Tweet me to the moon - Elon Musk buys a 9.2% stake on Twitter

[Rauten]

Summary

After rambling on Twitter about whether the platform truly respects Free Speech, it appears Mr. Musk has decided to take matters into his own hands by buying a sizable chunk of the social media platform.

 

Quotes

Quote

The Tesla founder bought 73,486,938 Twitter shares on 14 March, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The stake is worth $2.89bn (£2.20bn), based on Twitter's closing price on Friday.

Musk is a regular Twitter user with more than 80 million followers, although recently he said he is giving "serious thought" to building a new social media platform.

 

My thoughts

Oh joy. As if Twitter wasn't enough of a cesspool by its own, now it's at risk of being dominated by one of the richest men on earth and his idea of what Free Speech truly is.

I guess he considered the idea of building his own platform, then thought "nah screw that, I'll just buy Twitter. That's where all my followers are, anyway!" and then used whatever spare change he had in his wallet at the time.

 

Sources

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60979656

 

First time ever posting a news item, please be gentle senpais.

[CactusMan]

Can't wait for the day when Elon's Twitter only has US law as its rules and nothing more a la 4chan.

[Forbidden Wafer]

If violent wackos get banned and normal people get back, it is a considerable improvement. Nowadays, only weirdos and wackos use twitter.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Rauten said:

Oh joy. As if Twitter wasn't enough of a cesspool by its own, now it's at risk of being dominated by one of the richest men on earth and his idea of what Free Speech truly is.

*shrugs* better than what it currently is.  I'd rather have someone who can try pushing for -actual- change than what it's current state is in now.  He also seemed royally ticked off at their lack of ability to actually combat spam...so we might be seeing a better filter getting put in place.  There was close to half a year where every single tweet he did had a fake "Elon" account underneath with a scam giveaway or link to sketchy sites.  At least now he has enough of a vote to hopefully persuade them to at least fix some of the policies that have plagued them (like it shouldn't be that hard to detect a spam where the person uses the same display name, and same picture as someone else and just created the account).

 

Do I agree with stuff he says, no not really, but I'd rather his form of Free Speech over what Twitter currently is.  There's a decent amount of topics that get you shadow banned there, and ones that are filtered out.  [Given that Starlink refused to block/censor the Russian websites, at least that gives me hope that it will be a lot more open if he has his way]

[jasonvp]

I don't like the some of Elon's product ideas or how he's gone about getting them mainstreamed.  However, I do think he's genuinely a good person and he truly means well for the human race.  Whether you agree with him or not is another story, of course.  But I think he sees how much of a cesspool Twitter has become, specially with the way it takes control of what it considers good/bad speech.

 

I think this is a good thing for Twitter.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Trump did the opposite, he built a new social based on Mastodon but can't seem to get the server infrastructure in order. Waiting list is in the millions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60922717

 

I'm not clear, with 9.2% share, Musk get to steer Twitter decision as a Board of Directors member?

[SolarNova]

well twitter cant get much worse than it is.

Opaque moderation, partisan censorship, loud minority dominant.

 

its a cesspool for the most part.

[wanderingfool2]

2 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I'm not clear, with 9.2% share, Musk get to steer Twitter decision as a Board of Directors member?

I mean strictly speaking it doesn't give him much.  He gets 9.2% of the vote.  Then again, he would be large enough of a share holder that he might get a bit more say in terms of the decisions that are getting voted on (or how it is run)...but overall I don't think it will give him too much power...but maybe enough to actually move the platform in a better direction...because man Twitter sucks.

[TetraSky]

Won't change anything.

Just because he bought 9.2% of the available shares, doesn't mean he gets to decide where the company is going. He's just going to have more voting power on certain issues, like ousting the people in charge and what not.

He also can't just sue them because he, personally, doesn't like what they do. They would have to do something like lie on their earnings.

As such, expect no change.

[poochyena]

5 hours ago, Rauten said:

now it's at risk of being dominated by one of the richest men on earth

no its not. He just bought some shares like any of us could do.

 

2 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

If violent wackos get banned and normal people get back, it is a considerable improvement.

Already happening. Twitter is great in that they even tell you that the person you reported got banned.

