4 ms·

Any % each of those owners actually own? For me that would be the most important aspect of ownership

janalsncm 2y ago
I doubt it. The owners were named in a lawsuit, so the % is irrelevant as far as the suit is concerned.
senectus1 2y ago
yeah, this. I'm still convinced that Elon took a deal to deliberately burn twitter to the ground. I'm unsure how we'd prove it but his behaviour makes little sense otherwise.
- constGard 2y ago
  My favorite pet theory is that Musk taking over Twitter is to disentangle the bureaucratic and journalistic class from the direct Tumblr/4chan content pipeline they've all been drinking from for years. The only way he could make it work was to make the space as distasteful as possible. I'm giving him way too much credit, of course, but I can dream.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    I assure you the 4chan content pipeline has increased an order of magnitude since the Musk takeover. A comment thread on an Elon post will consistently have multiple posts with >100k views containing slurs or "jews bad Hitler good" accounts.
    - constGard 2y ago
      Clearly yes; my point was that the taste and decision makers that previously might've taken stronger cues from Twitter are now much less likely to see it as a venue for worthwhile discussions. I'm probably overvaluing that vs the harm of broadcasting puerile content, but I recognize this is fundamentally an unserious take.
      - reducesuffering 2y ago
        Oh ok, it was aspirational to more seriously surface the problems with its information sources. Ya, I wouldn't have my hopes up.
  - torlok 2y ago
    He offered to buy an unprofitable company for 10 times what Disney paid for Lucasfilm because "funny number", tried to back out of the deal any way he could, and in the end was forced by a court. What are you talking about?
- kevinventullo 2y ago
  Twitter has value beyond its market cap, in the same way that a newspaper does. For the ~richest man in the world, dollars don’t mean a lot.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - senectus1 2y ago
    had value. He's doing his damndest (while self fellating himself on it) to destroy that non market-cap value.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Right. people don't seem to get that. there's this narrative about how Elon Musk overpaid for Twitter, as if there were a vibrant market of buyers and sellers of Twitter. there's only one Twitter, and it's worth whatever someone wants to pay for it. Say somebody comes up to you and says hey, nice jacket. Would you like to sell it to me for $5,000? You bought the jacket for $500, and it was mass produced and you can just buy another one with that money. sounds like a great deal! But if I add that we're in Boston and it's winter and we're outside, miles from shelter, and it's snowing. Suddenly, sellling your winter coat is a way worse idea and not worth making $4,950. Americans have long held this belief that prices are prices. If I buy a can of beans, it should be the same price if you buy the can of beans instead of me. But in reality, prices are totally made up. Hopefully the price of something is greater than it cost to make it, along with all the other expenses, so the business can remain open and continue, but businesses that go out of business have to sell their items at a loss. Which makes their inventory worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay, usually at a discount. Sure, he wanted a better deal, but there's only one Twitter, and it's his (plus a bunch of investors and Fidelity). He didn't overpay for anything, he gets to run it how he wants, now that it's his.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      If you have to sue the person offering you 5K for your jacket to ensure they fulfil the deal, it's fair to speculate that even they thought they'd paid too much.
- fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
  [flagged]
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I think Hanlon’s Razor probably applies here; he’s just really incompetent.
nabla9 2y ago
Initial investment was $33.5bn Musk and $7.1bn from other equity investors. $1.89bn (~4%) from Prince Alwaleed $1bn (~2%) from Jack Dorsey, $500m from Ellison, $300m from Fidelity, ... and so on. Those numbers might have changed since. ps. Alwaleed has also invested $400 million into xAI
- ks2048 2y ago
  When Musk says X is all about freedom of speech, remind him that one of its biggest owners is intimately tied to a government that executes people for mild criticism.
  - zephyrus1985 2y ago
    your point being ? Freedom of speech for US , we cannot enforce every country to have it
    - axus 2y ago
      If one owner bans speech he doesn't like (@Elonjet), other owners will ask to do the same. Having control of speech on Twitter was likely a factor in the "investment".
      - torlok 2y ago
        The timeline of Musk buying Twitter was a trainwreck, so I don't think there were any factors, just an attempt at salvaging an awful deal.
    - ks2048 2y ago
      Musk frequently comments on political issues in other countries.
  - torlok 2y ago
    X is a megaphone for Musk and a tool to get political favours. X was already used to silence the opposition in Turkey and India during elections. A Saudi prince having a minority stake is a drop in a bucket of free speech violations.

