8 ms·

You have wonder if the plan was to buy Twitter specifically to kill it. If that's the case, Musk is doing brilliantly - plenty of scope for plausible deniabili

You have wonder if the plan was to buy Twitter specifically to kill it. If that's the case, Musk is doing brilliantly - plenty of scope for plausible deniability while succeeding at his goal.

midoridensha 3y ago
If that's the case, then I applaud him. But considering the kind of BS he's been spewing for years, I don't think this is some kind of secret long-term plan to destroy Twitter; I think he really drinks his own kool-aid.
- macksd 3y ago
  I don't think so either. But I also know people who still think Trump is playing some 4D chess game and has the corrupt politicians and media right where he wants them. Any day now he's gonna win.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    Same for Bernie after he lost twice lol, somehow both sets of these idiots are front page day in day out though
    - losteric 3y ago
      There's a difference between an idealist in a cynical world, and lying about things proven and admitted to be lies for personal gain.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        Just like Trump's followers who think the election was stolen, there are a lot of Sanders followers who think the nomination was stolen, despite the votes going massively against him. The difference is that Trump is telling his followers that this nonsense is true, while Sanders supporters are making their own conspiracy theories.
        midoridensha 3y ago
        Huh? The Sanders followers blame the DNC for supporting Hillary over him, during the primaries. I'm pretty sure that was proven by the DNC email leak, it's not a "conspiracy theory": the DNC really was working for Hillary. I'm not aware of any Sanders followers thinking the actual votes were altered. The voters (in places that had primaries and not caucuses) really did vote for Hillary. The controversy was that the DNC wasn't properly neutral and that this affected the results. Whether the DNC being neutral would have actually resulted in Sanders winning, I don't think anyone can know, though it's probably doubtful. He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!", and lacked all the baggage that Hillary came with, and had far more charisma (which the DNC infamously doesn't understand the value of), but considering the Republican voters were happy to vote for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, I don't think we can assume the best about the voters of any party.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > the DNC really was working for Hillary. After she won the nomination. What you think was proven is not substantially different from what the My Pillow CEO thinks was proven. > that this affected the results. How? https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... > He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!" As did every single candidate. The only people I saw use that justification were the Sanders supporting conspiracy-theorists.
        JuanPosadas 3y ago
        > Just like No, not just like at all. The allegations against the DNC by Sanders supporters are orders of magnitude smaller in scale. There's nothing unrealistic or delusional about "Members of the DNC colluded against outsider" or "Members of the DNC all acted independently against outsider for the sake of their own interests". Also the difference in evidence and reaction is huge.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
      - latency-guy2 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    He's got a lot of earned media coming his way for the next few years, so maybe!
  - JuanPosadas 3y ago
    > Trump has the corrupt politicians and media right where he wants them. You could say both sides agree with this, but with opposite interpretations.
r00fus 3y ago
Isn’t there a simple way to just shut it down if you’ve already burned the 44 billion?
- slashdev 3y ago
  It wasn’t all his money. Not that I think that’s what he’s doing.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Probably not. He borrowed 1/4 of the money from banks secured by Twitters value. Intentionally destroying that value may leave him open to personal liability. Just like if you have a mortgage but decide one day to bulldoze your house. Your bank can totally come after you if you do that and stop paying them.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Once he fails they’ll say he was too big to fail. Corporate socialism will bail him out one way or another. Us, the taxpaying plebe, will cover the bank’s losses with increased mortgage rates and the government’s losses with increased taxes.
  - tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
    That analogy isn’t at all apt, for the same reason that white-collar criminals are much more likely to get away with it. There is just way more grey area, way more reasonable doubt, in burning Twitter to the ground vs bulldozing your house. Your honour, I didn’t mean to hold up that liquor store. It was merely incompetence. I was just trying to act on my legal obligation to my shareholders.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      Grey area, sure. He legit thought a rebrand was a great idea! But shuttering the company would be a clear cut example of him intentionally sinking the company.
- cheschire 3y ago
nitwit005 3y ago
He's been so busy with Twitter that he's being sued for not running Tesla. That's a lot of effort just to shut a company down.
- TX81Z 3y ago
  He’s a highly driven genius, who are we to question a God?
atleastoptimal 3y ago
0% chance he's doing that but it's funny to think that he is. Obviously he really does want it to be an everything app. Musk is very transparent about his ambitions and feelings. He's not someone to bear holding a secret, he'd want to share it so he could get the validation from telling people about his plans and his followers will act like he's already succeeded.
IAmGraydon 3y ago
I’m certain this is what’s going on. Every move he’s made since he took over has been destructive to the foundation of the company and brand. Like him or not, he’s not that stupid. I think he’s pissed that he was basically forced into the sale for running his mouth and decided to take revenge by destroying the company.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Like him or not, he’s not that stupid. Well, that's one way to resolve the cognitive dissonance arising from witnessing a "genius" consistently exhibiting non-genius behavior.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  Take revenge on who? The people who sold it to him already have their billions. It doesn't matter to them what happens to the company now.
- imustbeevil 3y ago
  The people that he bought the company from already got the money, which was more money than they could get on the open market. They don't give a fuck what he does with his company now. If you think he's tanking his own company to get back at the people who have all the money he gave them...yeah he's that stupid. The reason why he keeps doing all these comically dumb things is exactly because people like you think he's cooking something. He has no one around him questioning the decisions he's making, so they keep getting worse, because that's literally what happens to every human in history who goes unchallenged for too long.
- perilunar 3y ago
  He's not stupid, just aspy. He brilliant with technical things like cars or rockets, but really dumb with people.
ulkesh 3y ago
Occam’s razor would suggest he’s simply incompetent.
- 9935c101ab17a66 3y ago
  > Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence. Just FYI (from wikipedia).

