sad that people in 2022 are so fragile that they would try to claim such nonsense in all seriousness.