An Inigo Montoya moment:
Democracy. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Of course, what frightens Max Boot is having anything he says face a challenge. Content moderation is especially cool if it means you don’t have to face any discontent. Boot’s preferred usage is a Boot on the throat.
I am not sure what I think about Elon Musk generally. One could argue he’s built his fortune by using government subsidies and cronyism, as he clearly has, but it’s also undeniable he’s building useful things. And it’s absolutely undeniable that he has all the right enemies. And the cognitive dissonance is off the damned charts:
Does Musk want to take over Twitter? I don’t think so. The company’s financials aren’t great, and running social media companies is hard. The car crash that is former President Donald Trump’s social media experiment, Truth Social, is a cautionary tale for Musk. Does Musk want to name some people to Twitter’s board of directors? Maybe. That would allow him to have some say over its affairs without spending too much time or money.
That’s worrisome, because it’s not ideal to have a free speech absolutist who isn’t absolutely in favor of free speech at the helm of — or even close to — a media company.
So where is Timothy O’Brien making this argument? Bloomberg. Who runs Bloomberg? A billionaire who happened to be a presidential candidate in the last cycle. We live in an unserious world.
Pump n dump — Musk doesn’t have the cash to follow through on this. When it’s rejected he will sell the stake he bought on margin for a fat cash profit.
Who needs to make and sell cars when you can commit securities fraud in broad daylight? (Probably worth betting on a really bad quarter for Tesla too).
If nothing else, Musk keeps us entertained.
Remember Usenet?
In some sense twitter is Usenet where everyone has a unique alt.* identifier.
“Usenet” became “useless” because most of it was unmoderated and all of the unmoderated channels became clogged with spam, much of it pornographic.
Can’t help but think that is what unmoderated twitter would become.
And the moderated bits of usenet? Lots of complaints that are identical to complaints about twitter’s moderation.
Duck Duck Go is on board with the new paradigm. All the news we want you to see, none of those pesky ‘other’ points of view.
https://cnnnews.media/lifestyle/duck-duck-gone-duckduckgo-goes-woke-to-censor-search-content-forcing-users-now-flock-to-rival-search-engine-brave/
Lemme guess: I will see search results from ABC, CBS, NBC, WaPo and NYT, which get their news from Associated Press, except for the bits leaked by the Deep State to favored reporters.
I guess spam is too high a price to pay for access to complete information. We’d rather be mushroomed and kept comfortably numb.
Democracy. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
That’s from the Princess Bride, yes? I think Mr Carroll had it understood better.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.”
“Democracy” = Democrat controlled Government.
More moderation, not less. The mask didn’t just slip, it disintegrated.
Au contraire monsieur troll, it is you who keep us entertained.
Answer this question honestly troll, or shut the h*ll up: does twitter censor conservatives, er, should I say “moderate” conservative content exclusively?*
Spoiler: answer is yes.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the people who claim to be in support of “our democracy” uniformly have supported the anti-democratic rule by un-elected “public health officials” for the last two+ years?
“Populism” is just another word for democracy, yet today’s progressives claim to be in favor of democracy and against populism.
In Federalist #10, Madison explained why democracy — meaning rule by the 51% over the 49% on any issue — is bad. You end up with an unstable war of factions because it is in the interests of any one faction to side with whatever alliance of factions will result in a victory of the 50% +1, and this alliance is dynamic.
Ah, Emery, the moron investor. Are you friends with Musk now? How the hell would a piss ant basement dweller like you know that? Did you hack his bank records?! Sheeesh! Give it up loser.
don’t worry folks, democracy™ had been saved – the poison pill is in effect.
^ 🐦 ☠️ 💊
Twitter Adopts Limited Duration Shareholder Rights Plan, Enabling All Shareholders to Realize Full Value of Company
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-adopts-limited-duration-shareholder-rights-plan-enabling-all-shareholders-to-realize-full-value-of-company-301526627.html
@ BS429 — At the risk of taking this too seriously, I will say it’s kind of weird for the richest man in the world to say “this is the public square, I will take it private.”
^^The public square is now controlled by a mob. The government could end this, but it likes the idea of using a corporation to control the speech it cannot.
It is a failure that free speech in the US may depend on the whim of an eccentric billionaire. It is not success that has brought us to this point.
I remind you that Twitter has ruled that simply stating an obvious truth — that a human being born with a penis is male — is forbidden speech on its platform.