You have wonder if the plan was to buy Twitter specifically to kill it. If that's the case, Musk is doing brilliantly - plenty of scope for plausible deniability while succeeding at his goal.

midoridensha 3y ago

If that's the case, then I applaud him. But considering the kind of BS he's been spewing for years, I don't think this is some kind of secret long-term plan to destroy Twitter; I think he really drinks his own kool-aid.

macksd 3y ago
I don't think so either. But I also know people who still think Trump is playing some 4D chess game and has the corrupt politicians and media right where he wants them. Any day now he's gonna win.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  Same for Bernie after he lost twice lol, somehow both sets of these idiots are front page day in day out though
  - losteric 3y ago
    There's a difference between an idealist in a cynical world, and lying about things proven and admitted to be lies for personal gain.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      Just like Trump's followers who think the election was stolen, there are a lot of Sanders followers who think the nomination was stolen, despite the votes going massively against him. The difference is that Trump is telling his followers that this nonsense is true, while Sanders supporters are making their own conspiracy theories.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        Huh? The Sanders followers blame the DNC for supporting Hillary over him, during the primaries. I'm pretty sure that was proven by the DNC email leak, it's not a "conspiracy theory": the DNC really was working for Hillary. I'm not aware of any Sanders followers thinking the actual votes were altered. The voters (in places that had primaries and not caucuses) really did vote for Hillary. The controversy was that the DNC wasn't properly neutral and that this affected the results. Whether the DNC being neutral would have actually resulted in Sanders winning, I don't think anyone can know, though it's probably doubtful. He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!", and lacked all the baggage that Hillary came with, and had far more charisma (which the DNC infamously doesn't understand the value of), but considering the Republican voters were happy to vote for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, I don't think we can assume the best about the voters of any party.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > the DNC really was working for Hillary. After she won the nomination. What you think was proven is not substantially different from what the My Pillow CEO thinks was proven. > that this affected the results. How? https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... > He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!" As did every single candidate. The only people I saw use that justification were the Sanders supporting conspiracy-theorists.
      - JuanPosadas 3y ago
        > Just like No, not just like at all. The allegations against the DNC by Sanders supporters are orders of magnitude smaller in scale. There's nothing unrealistic or delusional about "Members of the DNC colluded against outsider" or "Members of the DNC all acted independently against outsider for the sake of their own interests". Also the difference in evidence and reaction is huge.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      [flagged]
- dehrmann 3y ago
  He's got a lot of earned media coming his way for the next few years, so maybe!
- JuanPosadas 3y ago
  > Trump has the corrupt politicians and media right where he wants them. You could say both sides agree with this, but with opposite interpretations.

r00fus 3y ago

Isn’t there a simple way to just shut it down if you’ve already burned the 44 billion?

slashdev 3y ago
It wasn’t all his money. Not that I think that’s what he’s doing.
HWR_14 3y ago
Probably not. He borrowed 1/4 of the money from banks secured by Twitters value. Intentionally destroying that value may leave him open to personal liability. Just like if you have a mortgage but decide one day to bulldoze your house. Your bank can totally come after you if you do that and stop paying them.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Once he fails they’ll say he was too big to fail. Corporate socialism will bail him out one way or another. Us, the taxpaying plebe, will cover the bank’s losses with increased mortgage rates and the government’s losses with increased taxes.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  That analogy isn’t at all apt, for the same reason that white-collar criminals are much more likely to get away with it. There is just way more grey area, way more reasonable doubt, in burning Twitter to the ground vs bulldozing your house. Your honour, I didn’t mean to hold up that liquor store. It was merely incompetence. I was just trying to act on my legal obligation to my shareholders.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Grey area, sure. He legit thought a rebrand was a great idea! But shuttering the company would be a clear cut example of him intentionally sinking the company.
cheschire 3y ago

nitwit005 3y ago

He's been so busy with Twitter that he's being sued for not running Tesla. That's a lot of effort just to shut a company down.

TX81Z 3y ago
He’s a highly driven genius, who are we to question a God?

atleastoptimal 3y ago

0% chance he's doing that but it's funny to think that he is. Obviously he really does want it to be an everything app. Musk is very transparent about his ambitions and feelings. He's not someone to bear holding a secret, he'd want to share it so he could get the validation from telling people about his plans and his followers will act like he's already succeeded.

IAmGraydon 3y ago

I’m certain this is what’s going on. Every move he’s made since he took over has been destructive to the foundation of the company and brand. Like him or not, he’s not that stupid. I think he’s pissed that he was basically forced into the sale for running his mouth and decided to take revenge by destroying the company.

sangnoir 3y ago
> Like him or not, he’s not that stupid. Well, that's one way to resolve the cognitive dissonance arising from witnessing a "genius" consistently exhibiting non-genius behavior.
gizmo686 3y ago
Take revenge on who? The people who sold it to him already have their billions. It doesn't matter to them what happens to the company now.
imustbeevil 3y ago
The people that he bought the company from already got the money, which was more money than they could get on the open market. They don't give a fuck what he does with his company now. If you think he's tanking his own company to get back at the people who have all the money he gave them...yeah he's that stupid. The reason why he keeps doing all these comically dumb things is exactly because people like you think he's cooking something. He has no one around him questioning the decisions he's making, so they keep getting worse, because that's literally what happens to every human in history who goes unchallenged for too long.
perilunar 3y ago
He's not stupid, just aspy. He brilliant with technical things like cars or rockets, but really dumb with people.

ulkesh 3y ago

Occam’s razor would suggest he’s simply incompetent.

9935c101ab17a66 3y ago
> Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence. Just FYI (from wikipedia).