I doubt it. The owners were named in a lawsuit, so the % is irrelevant as far as the suit is concerned.

yeah, this. I'm still convinced that Elon took a deal to deliberately burn twitter to the ground. I'm unsure how we'd prove it but his behaviour makes little sense otherwise.

constGard 2y ago
My favorite pet theory is that Musk taking over Twitter is to disentangle the bureaucratic and journalistic class from the direct Tumblr/4chan content pipeline they've all been drinking from for years. The only way he could make it work was to make the space as distasteful as possible. I'm giving him way too much credit, of course, but I can dream.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  I assure you the 4chan content pipeline has increased an order of magnitude since the Musk takeover. A comment thread on an Elon post will consistently have multiple posts with >100k views containing slurs or "jews bad Hitler good" accounts.
  - constGard 2y ago
    Clearly yes; my point was that the taste and decision makers that previously might've taken stronger cues from Twitter are now much less likely to see it as a venue for worthwhile discussions. I'm probably overvaluing that vs the harm of broadcasting puerile content, but I recognize this is fundamentally an unserious take.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      Oh ok, it was aspirational to more seriously surface the problems with its information sources. Ya, I wouldn't have my hopes up.
- torlok 2y ago
  He offered to buy an unprofitable company for 10 times what Disney paid for Lucasfilm because "funny number", tried to back out of the deal any way he could, and in the end was forced by a court. What are you talking about?
kevinventullo 2y ago
Twitter has value beyond its market cap, in the same way that a newspaper does. For the ~richest man in the world, dollars don’t mean a lot.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- senectus1 2y ago
  had value. He's doing his damndest (while self fellating himself on it) to destroy that non market-cap value.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Right. people don't seem to get that. there's this narrative about how Elon Musk overpaid for Twitter, as if there were a vibrant market of buyers and sellers of Twitter. there's only one Twitter, and it's worth whatever someone wants to pay for it. Say somebody comes up to you and says hey, nice jacket. Would you like to sell it to me for $5,000? You bought the jacket for $500, and it was mass produced and you can just buy another one with that money. sounds like a great deal! But if I add that we're in Boston and it's winter and we're outside, miles from shelter, and it's snowing. Suddenly, sellling your winter coat is a way worse idea and not worth making $4,950. Americans have long held this belief that prices are prices. If I buy a can of beans, it should be the same price if you buy the can of beans instead of me. But in reality, prices are totally made up. Hopefully the price of something is greater than it cost to make it, along with all the other expenses, so the business can remain open and continue, but businesses that go out of business have to sell their items at a loss. Which makes their inventory worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay, usually at a discount. Sure, he wanted a better deal, but there's only one Twitter, and it's his (plus a bunch of investors and Fidelity). He didn't overpay for anything, he gets to run it how he wants, now that it's his.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    If you have to sue the person offering you 5K for your jacket to ensure they fulfil the deal, it's fair to speculate that even they thought they'd paid too much.
fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
[flagged]
rsynnott 2y ago
I think Hanlon’s Razor probably applies here; he’s just really incompetent.

nabla9 2y ago

Initial investment was $33.5bn Musk and $7.1bn from other equity investors. $1.89bn (~4%) from Prince Alwaleed $1bn (~2%) from Jack Dorsey, $500m from Ellison, $300m from Fidelity, ... and so on. Those numbers might have changed since. ps. Alwaleed has also invested $400 million into xAI

ks2048 2y ago
When Musk says X is all about freedom of speech, remind him that one of its biggest owners is intimately tied to a government that executes people for mild criticism.
- zephyrus1985 2y ago
  your point being ? Freedom of speech for US , we cannot enforce every country to have it
  - axus 2y ago
    If one owner bans speech he doesn't like (@Elonjet), other owners will ask to do the same. Having control of speech on Twitter was likely a factor in the "investment".
    - torlok 2y ago
      The timeline of Musk buying Twitter was a trainwreck, so I don't think there were any factors, just an attempt at salvaging an awful deal.
  - ks2048 2y ago
    Musk frequently comments on political issues in other countries.
- torlok 2y ago
  X is a megaphone for Musk and a tool to get political favours. X was already used to silence the opposition in Turkey and India during elections. A Saudi prince having a minority stake is a drop in a bucket of free speech violations.