Of course. But the changes he’ll effect by owning a controlling share of the company sure will. In his mind at least. And I’d be very surprised if he turns out to be wrong.
And you think there’s some evidence that he’s doing that?
Again, him buying a share of the company to make some changes that result in the value (and stock price) going up is quite legal.
They may actually reduce the value of the company. Especially if he carves out a special exception for himself to be immune to banning, which I strongly suspect is the pathetic reason for buying this board seat.
In reality, there’s not much he can substantively do as a board member to add to the value of a fairly mature social media company like this. The MAUs reached a plateau years ago, their new user growth has hit a natural limit, and any innovations are minor UX and feature tweaks aimed at retention or copying competing platforms.
No, which is why I said:
I guess you missed that part in your rush to respond. Sort of like you initially missed the distinction between a company’s stock price and its value.
Not necessarily. It depends on how he went about it. It can be done legally, but there are a lot of ways to run afoul of SEC regulations when an “investment celebrity” buys a significant stake in a company.
He has a history of being pretty influential in the companies he’s involved with, I’d be surprised if he’s buying this for such an absurd reason, especially when he wasn’t in danger of being banned to begin with.
Changing the direction of the company from being highly moderated to much less so, which is obviously his intention, could certainly increase the value (and stock price). And clearly lots of people are betting that that’s the case.
But it’s all beside my original point, which is to address this point in the original article:
I don’t think Trump has $3bn either, but even if he did he’d be a fool to spend it on Twitter since he’s incapable of increasing the value of the company in any way (in my opinion of course), and would almost certainly do the opposite. I and many other people on the other hand think that Musk is likely to increase the value of the company (hence the bump in stock price). In other words Musk isn’t spending money on this, he’s investing it, and wisely. Again in my opinion of course.
Yeah, Mr. “Pedo Guy” (AKA the guy who also regularly pulls social media stunts to juice his investments) is very careful not to make provocative statements that could get him banned from social media. /s
First, Twitter isn’t highly moderated, even by the low standards of large-scale social media platforms. Even with the changes prompted by the pandemic, the 6 Jan insurrection, the invasion of Ukraine, and the departure of Dorsey it still takes a lot of effort to get banned there (apparently effort Musk is willing to put in as time goes on).
Second, platforms that are even more poorly moderated than Twitter already tend to bleed mainstream users (especially older ones) who don’t appreciate chan-type cesspit behaviour. I know it might sound strange to you, but a social media company that loses users tends to lose fundamental value over time.
He’s only investing it wisely if he cashes out after he juices the stock by getting the fanboi suckers all hot and bothered. But he can’t since it would cost him the board seat (and his immunity from banning) in short order.
He’s never been in danger of being banned from any social network that I’m aware of. Do you have some information to the contrary?
That doesn’t sound strange to me or Musk or anyone else, but clearly he and the market disagree with your prediction about what will happen to Twitter’s user base and user experience.
There were a lot of public calls for him to be banned after the “pedo guy” tweet, and if he’d lost the defamation case the company might have acted on them. The SEC has also definitely looked askance at some of his tweets, which prompted Twitter’s management to realise that they’re just as liable as traditional media outlets when it comes to someone featured on it making dodgy or self-serving statements meant to promote a stock.
He disagrees for his own reasons, as any individual can. However, a market made in this case by fanbois and a follow-on herd mentality isn’t one that I see as populated by supremely rational actors. If I’m looking for authoritative views on the effects on userbase and UX of reduced moderation in on-line forums I’ll look to experts with decades of practical experience in the field.*
[* Similarly, if I’m looking for a serious discussion about investing and markets I’ll look more to those who have the experience to know the difference between a company’s stock price/market cap and its underlying value. In my own experience, those laypeople who believe the neoliberal line that markets are the best and most accurate processors of general information have difficulty making that distinction.]
might
And if I were looking to have a serious discussion about the merits of this purchase I’d look for a forum where people are more likely to be able to separate Musk’s being an obvious assh*le as a person (“Pedo guy”, etc) from his long history of positive work in business and in his impact on the world. And yet here we are!
One wonders why you’re still trying if you consider none of us worth talking to. It must be very taxing for you.
We just don’t measure up, I guess. 
Yes. You asked if there was ever any danger of his being banned from a social network. “Might” indicates that there was a non-zero chance of that.
