7 ms·

Pretty sure the company is going to be sold to a private equity firm once it reaches $1b in valuation. There's just no way Musk is going to want to stick around

Pretty sure the company is going to be sold to a private equity firm once it reaches $1b in valuation. There's just no way Musk is going to want to stick around the way things are trending. Premium tiers are not going to come close to replacing the lost revenue to declining ad spend. Especially when it's in a death spiral with increasingly spammier ads causing a flight of higher quality advertisers. And there isn't the profit to cover debt payments let alone pay for new features like payments that X desperately needs to generate new revenue. Meanwhile Meta gave a glimpse of the levers it can pull by adding Threads to the Instagram sidebar. Ever closer integration is going to drive hundreds of millions of new users at zero cost.

b112 3y ago
Pretty sure the company is going to be sold to a private equity firm once it reaches $1b in valuation. There's just no way Musk is going to want to stick around the way things are trending If he did that, it could recover its former might perhaps, and the censorship he disliked may return. Thus he likely wants it dead, rather than in other hands.
- throwawayq3423 3y ago
  > and the censorship he disliked may return. Banning Nazis is not censorship, it's basic hygiene.
  - pennaMan 3y ago
    Did you just speedrun Godwin's law?
    - riffic 3y ago
      there's a parable of a Nazi bar, that was made famous ironically with a tweet. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar > From an anecdote shared by Michael B. Tager (@IamRageSparkle) on Twitter in July 2020. In the multi-tweet thread, Tager recounted visiting a "shitty crustpunk bar", where he saw a patron abruptly expelled. The bartender explained that the man was wearing "iron crosses and stuff", and that he feared such patrons would become regulars and start bringing friends if not promptly kicked out, which would lead him to realize "oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now" only after the unwanted patrons became too "entrenched" to kick out without trouble
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Godwin's on record saying it's fine to make the comparison sometimes. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law-charlottesville-nazis/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law... > Godwin wrote on Facebook that someone had asked him to post a statement about Charlottesville, because people bring up his law to shut down arguments all the time. Turns outhe was happy to oblige. "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis," he wrote. "Again and again. I'm with you." > In general, Godwin has always said you can bring up the Nazis in an online conversation, as long as you're doing some research first. "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician," he wrote in The Washington Post backin 2015. But in the case of the white supremacists in Virginia, there's no research necessary to make that comparison. The facts speak for themselves.
      - throwawayq3423 3y ago
        When referring to actual Nazis, using the word "Nazi" is acceptable. Incredible that needs to be said, but here we are.
  - b112 3y ago
    I edited my comment. Who was censored is not relevant, instead, the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is. He didn't buy twitter for profit. He doesn't mind that it's losing money.
    - throwawayq3423 3y ago
      >> the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is. You fell for his narrative, which is false. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    Pre-elon twitter banned some nazis, sometimes, there were still plenty of them around. It also banned a-lot of normal people who were questioning official narratives, people who just so happened to get report-bombed, people who were joking around with eachother about innocuous things that weren't against the ToS, people who governments wanted banned, etc etc. All of that has gotten much better, and appeals are approved much faster, much more often. It used to be if you replied to a tweet disagreeing with someone, and their fans/followers report bombed you, you'd get banned with no recourse. That's fixed now. Also, my impression of recent twitter is that it's very heavy on user silo's now, sure if you search for objectionable content you'll find it, that's not unique to twitter, but you don't really happen upon it unless you're following people who post things you find objectionable. I don't really see anything wrong with that model, and if you're truly worried about nazi's, wouldn't you rather it's on a public cleartext platform instead of on something like session where it's mathematically unable to be seen/policed by -anyone- not directly involved? And like, I'm no fan of Ol'Musky, I think his accomplishments are mostly him attracting talented people and then taking credit for it, but to say that twitter isn't safer/better now... idk, seems like it is by any measure, which might be because it was horrible before, and it's simply less horrible now, but, still, less horrible all the same.
