He bought common stock, which always has voting rights. Also, if you read the SEC filing, he has voting rights.
More importantly, the purchase got him onto the board. As was probably the motivation.
I guess what confused me was that they called it a passive stake. But ugh. That’s not a passive stake.
And Mastodon is trending … on Twitter. (There’s your problem!)
I get that complaint about it being the same energy and that it must be annoying, but what else do people think they’re going to hear? Twitter’s going to do what twitter is going to do , and the complaints of a many, or a few vocal people, or all of them won’t really have any effect on the decisions the board makes for the future of twitter. If they decide to let Trump and the Q peddlars back in, no amount of people complaining is going to change that. If they remove fact checking and warnings and allow all content, nothing we say or do is going to change that. The only options we have of any value to us regarding twitter is to either A) Use twitter as it is , or B) don’t use twitter as it is. (We may have an ancillary option that rides along with A which is “use twitter blue and pay them for the extra features.”)
So I get that people are annoyed by the “Use Mastodon” or the “Use Linux” or whatever alternatives exist, but I also get the people saying “Use Mastodon” or “Use Linux” because honestly, if Twitter does something you don’t like, it’s clear they don’t care what you think and your options really are to keep going or don’t. If Windows does something you don’t like, well, too bad. Your options are still keep using it or don’t.
The alternatives being suggested are the “or don’t” option with a different path.
I think the “passive” part was because of the specific SEC filing, which just indicated he wasn’t going to be involved in the day to day management of the company. The fact that he’s now on the BoD doesn’t necessarily change that.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.