5 ms·

Who is Fossi's employer? It seems legitimate that Twitter would deactivate Twitter accounts dedicated to criticizing Twitter. There's absolutely no requirement

Who is Fossi's employer? It seems legitimate that Twitter would deactivate Twitter accounts dedicated to criticizing Twitter. There's absolutely no requirement that a company actively support its detractors. Likewise it seems legitimate that the owner of Twitter would deactivate accounts which target the share price of his other companies. A share price that is used (via collateral) to keep control of Twitter. It also seems legitimate to ask whether the employees of a competing company are surreptitiously attacking the company (possibly on behalf of the company). This sort of thing is potentially illegitimate competition. The only thing that seems illegitimate is suing a person writing elsewhere against your company (and, of course, contacting their employer if they are not a competing company).

Timon3 3y ago
The thing that makes this illegitimate is this tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657 Musk and his sycophants have been gaslighting the public for months regarding free speech. We should all be calling them out on it.
gregjor 3y ago
Totally legitimate and consistent with absolute free speech. Musk shouldn’t have to put up with criticism. He never trashes or insults competitors or critics, or calls people pedophiles or anything like that.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Sure, he's hypocritical as hell. But so are the vast majority of newspapers who go to court over freedom of the press yet don't publish commentary critical of themselves. I'm just saying that some of this is a "legitimate" form of hypocrisy.
  - croes 3y ago
    Whataboutism.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      No. I'm pretty darn sure I discussed the criticism and said that it is okay because it is a standard practice (and fine to do specifically against critics). The criticism above that I'm wrong because this is Twitter nixing accounts on account of Tesla talk is a good counterargument, but whataboutism isn't.
Veserv 3y ago
The internet says Fossi was a portfolio manager for a family office [1]. It is hypocrisy when the owner claims to be a free speech absolutist [2]. It is a a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the separate legal personhood of a corporation to use company assets to support your own personal wealth. It is not okay to lead with legal threats directly to someone's employer. [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10759919/Lawrence-Fossi-criticized-Tesla-blogs-says-Musk-called-BOSS-threatened-sue-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10759919/Lawrence-F... [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > It is a a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the separate legal personhood of a corporation to use company assets to support your own personal wealth. 1) This is a privately held corporation, not a public corporation. 2) Twitter would undoubtedly go chaotic at this point, and might cease to exist, if Musk was forced to divest it because he can't maintain backing for the loans used to purchase it.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    1) Elon Musk is not the sole owner of private Twitter. He still has a fiduciary duty to his other investors. 2) Even if it were wholly owned a corporation is still not the same entity as the owner. Using a wholly owned corporation for personal benefit is a direct violation of the corporate veil. That is a violation of corporate structure and usage as such means Elon Musk should be personally liable for the entirety of Twitter and its action.
    - Zigurd 3y ago
      You are being very kind: Elon has "borrowed" tens of millions worth of Tesla employees for work at Twitter. That looks very much like self-dealing at a publicly traded company. "Surely Twitter paid for these people' you might say. Probably not, if Twitter is not paying rent, or cloud providers, or severance, or cleaners.
croes 3y ago
Read again, he criticized Tesla not Twitter. And it was Musk who claims free speech as highest value and now he bans words he doesn't like and bans people who criticize him or one of his companies.

Timon3 3y ago

The thing that makes this illegitimate is this tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657 Musk and his sycophants have been gaslighting the public for months regarding free speech. We should all be calling them out on it.

gregjor 3y ago

Totally legitimate and consistent with absolute free speech. Musk shouldn’t have to put up with criticism. He never trashes or insults competitors or critics, or calls people pedophiles or anything like that.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Sure, he's hypocritical as hell. But so are the vast majority of newspapers who go to court over freedom of the press yet don't publish commentary critical of themselves. I'm just saying that some of this is a "legitimate" form of hypocrisy.
- croes 3y ago
  Whataboutism.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    No. I'm pretty darn sure I discussed the criticism and said that it is okay because it is a standard practice (and fine to do specifically against critics). The criticism above that I'm wrong because this is Twitter nixing accounts on account of Tesla talk is a good counterargument, but whataboutism isn't.

Veserv 3y ago

The internet says Fossi was a portfolio manager for a family office [1]. It is hypocrisy when the owner claims to be a free speech absolutist [2]. It is a a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the separate legal personhood of a corporation to use company assets to support your own personal wealth. It is not okay to lead with legal threats directly to someone's employer. [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10759919/Lawrence-Fossi-criticized-Tesla-blogs-says-Musk-called-BOSS-threatened-sue-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10759919/Lawrence-F... [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> It is a a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the separate legal personhood of a corporation to use company assets to support your own personal wealth. 1) This is a privately held corporation, not a public corporation. 2) Twitter would undoubtedly go chaotic at this point, and might cease to exist, if Musk was forced to divest it because he can't maintain backing for the loans used to purchase it.
- Veserv 3y ago
  1) Elon Musk is not the sole owner of private Twitter. He still has a fiduciary duty to his other investors. 2) Even if it were wholly owned a corporation is still not the same entity as the owner. Using a wholly owned corporation for personal benefit is a direct violation of the corporate veil. That is a violation of corporate structure and usage as such means Elon Musk should be personally liable for the entirety of Twitter and its action.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    You are being very kind: Elon has "borrowed" tens of millions worth of Tesla employees for work at Twitter. That looks very much like self-dealing at a publicly traded company. "Surely Twitter paid for these people' you might say. Probably not, if Twitter is not paying rent, or cloud providers, or severance, or cleaners.

croes 3y ago

Read again, he criticized Tesla not Twitter. And it was Musk who claims free speech as highest value and now he bans words he doesn't like and bans people who criticize him or one of his companies.