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      To address one portion of what you wrote: no, I do not want Nazis and other bigots spreading cleartext hate online and radicalizing angsty teens. If that shit were shoved further into the margins I think we'd have fewer people showing up at pizza parlors with rifles. Instead, we have racists who went antiquing for Nazi propaganda and dusted off the old classic "elite pedophiles who run international politics are trafficking children and drinking their blood." Something actual elected officials have been able to engage with and not lose significant support.
    - constantly 3y ago
      Do you have any data to back up these claims? My sense has been the opposition, but I also don’t have any data to back it up. So I could be wrong, which is why I don’t make seemingly factual statements like you are. But you sound so sure that I assume you have data, would you share it?
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    It is censorship. Whether you'd consider it acceptable or not is a different matter, but don't try to duck the important decision you'd have to make about it. Many groups throughout history have thought that silencing people they didn't like was a matter of hygiene—including the Nazis, as a matter of fact. It's an enticing concept, using different standards when it comes to people you hate.
    - throwawayq3423 3y ago
      Advocating throwing human beings into ovens isn't acceptable. If you find yourself on the other end of that opinion, do some deep, deep soul searching. It's not about speech at that point.
- api 3y ago
  The censorship never went away. It just switched from being at one owner's whim to being at a different owner's whim. Closed platforms are not and can never be "free speech zones." They answer to their owners, period.
  - Natsu 3y ago
    What sort of topics are currently being censored? I haven't seen examples of things being suppressed, but that's also why I'm asking; because I wouldn't have seen things that got suppressed.
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      Twitter used to be the best tech company in the world at resisting government censorship. They routinely fought governments around the world in court, including in the US. Now they aren't. For example they recently did global censorship at the behest of the Indian government.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      > The reason given for its account suspension, an Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club contributor told The New Republic, was that it had violated Twitter rules against “hateful conduct,” with two tweets cited: a reply to the official account of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Mugging at gun point,” reads the reply to an unspecified CBP post) and another post with what seems like a retort to the perpetual conservative nonjoke about pronouns, “Every queer a riflethem.” [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/169112/elon-musk-anti-trans-twitter-john-br https://newrepublic.com/article/169112/elon-musk-anti-trans-...
    - orwin 3y ago
      Erdoğan opposants accounts and tweets were blocked/suppressed a few weeks before the election (its mostly good now, most accounts are unbanned since the election is over). Also, crimethInc ban will soon have its birthday (https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethinc-from-twitter-on-request-from-far-right-troll https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethi...)
    - deleted 3y ago
hutzlibu 3y ago
"There's just no way Musk is going to want to stick around the way things are trending." He does like attention and with controlling twitter, he can control quite some attention. I don't think he can easily give that up, as long as it stays somewhat relevant and as long as he already burned so much money with it.
- threeseed 3y ago
  But he's not in control of the company. Banks are. Without them agreeing to a restructure of the debt or committing to ongoing bridge loans X will be bankrupt. The banks have already tried to sell off the debt to reduce their risk but declined as they were only getting offers valuing the company at < $8b. We are reaching the cross-roads where big decisions will be made. And one is whether Musk leaves with some dignity e.g. he hands over day-day work to someone else or is simply forced out.
slg 3y ago
I doubt he ever sells. He made the purchase because of his ego. As long as he still owns it, he can pretend that there is some future in which the company has value. Selling it for $1b locks in the valuation and confirms the deal was a huge mistake. I don't think he needs that $1b enough for him to be willing to take that hit to his ego.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  Unless he's willing to continue covering the interest payments on the loans indefinitely, it may not be his decision to make. The interest payments to the banks on the loans will continue to come due. I doubt Twitter is pulling in anywhere near enough revenue to satisfy those loans. The decision to sell it may not be his.