On topic, I think, from a Tablet essay by Michael Lind on the rise of the totalitarian left and its source:
In 2012, progressives were allowed to agree with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the time that, while lesbian women and gay men should have access to civil unions, marriage should be between a biological man and a biological woman. By 2020, you were a hateful reactionary conservative bigot if you did not agree that some men can be pregnant and some women have penises.
Who decides what is and is not permissible for American progressives to think or discuss or support? The answer is the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Omidyar Network, and other donor foundations, an increasing number of which are funded by fortunes rooted in Silicon Valley. It is this donor elite, bound together by a set of common class prejudices and economic interests, on which most progressive media, think tanks, and advocacy groups depend for funding.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-end-of-progressive-intellectual-life
Lind then goes on to explain the tactics used by these wealthy, grant-issuing foundations to control discourse on the left: no grantee is allowed to criticize the policy goals of other grantees, and all grantees, regardless of relevance to its mission, must offer affirmative support of a host of radical policy positions.
The underlying problem with Progressives, Liberals and the $ociali$ts they aspire to be in order to pull down the present Unjust Society to make way for their vision of a Perfect Utopia, is their unshakeable faith in their own superiority.
I believe X, which is a righteous and virtuous thing to believe; therefore, I am Good and anyone who is insufficiently enthusiastic about X is Bad.
Every ill which befalls a Bad person is their just desserts. In the New World Order when my superiority is finally recognized and I am appointed Ruler of the Cubicles in my workplace, I will mercilessly punish all infidels, apostates, heretics and Non-X believers. I will have no problem standing them against the wall, because they are Bad and punishing Bad is Good.
What’s that? X is no longer the righteous and virtuous thing to believe? Y is the new thing?
I have never believed X. I believe Y, which is a righteous and virtuous thing to believe; therefore, I am Good and anyone who is insufficiently enthusiastic about Y is Bad. I am ready for my promotion now.
“True to Form
We found out Elon was Twitter’s largest shareholder on Monday morning, because that’s when he disclosed his holdings to the SEC, as required of anyone who acquires more than 5% of a public company. Only Elon filed the wrong form, and he filed it nearly two weeks late. He filed the form for “passive” investors — and if you’ve been talking to the CEO for the past few weeks about joining the board and changing the product, you are not a “passive” investor.
Elon filed the correct form (Schedule 13D) the next day, but it requires more fulsome disclosures, which revealed he had crossed the 5% threshold on March 14. Meaning he’d been obligated to disclose his stake back on March 24. By illegally concealing his stake for 11 days, Musk was able to continue buying shares from sellers who didn’t know he was accumulating a huge position. Had he disclosed his shares properly on March 24, TWTR would have shot up 25% then, instead of on April 4, and the shares he bought subsequently would have garnered selling shareholders approximately $150 million more. That’s fraud, and while I have increasingly less confidence in the SEC, Congress has recently beefed up its power to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains for securities law violations. Shareholder lawsuits may also be in the offing.”
Link to quote above: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4500594-elon
Isn’t Galloway’s error obvious?
Only Elon filed the wrong form, and he filed it nearly two weeks late.
Elon Musk didn’t file anything — his lawyers did.
Par for the course for the people who imagined Trump staying up late into the night on April 14th, slowly working his way through the 1040 long form, wondering if he could get away with writing off his mega yacht as a fishing business expense.
From the Daily Wire:
There are three possible outcomes now, none of which are ideal for Twitter’s current board: Musk could win by successfully initiating a proxy contest to remove the directors and nix the poison pill; Musk forces the company to find a “white knight,” or alternative buyer, potentially at a higher price, thus making his shares more valuable; Musk walks away and leaves the company and the board facing a pile of lawsuits as shareholders blame them for hurting the value of their stock.
^^ At least, Twitter has the foresight to see just how petty Musk can be on Twitter, and having someone like that in charge of Twitter, is a very, very bad idea.
I’m offering to buy Elon Musk. I think there is room for improvement if I unlock his potential.
Can you imagine the Errors and Omissions premium that Elon Musk’s lawyers must pay?
“Oh, you screwed up my Twitter filing and now I’m getting sued and potentionally prosecuted? Sounds like malpractice to me. Who’s your carrier again?”
Geez, Emery. This is deja vu all over again. I’ll throw the same thing at you that I had to at the Big Feminism women in my life. So, you’re OK with Bezos owning the WaPo? Oh. Wait. Never mind. You’re a DemoCommie, so you’re great with censorship, as long as it’s not you that’s censored.