I try to balance both. I recognise Musk, in both positive and negative lights, for what he is – a charismatic and brash promoter who has a broad but mostly hands-off knowledge on the technology and engineering – and what he is not. To give just one example on the positive side, I’ve frequently given him credit here for cleverly breaking the corrupt local auto dealership cartels who tried to shut him out when he first started selling Teslas.
The problem that occurs on this site is that even the mildest reality-based criticism of him in a FPP brings out the fanbois and their bad-faith, poorly informed (or Libertarian – same difference) arguments in the comments section.* Perhaps if they were able to get beyond their personality-cult tendencies (and actually take some time to get beyond their cargo-cult understanding of markets and business) you might see a more balanced and serious discussion. Until then, all serious people here can do is try to educate those who haven’t imbibed the Musk Kool-Aid.
[* the same depressingly predictable outcome goes for FPPs criticising Jordaddy, Assange, Ayn Rand, Apple Computers, cryptocurrencies, etc.]
One must be careful accepting taxing circumstances, as I hear tell it’s the first step on the ol’ Roooad to Serfdom.
There’s certainly adequate reason to have skepticism about both of those.
Taking another bow on the government’s dime Elon?
I’d like to make a gentle reminder that it’s bad form to take disagreement as an attack, and to trash talk the whole BBS just because a large number of other posters disagree with you.
If you are going to state your opinions here, then it’s fair game for others to challenge them. That’s what we are here for; to have a discussion.
I had in mind something more along the lines of specific evidence of a social network considering banning him.
Is saying “there was a non-zero chance of [him getting banned]” an example one of these reality based criticisms of Musk? Because all I’m seeing in all the criticisms here are speculation and ad hominem attacks against Musk and anyone who would dare defend him.
Point taken, and I have no problem whatsoever with disagreement, but statements like “I know it might sound strange to you” and accusing me of acting in bad faith are a bit beyond simple disagreement.
Then you should have asked that question instead of dancing around it. There were definitely questions asked to the PR flacks of the social network platforms about banning him during the “pedo guy” business but – not surprisingly == they gave only vague answers and punted to the defamation case.
The fact that Musk wasn’t banned for that tweet and other also somewhat undermines your claim that Twitter is or ever was “highly moderated”.
Yes, unless you can prove that there was a 0% chance of his getting banned for his statements over the years. The moderation at Twitter is light (especially for famous people) but not that light.
The criticisms about Musk here. starting with the FPPs, go specifically to his behaviour and statements. No speculation required when it’s available in any reputable news outlet’s archive.
As for the fanbois who see him as some combination of Newton, Watt, Edison, Ford, and John Galt and who demonstrate their ignorance and bad faith here on a regular basis (see today’s topic on the Cybertruck), are community members supposed to let their false claims and attacks on the community go unchallenged?
I can’t speak to the accusation of bad faith because I made no such accusation toward you specifically (the fanbois are another matter, and I trust you don’t see yourself in my description on them). Since you quote me on the above, however, I’ll point out that it’s a reasonable disclaimer given your earlier difficulty understanding that less moderation on an already lightly moderated mainstream social media site usually results in more users leaving that site than tr0lls and griefers flocking to it, or perhaps your thinking that this obvious scenario would somehow increase the value of the company (per your earlier comment).
Please! Some of us are trying to eat supper here…
Musk’s first comments on feature changes he’d like to see at Twitter are … underwhelming and highlight the fact that (as I mentioned above) there’s not much that can be done to substantively improve the value of the company.
But hey, he won’t be banned. That’s worth locking up billions of dollars of his money in Twitter, right?
Musk has a history of bouncing his companies’ stock prices with a tweet or two. He’s been smacked on nose for doing that, but luckily there’s no regulation on manipulation of the crypto markets.
He might want insurance against losing that lever, but without knowing the rules of the game inside his head, who knows?
A coffee shop that I hang out in has a group of trumpkins who meet there regularly, so I’ve listened to them talk amongst themselves quite a bit. They don’t argue at all. They do this thing you see at conspiracy theorist trade shows and such where everything anyone says is valid and they agree endlessly no matter if everything being said is internally consistent or hypocritical or whatever. It’s just “these are my people so everything they say is good”. Ironically it is a very supportive atmosphere among people who abhor empathy and support to “the other side”. However there’s no basis of reality or agreed facts upon which the conversation rests.
It’s really hard not to jump into the conversation when they say something that is the opposite of something said 15 seconds ago and everyone is fervently agreeing to both things. It’s not conversation- it’s more like…cult ritual?
