3 ms·

He is. Demonstrably.

joxel 4y ago
I mean, to be fair, the stakeholders of twitter had a chance to not allow a sell. Musk wanted to back out. They knew what would happen. Note, this doesn't absolve Musk of any of his actions, but the stakeholders are also assholes.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Do you know that "maximize shareholder value" trope that's trotted out every time a corporation kicks over a baby carriage? This is one of the few times it's actually relevant. Letting Musk back out of the deal would have been a gross dereliction of fiduciary duty, would have landed the board members in court personally, and perhaps wouldn't have even stopped the sale given how shareholder-friendly Delaware is. Despite all the lofty platitudes about building good companies, startups are always headed towards the uncaring wood chipper of finance. In a way, Musk violently running the company into the ground (ala the cliche of the rich person buying a sports car only to crash it on the way home) is a better outcome than the surveillance-monetization pot slowly boiling.
- evanelias 4y ago
  Isn't the board of directors legally responsible for obtaining the best financial result for shareholders? If someone makes an above-market-value offer for the company, I doubt they can just say "no" without severe consequences and lawsuits. On top of that, GOP members of congress were threatening an investigation if they turned down the offer: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/22/republicans-demand-twitter-board-save-records-on-musks-bid.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/22/republicans-demand-twitter-b...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
dandellion 4y ago
If you want to make a point the best way is probably to give a couple examples, that's the laziest comment I've seen all day.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It's in the context of a thread where Elon is being demonstrably cruel. Read the op for examples.
smoldesu 4y ago
Because he has money? Elon sounds like a real dick, but people forget that literal tech super-villains like Larry Ellison exist. Compared to the previous shareholders of Twitter, Musk is frankly a sidegrade. You literally cannot do worse than Jack Dorsey.
- bhaak 4y ago
  I understand the reference to Larry Ellison but what did Jack do?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Beside his prolific crypto bro arc and attempts at effective altruism, he did very little during his tenure as CEO and let the company stagnate during it's most lucrative years. On top of that, his moderation double-standards were as bad as Musk and he even went on to admit that Twitter in it's current incarnation is a mistake. He did a good job of building a company from nothing, but struggled to turn it into anything profitable.
    - bhaak 4y ago
      That's worse than Ellison? There's more than profitability that makes a good CEO. And Jack at least didn't run Twitter into the ground. FWIW it seemed that Twitter was on a good trajectory when Jack left as CEO.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Twitter was losing a billion dollars per year when Jack left as CEO. He may have not run Twitter into the ground, but neither has Musk so I'd argue it's a moot point. I'm not trying to compare Jack Dorsey to Larry Elison, but my point is that Elon exists somewhere between these two on the axis of "deliberate ruthlessness" and "bumbling incompetence". For Twitter to be profitable, it has to be run like a business instead of a parody of the tech industry.
        4y ago

I mean, to be fair, the stakeholders of twitter had a chance to not allow a sell. Musk wanted to back out. They knew what would happen. Note, this doesn't absolve Musk of any of his actions, but the stakeholders are also assholes.

mindslight 4y ago
Do you know that "maximize shareholder value" trope that's trotted out every time a corporation kicks over a baby carriage? This is one of the few times it's actually relevant. Letting Musk back out of the deal would have been a gross dereliction of fiduciary duty, would have landed the board members in court personally, and perhaps wouldn't have even stopped the sale given how shareholder-friendly Delaware is. Despite all the lofty platitudes about building good companies, startups are always headed towards the uncaring wood chipper of finance. In a way, Musk violently running the company into the ground (ala the cliche of the rich person buying a sports car only to crash it on the way home) is a better outcome than the surveillance-monetization pot slowly boiling.
evanelias 4y ago
Isn't the board of directors legally responsible for obtaining the best financial result for shareholders? If someone makes an above-market-value offer for the company, I doubt they can just say "no" without severe consequences and lawsuits. On top of that, GOP members of congress were threatening an investigation if they turned down the offer: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/22/republicans-demand-twitter-board-save-records-on-musks-bid.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/22/republicans-demand-twitter-b...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dandellion 4y ago

If you want to make a point the best way is probably to give a couple examples, that's the laziest comment I've seen all day.

socialismisok 4y ago
It's in the context of a thread where Elon is being demonstrably cruel. Read the op for examples.

smoldesu 4y ago

Because he has money? Elon sounds like a real dick, but people forget that literal tech super-villains like Larry Ellison exist. Compared to the previous shareholders of Twitter, Musk is frankly a sidegrade. You literally cannot do worse than Jack Dorsey.

bhaak 4y ago
I understand the reference to Larry Ellison but what did Jack do?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Beside his prolific crypto bro arc and attempts at effective altruism, he did very little during his tenure as CEO and let the company stagnate during it's most lucrative years. On top of that, his moderation double-standards were as bad as Musk and he even went on to admit that Twitter in it's current incarnation is a mistake. He did a good job of building a company from nothing, but struggled to turn it into anything profitable.
  - bhaak 4y ago
    That's worse than Ellison? There's more than profitability that makes a good CEO. And Jack at least didn't run Twitter into the ground. FWIW it seemed that Twitter was on a good trajectory when Jack left as CEO.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Twitter was losing a billion dollars per year when Jack left as CEO. He may have not run Twitter into the ground, but neither has Musk so I'd argue it's a moot point. I'm not trying to compare Jack Dorsey to Larry Elison, but my point is that Elon exists somewhere between these two on the axis of "deliberate ruthlessness" and "bumbling incompetence". For Twitter to be profitable, it has to be run like a business instead of a parody of the tech industry.
      - 4y ago