39 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'd rather have someone who can try pushing for -actual- change than what it's current state is in now. 

I'd love to hear what postive change you'd think Musk would provide.

40 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

He also seemed royally ticked off at their lack of ability to actually combat spam

Thats, like, every website though.

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There was close to half a year where every single tweet he did had a fake "Elon" account underneath with a scam giveaway or link to sketchy sites.

Thats why twitter has verified check marks next to user names.

42 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

but I'd rather his form of Free Speech over what Twitter currently is.

Oh please go into more detail here. What can you not say on twitter that Musk thinks you should be able to? Calling people pedophiles for saving children from a cave, for example? Yea, great improvement.

41 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

However, I do think he's genuinely a good person and he truly means well for the human race.

He called a man a pedophile for saving children from a cave. He mocked people supporting Ukraine and lgbt rights. He posted a meme saying Hitler is better than Trudeau.

47 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Trump did the opposite, he built a new social based on Mastodon but can't seem to get the server infrastructure in order. Waiting list is in the millions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60922717

Which is overrun by bots and Trump himself doesn't even use it. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-truth-social-media-app-review-ghost-town-overrun-bots-2022-3

48 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

partisan censorship

false

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Thats why twitter has verified check marks next to user names.

Relying on the "verified check mark" is a poor excuse to allowing scams.  The people who fall for those kinds of scams, or click on those links won't be very likely to notice a check mark.  It's also a very easy thing to miss as well, and just see a profile picture with the name under as a reply and potentially clicking through the link.

 

I want to reiterate, a verified check mark is not in any way a method of getting rid of scam bots.  [Similar thing is happening on YouTube, and neither company seems to be able to do a thing about it].

 

Also, Twitter has been notorious for accidentally verifying the wrong accounts/not verifying users that have hundreds of thousands of followers.

 

15 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Thats, like, every website though.

So what, your thought is we should just accept it?  Also his primary communication is on Twitter, so it's a look within kind of thing.

 

16 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I'd love to hear what postive change you'd think Musk would provide.

Well the thing that was pushed by him recently was having transparency on the algos that are being run by Twitter, and combating spam.  Both of which are pretty big.  Also the general concept of censorship.

 

17 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Oh please go into more detail here. What can you not say on twitter that Musk thinks you should be able to? Calling people pedophiles for saving children from a cave, for example? Yea, great improvement.

Twitter has a massive censorship issue, like it or not.  There is the issue as well of the transparency on what they censor/how they decide what is censored.  Do I agree with some of the things he has said?  No, but that doesn't mean that we should just eliminate all talk.

 

An example would be the current invasion that is occurring.  While I do think that it's good to flag incorrect media/propaganda, it should be used to silence communities that still are mentioning factual items (but don't align with the ideals).

[Forbidden Wafer]

22 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Already happening.

Logged in, had a look, still a cesspool of wacky journalists defending dictatorships and thieves, plus "verified" sources spreading fake news.

I think it is just as bad as I remembered.

[poochyena]

8 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Relying on the "verified check mark" is a poor excuse to allowing scams.

Its literally the entire point of the system!! And they don't allow scams. Scams happening doesn't mean they allow them.

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The people who fall for those kinds of scams, or click on those links won't be very likely to notice a check mark.  It's also a very easy thing to miss as well, and just see a profile picture with the name under as a reply and potentially clicking through the link.

ok?? The point is to REDUCE scams, which is does.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also, Twitter has been notorious for accidentally verifying the wrong accounts/not verifying users that have hundreds of thousands of followers.

They are not notorious for that. Accidents happen, and they are corrected.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So what, your thought is we should just accept it?

yes, there is no other option. Though, if you think otherwise, i'm sure you could make millions with your "completely prevent 100% of all spam" idea.

13 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well the thing that was pushed by him recently was having transparency on the algos that are being run by Twitter, and combating spam.

You do understand why its not transparent, right? if it was, that would make it even easier for spammer to manipulate the system.

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also the general concept of censorship.

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Twitter has a massive censorship issue, like it or not.

What do you believe in unfairly censored on twitter?

14 minutes ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

Logged in, had a look, still a cesspool of wacky journalists defending dictatorships and thieves, plus "verified" sources spreading fake news.