  - skizm 3y ago
    I'm not saying he'll do this, but theoretically he could just pay them out of pocket. The banks only hold around $13B in Twitter debt and Musk owns ~$170B of tesla stock with around 42% of that available for him to access immediately (the other 58% is pledged to secure personal loans).
    - slg 3y ago
      Exactly. It will get gradually more expensive, but I don't buy the idea that one of the richest people on the planet will be unable to find anyone to lend him money. That is especially true for Musk who has shown a willingness to deal with anyone with money including people that have questionable ethics and morals.
    - cco 3y ago
      > I'm not saying he'll do this, but theoretically he could just pay them out of pocket. To be honest, I've never understood why we allow the purchased company to buy itself. It makes no logical sense and I've never heard a good argument as to why this is beneficial to our economy in general.
    - hindsightbias 3y ago
reaperman 3y ago
> once it reaches $1b in valuation Uhm - Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter. Obviously it's not worth >=$44B currently but it's also obviously still worth more than $1B. Edit: Some people seem to be thinking I'm arguing it's worth >$10B -- I am not. I'm only arguing that it's absolutely worth more than $1B. There are plenty of sources in the past 6 months which have valued it between $3.7B and $8B. There are absolutely buyers out there who would love to buy Twitter right now for a 90% discount vs. what Musk paid for it. You may still believe those parties would be overpaying, but it wouldn't be super difficult to find a buyer as long as there weren't other onerous terms attached to the deal.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  You can pay $44B for a sample of my poop, but if you can't find anyone to sell it to later, it's worth $0.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  I will definitely contact you any time I have a company up for sale.
- biscuitech 3y ago
  According to the analysis of Reuters, it's worth around 8 billion. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/elon-musks-x-is-black-hole-value-2023-10-03/ https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/elon-musks-x-is-black-...
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Not much more, though. Banks trying to offload their Twitter debts were only getting offers that valued the company at less than $8B.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Uhm - Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter. Yeah, but he overpaid, and that is only about the value pre-deal, and not: (1) the adverse effect the news of the deal had on Twitter even before it was consummated, and (2) The adverse effect his tenure has had on Twitter’s value since. Is it now worth more than $1 billion? My guess is yes. Is it worth more thsn $10 billion? Probably not.
lhnz 3y ago
Despite continuously making very unpopular moves, I can't see how Twitter loses its users. In fact, I think it will exist long after usage on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok falters -- because, it is less replaceable and less age-demographic dependent. I also think that advertisers will return when budgets increase again. There aren't that many other good options. In the long term, I think it goes nowhere and returns to profitability and a higher valuation.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Eh, I deleted my account last October because of his policy changes, and I'm definitely not the only one. It's honestly been great to remove it from my life, I owe Musk for nudging me to get off the platform and have one less social media thing to make me feel crappy.
  - lhnz 3y ago
    I didn't mean that literally zero users have left Twitter. But, I do not recognise its replacement by other services (Threads, Bluesky or Mastodon). Obviously there are people that have cut social media out of their lives, and there are people that belong to Mastodon servers and so on, but this is a small subset of users.
- yibg 3y ago
  Doesn’t really matter if the users are there if the revenue isn’t. Revenue seems to be the struggle at the moment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  I am very angry about government officials posting public and relevant information on a commercial platform with a randomly appearing login wall and questionable recommendation algorithms. It's the web. Please do better. I also hate how news outlets embed Xitter, although I have seen some creative workarounds. Is humanity really dumping the last remnants of productive political discourse into this centralized and manipulative trash cans because we are unable to define suitable web standards (e.g. for short and distributable messages)?

