4 ms·

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 b

by 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
  Your arguments are invalid because Musk himself bashed Twitter for similar behavior before he bought it, and all hell would have broken loose if they had banned him for it. He proclaimed himself to be free speech absolutist and now fails miserably on multiple occasions. It only shows that it is not about freedom of speech, but about being able to say whatever he wants. That's not freedom, it's tyranny. Fear him if your tweets don't get his favor.

by Veserv 3y ago

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
Your arguments are invalid because Musk himself bashed Twitter for similar behavior before he bought it, and all hell would have broken loose if they had banned him for it. He proclaimed himself to be free speech absolutist and now fails miserably on multiple occasions. It only shows that it is not about freedom of speech, but about being able to say whatever he wants. That's not freedom, it's tyranny. Fear him if your tweets don't get his favor.