I think it is just as bad as I remembered.

Why are you following wacky journalists defending dictatorships and thieves, plus "verified" sources spreading fake news?

[Dominik W]

I personally would say I don't see much partisan censorship, that seems to be a 24 news show pundit talking point to get you riled up.

To me, it's more of a cesspool of people who easily get influenced by news title, and then just scream at each other-which means both the right AND left. It doesn't need "free speech" rules, the US Constitution doesn't apply to it. It needs normal, rational thinking people, and adequate moderation. If he wants to buy Twitter and implement free speech rules, good for him. That's how capitalism works. I would be and am curious to see how this plays out.

 

That's my two cents, because I have a sneaky suspicion this thread will become a mini-Twitter in just a bit, and the thread will be locked.

[wanderingfool2]

12 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Its literally the entire point of the system!! And they don't allow scams. Scams happening doesn't mean they allow them.

It's a stupid system then if they rely on "it's a check mark".  There will always be scams, but literally when for a years time the top replies to a tweet were fake scam accounts using the same profile picture and same display name it gets unacceptable.  Twitter, and to a point YouTube has a scam/spam bot issue...the fact that community lead youtube comment effort is handling the bots better than YouTube is is the telling thing.

 

There is a certain point where Twitter needs to take responsibility for what is happening on their platform; and being transparent about things (but I suspect they don't want to kick out all the bots because for them it drives their stats that they get to tout to share holders in regards to unique eyes on posts/analytics that they sell to promote tweets and such).

 

19 minutes ago, poochyena said:

ok?? The point is to REDUCE scams, which is does.

See the point above, doing a minimal effort should not be applauded and doesn't justify not trying to fix it.

 

22 minutes ago, poochyena said:

They are not notorious for that. Accidents happen, and they are corrected.

They sort of are, the way the accounts are verified are behind closed doors, they have on multiple occasions verified the wrong account, they have on multiple occasions not verified real people with massive amounts of followings.  I remember back in the day a few actor's "fan accounts" got the blue check before the actual actor did.  "Accidents happen" is a poor excuse when it's happening at the frequency they have it happening.

 

30 minutes ago, poochyena said:

yes, there is no other option. Though, if you think otherwise, i'm sure you could make millions with your "completely prevent 100% of all spam" idea.

Yes there is another option, multiple content creators have already mentioned it.  You don't allow accounts using the same/visually similar profile picture with a similar name to post replies.  I mean it's not rocket science...it's simple analysis.  Will it capture 100% of spam/scam, no, but it will at least eliminate a whole lot of it.

 

There are tons of examples of simple ways they could prevent a large chunk of the scams/spams; but they ultimately don't.  A verified check mark (that they get wrong) is not a good example of trying to prevent spam.

 

46 minutes ago, poochyena said:

You do understand why its not transparent, right? if it was, that would make it even easier for spammer to manipulate the system.

There is a difference in transparency vs giving enough information to manipulate the system...also the system doesn't need the manipulation protection as it's already pretty much compromised.

 

47 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Why are you following wacky journalists defending dictatorships and thieves, plus "verified" sources spreading fake news?

You do realize that Twitter promotes tweets and "verified" sources to people you don't follow.

 

49 minutes ago, poochyena said:

What do you believe in unfairly censored on twitter?

They shadow banned a decent amount of people who were posting the Israel medical study, showing that being infected equated to better long protection than vaccines (don't get me wrong, vaccines are key) but that kind of information shouldn't be "censored".  It was a medical journal, that is now widely accepted.  There are other cases where it also is the lack of censoring.  Like the case where they allowed CP to be posted, and not until the person in the video eventually went to homeland security did Twitter actually pull the video.  I've seen similar things, where something clearly illegal was listed as a promoted tweet.  Again, it's bringing light to the fact that there is very little transparency in terms of how Twitter decides what is or isn't bannable material and whether or not to block news articles or not.

[poochyena]

Just now, wanderingfool2 said:

It's a stupid system then if they rely on "it's a check mark".

They don't.