b112 3y ago

Pretty sure the company is going to be sold to a private equity firm once it reaches $1b in valuation. There's just no way Musk is going to want to stick around the way things are trending If he did that, it could recover its former might perhaps, and the censorship he disliked may return. Thus he likely wants it dead, rather than in other hands.

throwawayq3423 3y ago
> and the censorship he disliked may return. Banning Nazis is not censorship, it's basic hygiene.
- pennaMan 3y ago
  Did you just speedrun Godwin's law?
  - riffic 3y ago
    there's a parable of a Nazi bar, that was made famous ironically with a tweet. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar > From an anecdote shared by Michael B. Tager (@IamRageSparkle) on Twitter in July 2020. In the multi-tweet thread, Tager recounted visiting a "shitty crustpunk bar", where he saw a patron abruptly expelled. The bartender explained that the man was wearing "iron crosses and stuff", and that he feared such patrons would become regulars and start bringing friends if not promptly kicked out, which would lead him to realize "oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now" only after the unwanted patrons became too "entrenched" to kick out without trouble
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Godwin's on record saying it's fine to make the comparison sometimes. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law-charlottesville-nazis/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law... > Godwin wrote on Facebook that someone had asked him to post a statement about Charlottesville, because people bring up his law to shut down arguments all the time. Turns outhe was happy to oblige. "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis," he wrote. "Again and again. I'm with you." > In general, Godwin has always said you can bring up the Nazis in an online conversation, as long as you're doing some research first. "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician," he wrote in The Washington Post backin 2015. But in the case of the white supremacists in Virginia, there's no research necessary to make that comparison. The facts speak for themselves.
    - throwawayq3423 3y ago
      When referring to actual Nazis, using the word "Nazi" is acceptable. Incredible that needs to be said, but here we are.
- b112 3y ago
  I edited my comment. Who was censored is not relevant, instead, the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is. He didn't buy twitter for profit. He doesn't mind that it's losing money.
  - throwawayq3423 3y ago
    >> the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is. You fell for his narrative, which is false. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...
- jtriangle 3y ago
  Pre-elon twitter banned some nazis, sometimes, there were still plenty of them around. It also banned a-lot of normal people who were questioning official narratives, people who just so happened to get report-bombed, people who were joking around with eachother about innocuous things that weren't against the ToS, people who governments wanted banned, etc etc. All of that has gotten much better, and appeals are approved much faster, much more often. It used to be if you replied to a tweet disagreeing with someone, and their fans/followers report bombed you, you'd get banned with no recourse. That's fixed now. Also, my impression of recent twitter is that it's very heavy on user silo's now, sure if you search for objectionable content you'll find it, that's not unique to twitter, but you don't really happen upon it unless you're following people who post things you find objectionable. I don't really see anything wrong with that model, and if you're truly worried about nazi's, wouldn't you rather it's on a public cleartext platform instead of on something like session where it's mathematically unable to be seen/policed by -anyone- not directly involved? And like, I'm no fan of Ol'Musky, I think his accomplishments are mostly him attracting talented people and then taking credit for it, but to say that twitter isn't safer/better now... idk, seems like it is by any measure, which might be because it was horrible before, and it's simply less horrible now, but, still, less horrible all the same.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    To address one portion of what you wrote: no, I do not want Nazis and other bigots spreading cleartext hate online and radicalizing angsty teens. If that shit were shoved further into the margins I think we'd have fewer people showing up at pizza parlors with rifles. Instead, we have racists who went antiquing for Nazi propaganda and dusted off the old classic "elite pedophiles who run international politics are trafficking children and drinking their blood." Something actual elected officials have been able to engage with and not lose significant support.
  - constantly 3y ago
    Do you have any data to back up these claims? My sense has been the opposition, but I also don’t have any data to back it up. So I could be wrong, which is why I don’t make seemingly factual statements like you are. But you sound so sure that I assume you have data, would you share it?
- karaterobot 3y ago
  It is censorship. Whether you'd consider it acceptable or not is a different matter, but don't try to duck the important decision you'd have to make about it. Many groups throughout history have thought that silencing people they didn't like was a matter of hygiene—including the Nazis, as a matter of fact. It's an enticing concept, using different standards when it comes to people you hate.
  - throwawayq3423 3y ago
    Advocating throwing human beings into ovens isn't acceptable. If you find yourself on the other end of that opinion, do some deep, deep soul searching. It's not about speech at that point.
api 3y ago
The censorship never went away. It just switched from being at one owner's whim to being at a different owner's whim. Closed platforms are not and can never be "free speech zones." They answer to their owners, period.
- Natsu 3y ago
  What sort of topics are currently being censored? I haven't seen examples of things being suppressed, but that's also why I'm asking; because I wouldn't have seen things that got suppressed.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    Twitter used to be the best tech company in the world at resisting government censorship. They routinely fought governments around the world in court, including in the US. Now they aren't. For example they recently did global censorship at the behest of the Indian government.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    > The reason given for its account suspension, an Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club contributor told The New Republic, was that it had violated Twitter rules against “hateful conduct,” with two tweets cited: a reply to the official account of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Mugging at gun point,” reads the reply to an unspecified CBP post) and another post with what seems like a retort to the perpetual conservative nonjoke about pronouns, “Every queer a riflethem.” [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/169112/elon-musk-anti-trans-twitter-john-br https://newrepublic.com/article/169112/elon-musk-anti-trans-...
  - orwin 3y ago
    Erdoğan opposants accounts and tweets were blocked/suppressed a few weeks before the election (its mostly good now, most accounts are unbanned since the election is over). Also, crimethInc ban will soon have its birthday (https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethinc-from-twitter-on-request-from-far-right-troll https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethi...)
  - deleted 3y ago

hutzlibu 3y ago

"There's just no way Musk is going to want to stick around the way things are trending." He does like attention and with controlling twitter, he can control quite some attention. I don't think he can easily give that up, as long as it stays somewhat relevant and as long as he already burned so much money with it.

threeseed 3y ago
But he's not in control of the company. Banks are. Without them agreeing to a restructure of the debt or committing to ongoing bridge loans X will be bankrupt. The banks have already tried to sell off the debt to reduce their risk but declined as they were only getting offers valuing the company at < $8b. We are reaching the cross-roads where big decisions will be made. And one is whether Musk leaves with some dignity e.g. he hands over day-day work to someone else or is simply forced out.