Smiling at the notion that Bezos, whose ex divorced him after he started “making the beast with two backs” with another woman, somehow qualifies as a feminist. I guess these days, you can do just about any nasty thing to feminist women as long as you keep abortion legal.
Regarding Musk, OK, he missed an SEC filing….leading to who knows what result in the stock price….sorry, Em, not terribly worried about process crimes for the most ill defined “crime” on the books.
Soon after the bid was made public Musk was at TED to be interviewed and spoke about his thoughts on Twitter and content moderation. It’s worth watching, though mostly for how it shows how very, very little Musk understands about all of this. Indeed, what struck me about his views is how much they sound like what the techies who originally created social media said in the early days. And here’s the important bit: all of them eventually learned that their simplistic belief in how things should work does not work in reality and have spent the past few decades trying to iterate.
Elon Musk talks Twitter, Tesla and how his brain works — live at TED2022
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cdZZpaB2kDM
One thing you have to say about Emery, he’s got Alinski’s rules down pat. Watch him flail away at number 12 today.
80IQ, prolific liar rAT squeeked: “Pump n dump — Musk doesn’t have the cash to follow through on this. When it’s rejected he will sell the stake he bought on margin for a fat cash profit.”
Every media source says: “Elon Musk considering bringing in partners on Twitter bid, sources say“
rAT is having a bad year. Ukraine is folding, Pedo Joe is foundering, leftist groomers are on the ropes, the reprobate Democrat party is bracing for an epic fucking and Elon Musk is fixin to tip over TwitR’s table.
#sad
I made my thoughts about an unmoderated Twitter clear in my 11:09.
The current moderation scheme at ALL the big data media companies, as far as I can tell, is to use automation as much as possible with humans, under God knows what political and ideological pressure, assigned to handle appeals and marginal cases. Under a shifting set of rules, of course.
Maybe Musk has a different moderation scheme in mind, or a new business model.
All of the “free” social media services, including Twitter, depend on user created content and advertising to make money.
OTOH, maybe this is just good ol’ capitalism at work. twitter pisses off half its potential users by taking a political side. Investor sees tat he could improve growth by welcoming product and customers that the current owner scorns.
Kind of like if a non-racist financier took over a movie theater chain in the old segregated South and planned to make money by eliminating Jim Crow exhibition and seating rules.
In the meantime, Musk is already working with a white knight. Say what you will about the man but when he gets going, he’s hard to stop.
Woolly wrote: “ I made my thoughts about an unmoderated Twitter clear in my 11:09”
I’d ask that before any of you start shit-posting in the comments, please read all of Prof. Kate Klonick’s seminal paper on the history of content moderation and free speech called The New Governors. It is difficult to take seriously anyone on this topic who is not aware of the history.
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1598-1670_Online.pdf
It’s rather sad/laughable that apparently Musk has either missed entirely or looked at the multiple attempts by ‘conservatives’ to create the platform he’s talking about only to fail and not have learned their lesson.
There’s a reason those platforms aren’t as popular as ones like Twitter currently are — it’s just a pity that he seems to think that he’s smarter than the multitude of people who have figured out why that is who work in those companies.
Uh . . . go fuck yourself, Emery.
You have nothing intelligent to say on any topic.
Emery calling out others for “shitposting.” Completely through the looking glass now.
These posts tend to attract very, very angry people who are very, very sure of themselves on this topic they have no experience with.
But, just for fun, let’s go through what Musk said at TED:
Anderson asks Musk why he wants to buy Twitter and Musk responds:
“Well, I think it’s really important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech. Twitter has become the de facto town square, so, it’s really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they’re able to speak freely within the bounds of the law. And one of the things I believe Twitter should do is open source the algorithm, and make any changes to people’s tweets — if they’re emphasized or de-emphasized — that should be made apparent so that anyone can see that action has been taken. So there’s no sort of behind-the-scenes manipulation, either algorithmically or manually.”
First, again, this is the same sort of thing that early Twitter and Facebook and other platform people said in the early days. And then they found out it doesn’t work. Second, Twitter is not the town square, and it’s a ridiculous analogy. The internet itself is the town square. Twitter is just one private shop in that town square with its own rules.
The little weasel squeaks, These posts tend to attract very, very angry people who are very, very sure of themselves on this topic they have no experience with
And fully one fourth of all the comments to this post are – the little weasel. Odd that.
^ Of the various posts you have authored over the years, this one is a gem.
