3 ms·

Free speech argument is BS. Free speech cannot repay his investors. He plans to launch a TwitCoin or some other scammy type endeavor.

memish 4y ago
How do you know?
- strangattractor 4y ago
  Obviously my opinion but based on some observations. He is not unfamiliar with the fintech space (Paypal). Remember the old joke about printing money - with TwitCoin he would be doing it - literally. Biannce is an investor. He cannot get rid of bots even if he wants to. People do not hand you billions of dollars without some hope of being paid back - even if you are Elon Musk.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    You can't just start a shitcoin and print it, you need to back it up with real assets. See SEC and what happened to Facebook's libre. Getting rid of bots has to be stupidly easy. They start posting the second he tweets. Hundreds of them with the same avatar and slightly misspelled name.
    - strangattractor 4y ago
      OMG: And what assets back up Bitcoin? Dogecoin? XXXCoin. In Tether we trust:) Those are just the stupid obvious bots. Linkedin recently purged half the accounts that had people claiming to work for Apple and AWS. It is far from as easy as you think. It cost pennies per fake account creation. As they say in the QANON universe - do your research.
ben_w 4y ago
Does he really need to make it repay anyone, so long as the investors are on board with this?
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Twitter has to repay a $13 billion dollar loan at the very least.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  Yes - if his investors want to ever have anyone trust them to invest money ever again.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I think you missed the point I’m trying to make, so I’ll rephrase: Do the investors care in this specific case, or did they invest in this plan knowing specifically that his goal was to prefer free speech over profit?
    - strangattractor 4y ago
      Unless there is a rational, defensible argument (which I have not heard) of how a free speech platform can repay the investors (investors require more money back than they put in) I cannot see how an investor cannot care - legally. You have to remember that the money they are investing, in part or in whole, is likely other peoples. It would be naive in my opinion to think otherwise.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > You have to remember that the money they are investing, in part or in whole, is likely other peoples. I think this is the crux of the argument. I don't believe it is, in this specific case, other peoples money. I don't have a full list of investment money sources or terms, but IIRC at least $26 billion of that is his personal cash and personal loans secured against his other Tesla shares, and he did have enough to do it all by himself if his goal was "screw the rules, I have money". While he clearly isn't always aware of the consequences of his choices, it is at least possible that some investors (either in this case, whose names I don't have, or in general) did so equally unwisely just because of his Midas-like reputation, and they don't have such a restriction.

memish 4y ago

How do you know?

strangattractor 4y ago
Obviously my opinion but based on some observations. He is not unfamiliar with the fintech space (Paypal). Remember the old joke about printing money - with TwitCoin he would be doing it - literally. Biannce is an investor. He cannot get rid of bots even if he wants to. People do not hand you billions of dollars without some hope of being paid back - even if you are Elon Musk.
- fleddr 4y ago
  You can't just start a shitcoin and print it, you need to back it up with real assets. See SEC and what happened to Facebook's libre. Getting rid of bots has to be stupidly easy. They start posting the second he tweets. Hundreds of them with the same avatar and slightly misspelled name.
  - strangattractor 4y ago
    OMG: And what assets back up Bitcoin? Dogecoin? XXXCoin. In Tether we trust:) Those are just the stupid obvious bots. Linkedin recently purged half the accounts that had people claiming to work for Apple and AWS. It is far from as easy as you think. It cost pennies per fake account creation. As they say in the QANON universe - do your research.

ben_w 4y ago

Does he really need to make it repay anyone, so long as the investors are on board with this?

colinmhayes 4y ago
Twitter has to repay a $13 billion dollar loan at the very least.
strangattractor 4y ago
Yes - if his investors want to ever have anyone trust them to invest money ever again.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I think you missed the point I’m trying to make, so I’ll rephrase: Do the investors care in this specific case, or did they invest in this plan knowing specifically that his goal was to prefer free speech over profit?
  - strangattractor 4y ago
    Unless there is a rational, defensible argument (which I have not heard) of how a free speech platform can repay the investors (investors require more money back than they put in) I cannot see how an investor cannot care - legally. You have to remember that the money they are investing, in part or in whole, is likely other peoples. It would be naive in my opinion to think otherwise.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > You have to remember that the money they are investing, in part or in whole, is likely other peoples. I think this is the crux of the argument. I don't believe it is, in this specific case, other peoples money. I don't have a full list of investment money sources or terms, but IIRC at least $26 billion of that is his personal cash and personal loans secured against his other Tesla shares, and he did have enough to do it all by himself if his goal was "screw the rules, I have money". While he clearly isn't always aware of the consequences of his choices, it is at least possible that some investors (either in this case, whose names I don't have, or in general) did so equally unwisely just because of his Midas-like reputation, and they don't have such a restriction.