slg 3y ago

I doubt he ever sells. He made the purchase because of his ego. As long as he still owns it, he can pretend that there is some future in which the company has value. Selling it for $1b locks in the valuation and confirms the deal was a huge mistake. I don't think he needs that $1b enough for him to be willing to take that hit to his ego.

ncallaway 3y ago
Unless he's willing to continue covering the interest payments on the loans indefinitely, it may not be his decision to make. The interest payments to the banks on the loans will continue to come due. I doubt Twitter is pulling in anywhere near enough revenue to satisfy those loans. The decision to sell it may not be his.
- skizm 3y ago
  I'm not saying he'll do this, but theoretically he could just pay them out of pocket. The banks only hold around $13B in Twitter debt and Musk owns ~$170B of tesla stock with around 42% of that available for him to access immediately (the other 58% is pledged to secure personal loans).
  - slg 3y ago
    Exactly. It will get gradually more expensive, but I don't buy the idea that one of the richest people on the planet will be unable to find anyone to lend him money. That is especially true for Musk who has shown a willingness to deal with anyone with money including people that have questionable ethics and morals.
  - cco 3y ago
    > I'm not saying he'll do this, but theoretically he could just pay them out of pocket. To be honest, I've never understood why we allow the purchased company to buy itself. It makes no logical sense and I've never heard a good argument as to why this is beneficial to our economy in general.
  - hindsightbias 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago

> once it reaches $1b in valuation Uhm - Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter. Obviously it's not worth >=$44B currently but it's also obviously still worth more than $1B. Edit: Some people seem to be thinking I'm arguing it's worth >$10B -- I am not. I'm only arguing that it's absolutely worth more than $1B. There are plenty of sources in the past 6 months which have valued it between $3.7B and $8B. There are absolutely buyers out there who would love to buy Twitter right now for a 90% discount vs. what Musk paid for it. You may still believe those parties would be overpaying, but it wouldn't be super difficult to find a buyer as long as there weren't other onerous terms attached to the deal.

ceejayoz 3y ago
You can pay $44B for a sample of my poop, but if you can't find anyone to sell it to later, it's worth $0.
plagiarist 3y ago
I will definitely contact you any time I have a company up for sale.
biscuitech 3y ago
According to the analysis of Reuters, it's worth around 8 billion. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/elon-musks-x-is-black-hole-value-2023-10-03/ https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/elon-musks-x-is-black-...
FireBeyond 3y ago
Not much more, though. Banks trying to offload their Twitter debts were only getting offers that valued the company at less than $8B.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Uhm - Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter. Yeah, but he overpaid, and that is only about the value pre-deal, and not: (1) the adverse effect the news of the deal had on Twitter even before it was consummated, and (2) The adverse effect his tenure has had on Twitter’s value since. Is it now worth more than $1 billion? My guess is yes. Is it worth more thsn $10 billion? Probably not.

lhnz 3y ago

Despite continuously making very unpopular moves, I can't see how Twitter loses its users. In fact, I think it will exist long after usage on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok falters -- because, it is less replaceable and less age-demographic dependent. I also think that advertisers will return when budgets increase again. There aren't that many other good options. In the long term, I think it goes nowhere and returns to profitability and a higher valuation.

coldpie 3y ago
Eh, I deleted my account last October because of his policy changes, and I'm definitely not the only one. It's honestly been great to remove it from my life, I owe Musk for nudging me to get off the platform and have one less social media thing to make me feel crappy.
- lhnz 3y ago
  I didn't mean that literally zero users have left Twitter. But, I do not recognise its replacement by other services (Threads, Bluesky or Mastodon). Obviously there are people that have cut social media out of their lives, and there are people that belong to Mastodon servers and so on, but this is a small subset of users.
yibg 3y ago
Doesn’t really matter if the users are there if the revenue isn’t. Revenue seems to be the struggle at the moment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
moritzwarhier 3y ago
I am very angry about government officials posting public and relevant information on a commercial platform with a randomly appearing login wall and questionable recommendation algorithms. It's the web. Please do better. I also hate how news outlets embed Xitter, although I have seen some creative workarounds. Is humanity really dumping the last remnants of productive political discourse into this centralized and manipulative trash cans because we are unable to define suitable web standards (e.g. for short and distributable messages)?