> an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable.

I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have a lot of experience with running ad sales. His big breaks have been PayPal (kind of), Tesla and SpaceX. None of which were social, none of which were "free".

So you think he got 3 lucky breaks when with electronic payments, electric cars, and space rockets, and Twitter is too hard?

He got a lucky break with payments that allowed him to try his luck on the other two

He didn't have a lot of experience in cars or rockets either.

I’m not sure either (there is of course uncertainty). But in Tesla and SpaceX, he shows good management, while my (outsider) impression of Twitter’s is that it’s dropping the ball.

Also, I think Twitter was undervalued compared to its potential, and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit.

> and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit.

Unless he was buying a seat on the board so that he could help effect change that he desired.

My paypal account is free. It is way more useful than my twitter account which I don't even know my handle.

It's free to someone who only buys product. It's not free to someone receiving money.

Twitter is simultaneously useless and also the life-blood of western politics. The people in power care more about what Twitter thinks than what voters think.

Your paypal account charges you every time you make a transaction. It is not free.

This is false. There is no fee when making a purchase in at least the US or Canada [0]. The exception is when there is a currency conversion involved (about a 4% fee).

There are fees when receiving money as a result of selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes (likely most) of its money.

[0] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees

It is not false, when you pay for a product with paypal it takes a fee off the person receiving the money. The person receiving the money knows of this cost in advance so adds it onto the price in advance. Therefore the purchaser pays.

It's not always true that a vendor receiving money will increase prices to pass the PayPal fees to the consumer. You can see that many checkouts offer multiple options (e.g. both PayPal, Stripe, and/or other methods), with the item price usually the same even if each method has a different fee. The idea is that you want to make purchasing as convenient as possible, as it costs more to lose a sale, versus paying an incremental fee difference with PayPal.

If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who is less likely to return and make more purchases). Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a conference ticket or course fee).

Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal account charges you each transaction (which is false). The new argument is different, which asserts that a vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.

>The new argument is different, which asserts that a vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say you got charged extra for paypal over Stripe, for instance.

Stripe which you mention is also expensive, and also factored in to the price. I don't know of any serious eccomerce company that is not acutely aware of card fees. Every payment gateway charges high fees and it is factored in to the price the consumer pays.

It's certainly true that the stock is currently way up on the news of his investment.

I personally would not invest in a company where I cannot trust claims being made by the board.

I am so curious as to what's in your portfolio...

he hasn't had any experience running a company that doesn't rely on subsidies in over a decade but I appreciate your optimism.

More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices. Twitter has become a liberal vacuum that, as a liberal, has gone way too far to the left in silencing voices. It's not a private company, it's a public company, and I hope Elon turns it around into a true, free speech town square, instead of just an echo chamber for blue checks.

>More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices.

I wonder if people who say things like this actually use Twitter. Twitter has far less moderation than the other social media giants. It’s a high school popularity contest, and the cool kids didn’t need blue check marks from the teachers to be cool.

"As a liberal, twitter has gone way too far to the left in silencing voices?" Twitter moderation is blind on harassment, nazis who brag about it are using the platform to dox people without any repercussions, send death threats, etc. what the hell are you even talking about?

Sounds like a job for the legal system, not yet another secret kangaroo court run by people with a very narrow ideological bent.

The legal system is too slow. If twitter couldn't moderate itself it wouldn't be moderated. That may sound good, but honestly, think about it for a second. That would pretty much be the end of twitter.

> blind

Wow that's very troubling. Can you show some examples of studies, or representative serious anecdotes?

Blue checks do not equal blue voices, but you already know that. Twitter is the worst mainstream platform when it comes to right wing propaganda and scientific misinformation. Free speech in this case is code for saying anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons. Twitter excels at it already, let's not make it worse.

Do you think the government should censor incorrect or hateful speech and if not, why not?

The conversation is about Twitter, why are you bringing up the government.

It's a really simple question (yes or no, and just a single sentence about the reasoning if "no") and I hope the principle of charity can be extended when I say the discussion will come back to Twitter very quickly.

The OP hasn't provided their answer but I'd be interested in your answer too!

I wasn't talking about the government. Don't distract from the topic.

You were talking about free speech:

> Free speech in this case is code for saying anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons.

I was just curious if the government's guarantee not to censor political speech is just as ill-advised. A quick "yes" would take about 5 seconds to give, or of not, just a short sentence about what the motivation is for keeping the government out of policing political speech. e.g. "If the government can suppress political speech, then..."

Doesn't seem like a huge ask for the curious!

Should you be allowed to yell something like "fire" in a crowded indoor space? That you want to murder the president? That, insert x culture or race, "should be exterminated"? Ultimately, I would like to hear about this government guarantee you speak of and what you believe/what is codified into whatever human construct that you think allows unlimited speech of any kind at any time aka your vision of 'free speech'.

No, it is literally a private company. Which is why we are having this discussion based off of SEC filings.

Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good. Twitter is a public company, but not a public good.

I don't think that means what you think it means, perhaps you are international? A Public company is one that is owned by shareholders of a public exchange. This is why Elon can buy into it and become a member of the board. If it were a private company he could not do that.

No, it is literally a public company. TWTR is traded on NASDAQ. Which is why we are having this discussion based off of SEC filings. Private companies are not required to file with the SEC.

I believe they mean public in the publically-traded sense, but I agree with you. It's not in the public (citizen controlled) sense

If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction.

> If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction

All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction, including those issued by unlisted companies, e.g. start-ups.