Would you care to highlight the technological barriers in promising to implement a Utopia for free speech that has “maximal trust.”?
jdm, when it comes to speaking authoritatively on topics he has no experience with, nobody tops rAT.
It’s because the depth of his ignorance is bottomless. He knows nothing of everything, yet what he cannot plagiarize, he’ll just make shit up.
He’s the King of all Dunning-Kruger patients.
If the reprobates succeed in thwarting Musk’s hostile takeover, he will dismantle TwitR piece by piece.
It’s not smart to piss off a guy with billions to spare. And it’s clear, Musk is pissed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10723409/Elon-Musk-talking-investors-partner-bid-Twitter.html
Heh…
“Twitter is not the town square, and it’s a ridiculous analogy. The internet itself is the town square. Twitter is just one private shop in that town square with its own rules.”
In other words, the United States Supreme Court got it wrong in Packingham when it held:
“A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights . . . Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire. While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” in general . . . and social media in particular.” [citations omitted]
You’re free to disagree with existing Supreme Court precedent, of course, but basic honesty should compel you to acknowledge that you’re not arguing the law of free speech, you’re arguing for a reversal in the law, and then disparaging Musk based on your wished-for reversal.
Which, of course, would require basic honesty, so . . . .
^^ Twitter trades at 32x actual / 23x forecast EV/EBITDA and has 5.4x EBITDA in net Debt. Operating Cash conversion is close to 100%. So it is valuable and already has LBO debt levels. To make it work you therefore need hidden debt capacity and/or a strong new equity story.
Let’s say Elon Musk’s God Like skills persuade a bank/fund/bond investor to put 10x EBITDA into the debt tranche (I know!), we now have to fund 22x EBITDA with Equity (or 13x Fcast) + costs + RCF etc,
This only works if you believe in the Forecast (or know it to be cautious). Where did Elon Musk get that certainty? Was it Morgan Stanley’s brilliant analysis, or did Musk gain inside information when he was invited to join the board?
As to whether he has the cash: No he doesn’t. He has always borrowed against assets to cross fund various businesses. He has Chutzpah though and on Passover/Easter that can take you close to the sun.
Dorsey notwithstanding, entire Twiter board owns 77 shares. Do you think they will have much money left, personally, after all the lawsuits by real shareholders are settled? But then as Musk agrees – it is all rigged.
Previous comment was @ Swiftee.
@ JD — Someone doesn’t know the difference between “First Amendment” and a “Terms of Service” contract. How many times do the courts have to say “social media companies aren’t bound by the First Amendment” before people stop acting like this isn’t a profoundly silly question to ask?
We now know that if Musk, or someone else, buys Twitter and forbids any criticism of, say, US government policies or Russia’s war in Ukraine, that will be just fine with the lefties.
Cuz, you know, terms of service.
BTW, the problem people have with Twitter’s terms of service is that they are applied in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner.
The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship. That doesn’t apply to private business service contracts. So private businesses can do whatever they want, censor whoever they want. Unless the government tells the private business what to do, then the censorship becomes government action by proxy.
If the attorney general declares that questioning the election is treason, and suggests that social media companies restrict comments against the election if they want to stay out of jail, it’s no longer a private matter.
Hiding The Big Guys 10% by laundering it through his son doesn’t fool anybody, nor does Brandon Administration telling social media companies what constitutes prohibited misinformation.
Twitter has spent 15 years experimenting and iterating its policies to deal with a variety of incredibly complex and difficult challenges, nuances, and trade-offs, and as Musk demonstrates later in his TED interview, he’s not even begun to think through any of them.
“My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization.” ~ Elon Musk (TED2022)
Again, this is the same sort of things that the founders of these websites said until they had to deal with the actual challenges of running such platforms at scale. And, I should note, anyone who’s spent any time at all working on these issues knows that “maximally trusted” requires some level of moderation, because otherwise (as woolly noted earlier) platforms fill up with spam and scams and are not trusted at all. There’s a reason these efforts are put under the banner of “trust & safety.”
Both TwitR and Vanguard are publicly traded. They have a fiduciary responsibility to return maximum profit to their shareholders.
They have breached their legal obligations. At this point, how Musk wins is not important.
As someone who holds a healthy Vanguard portfolio, I look forward to reaping a share of the lawsuit settlement.
Whatever did the plebs do before Twitter — shout in the town square, which obviously wouldn’t be nearly as effective today.