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There will always be scams, but literally when for a years time the top replies to a tweet were fake scam accounts using the same profile picture and same display name it gets unacceptable.  Twitter, and to a point YouTube has a scam/spam bot issue

I want you to name a major website that does not have a spam issue. As you even state, there will always be scams, so what you are even blaming twitter and youtube for, I don't know.

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There is a certain point where Twitter needs to take responsibility for what is happening on their platform; and being transparent about things (but I suspect they don't want to kick out all the bots because for them it drives their stats that they get to tout to share holders in regards to unique eyes on posts/analytics that they sell to promote tweets and such).

What, specifically? What "things"?

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

See the point above, doing a minimal effort should not be applauded and doesn't justify not trying to fix it.

Why do you believe the effort is "minimal"?

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

"Accidents happen" is a poor excuse when it's happening at the frequency they have it happening.

And what is that frequency, exactly? How many times in the past 10 years?

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Will it capture 100% of spam/scam, no

You are so dishonest. Don't say "yes" and then follow it up by saying it won't. Absolutely pathetic and dishonest. Shameful.

7 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There is a difference in transparency vs giving enough information to manipulate the system

What specifically do they need to be more transparent about?

7 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

it's already pretty much compromised.

No it hasn't. I use to be part of a "giveaway" community and people would spam entries into giveaways on twitter and accounts were regularly locked and twitter soon even restricted Gleam's features to make spam tweeting much slower. You clearly have no experience in the matter, so please stop acting as if you do.

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You do realize that Twitter promotes tweets and "verified" sources to people you don't follow.

yes, but none that are "wacky journalists defending dictatorships and thieves, plus "verified" sources spreading fake news"

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They shadow banned a decent amount of people who were posting the Israel medical study, showing that being infected equated to better long protection than vaccines (don't get me wrong, vaccines are key) but that kind of information shouldn't be "censored".  It was a medical journal, that is now widely accepted.  There are other cases where it also is the lack of censoring.  Like the case where they allowed CP to be posted, and not until the person in the video eventually went to homeland security did Twitter actually pull the video.  I've seen similar things, where something clearly illegal was listed as a promoted tweet.  Again, it's bringing light to the fact that there is very little transparency in terms of how Twitter decides what is or isn't bannable material and whether or not to block news articles or not.

Out of the entire 16 years history of Twitter, you can only think of 2 very isolated events, which they corrected, to prove that twitter's censorship is unreasonable? Really?

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

You are so dishonest. Don't say "yes" and then follow it up by saying it won't. Absolutely pathetic and dishonest. Shameful.

The least you could do is try a bit of reading comprehension before accusing me.  Did it ever cross your brain that I was answering yes to the fact that there are other options, and then saying that no system if fool-proof.  If you can't understand that then there is no point in me talking to you.  Let me break down the logic for you though.  Yes - There are other options than just doing a verified account, those options are plenty like what the community effort is doing on YouTube.  No it won't be 100%, but it's a whole lot better than the imaginary system that Twitter seems to have at the moment.

 

16 minutes ago, poochyena said:

yes, but none that are "wacky journalists defending dictatorships and thieves, plus "verified" sources spreading fake news"

And you accuse me of being dishonest and shameful.  If you don't understand that Twitter has issues, then good on you, but don't the majority of people do realize that there is inherently an issue with Twitter and the way it's currently operating.

 

17 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Out of the entire 16 years history of Twitter, you can only think of 2 very isolated events, which they corrected, to prove that twitter's censorship is unreasonable? Really?

Or you know, I just used two very quick simple examples that happened at least recently enough to be in my memory.  Did it ever occur to you that I don't want to look up older reports or stories about twitter censoring or failing to censor things.  Also you conveniently missed the points where I was saying I've experienced it myself (of reporting content) so it's not a "very isolated" event.

 

Anyways, I'm done responding to you, there isn't any point responding when you don't even take the time to try comprehending what I'm saying.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I'm not clear, with 9.2% share, Musk get to steer Twitter decision as a Board of Directors member?

9.2% may not seem like much but most investors would only own a small fraction of that. I don't know exactly how twitter shares are divided but this might place him in the top 3-4 shareholders and at a minimum in the top 11 (because math). That doesn't mean he gets to do whatever he wants with the platform but he definitely gets a significant say in where the company goes.

 

-edit- apparently this makes him the top shareholder https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/04/investing/elon-musk-twitter-shares-stake/index.html

also loving this freeze frame

 

With that said I doubt this will translate in him suddenly being able to tweet without repercussions of any kind. Unless he's actually as stupid as he comes off on twitter he probably realizes that a platform without moderation is pretty much guaranteed to fail, as demonstrated by the various scam ...alternative social platforms that have marketed themselves as being "free of censorship" only to fall back on banning people almost immediately. Besides he's hardly lacking the means to get his asinine shitposts out into the world.

39 minutes ago, Dominik W said:

I personally would say I don't see much partisan censorship, that seems to be a 24 news show pundit talking point to get you riled up.

Indeed, while I'd argue the moderation IS partisan it's not so in a political sense. It's simply biased towards ensuring the platform attracts users and investment. Most brands don't want their ads showing up next to nazis.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Wait

Elon musk legit just bought the biggest share in twitter out of any single person

to settle a free speach argument

 

wow, elon, think of what youd do if you had a serious reason to do it.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The least you could do is try a bit of reading comprehension before accusing me.  Did it ever cross your brain that I was answering yes to the fact that there are other options, and then saying that no system if fool-proof. 

The "other option" still requires you to accept that spam will exist on the platform.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you accuse me of being dishonest and shameful.  If you don't understand that Twitter has issues, then good on you, but don't the majority of people do realize that there is inherently an issue with Twitter and the way it's currently operating.

Show me promoted tweets advertising this. You might can find one if you spend hours looking, but twitter officially doesn't allow promoted political tweets.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Or you know, I just used two very quick simple examples that happened at least recently enough to be in my memory.

Sounds more like to me you are extrapolating from limited information.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Did it ever occur to you that I don't want to look up older reports or stories about twitter censoring or failing to censor things.

So then don't act like you're knowledgeable about the subject then.

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Most brands don't want their ads showing up next to nazis.

Most users don't want to see that.

[GhostRoadieBL]

Tin foil hat time!

 

-Musk buys seat on twitter's board

-moves for all tweets to be created as NFTs owned by the author (stay with me)

-uses commission from sales of tweets to pay for influencers to join the platform causing rapid growth of influence base while costing nothing to generate ad views

-'viral' tweets become profitable to sell creating more influencers

 

thicc tin foil hat

-twitter takes over Reuters and creates exclusive contracts for reporters and news writers (literally undercut the paid news link industry already on Twitter)

-Twitter becomes the sole news source for the vast majority of people because it's free and uses influential tweet sales (fees for linking to tweets "NFT sale to use tweet" from any remaining news/ad companies) to pay exclusive writers.

-stock tips and thoughts can no longer be blocked by a part owner of the company (FCC has some but mostly limp wristed power)

 

-host a stream from mars

[Dominik W]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Indeed, while I'd argue the moderation IS partisan it's not so in a political sense. It's simply biased towards ensuring the platform attracts users and investment. Most brands don't want their ads showing up next to nazis.

Or this. Twitter is a public company on the stock market after all.

[Arika]

11 hours ago, CactusMan said:

Can't wait for the day when Elon's Twitter only has US law as its rules and nothing more a la 4chan.

??????

 

it already is. Some of the shit is twitter is no better than 4chan.

[AnonymousGuy]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

9.2% may not seem like much but most investors would only own a small fraction of that. I don't know exactly how twitter shares are divided but this might place him in the top 3-4 shareholders and at a minimum in the top 11 (because math). That doesn't mean he gets to do whatever he wants with the platform but he definitely gets a significant say in where the company goes.

It basically does mean nothing.  He doesn't have a board seat so he doesn't have any direct impact in the company.  At most he can threaten to dump his shares, but 70M shares is really only worth < 10% of the stock price in movement and it would quickly recover anyways from that.  The stock basically averaged down on the weeks leading up to his disclosure of owning 70M shares.

 

(TBH I'm not even sure you're allowed to dump such a huge volume of shares that quickly.  I have an instinct that there's some rule about creating an "orderly market"  that a single entity dumping that many shares all at once would violate.)

[Mark Kaine]

13 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

… snip

i ran out of tinfoil, and it's your fault!