No. But you immediately made this into a Camp A vs. Camp B problem when in reality there could be a million different reasons for the Twitter board to not want to get acquired means you weren't trying to discuss this specific situation, you were looking to turn this into a debate on "wokeness". That's why I said you weren't discussing in good faith.
>The balance sheet speaks for itself.
Does it? Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well. So obviously he thinks Twitter has the potential to achieve much higher value through implementing XYZ. The board agrees too but just disagree on what that XYZ is.
Up to you to take him at his word however he has stated otherwise.
"It's important to the function of democracy, it's important to the function of the united states as a free country and on many other countries and actually to help freedom in the world more broadly than the US.
You know I think this there's the risk, civilizational risk, uh is decreased if twitter, the more we can increase the trust of twitter as a public platform and so I do think this will be somewhat painful and I'm not sure that I will actually be able to to acquire it.
I mean I could technically afford it um what I'm saying is this is not a way to sort of make money you know..
It's just that I think, 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"
Jesus I know it's Friday but some of you guys start drinking early man.
Why out of everything that he could invest in would he bother with twitter specifically? Whatever his intentions are it seems plausible that this isn't about money.
I get that you don't like him but this attitude of "I am right, you are wrong, and if you disagree you are drunk" is.. not a good look.
It's very plausible that this isn't about money, and I never said it's about money. However it's far more plausible that this is about a narcissist buying media and social influence and he wants to be able to shape public discourse that paints him in a positive light. He really cares what people thinks of him.
All of that would seem far more likely (and suits his past track record) than him doing this to "save democracy".
> Elon has seen the same balance sheet and he thinks the true value of the company is higher than what it is now as well.
Also I'm pretty sure a narcissist is exactly the sort of person to genuinely think he is saving democracy by buying a website.
Do you know him personally? Are you a trained psychiatrist? Narcissistic personality disorder can be a serious affliction, tell him I hope he gets the help he needs and that I wish him the best.
I personally just want to know what will happen to the stock.
He is already an influencer and owning a social network where he gets to set his own rules would be the best way to ensure his influence increases further.
Free speech on social media is an oxymoron. SM is designed to give you power in proportion to the number of connections you hold. Its a popularity contest of twisted, faked, carefully crafted viral thought - most real, true and meaningful things get lost in the sea of professional influencers.
You will find more real free speech with a single visit of a subreddit than you will within a week of being on social media.
have you seen the matrix? they powered a cluster the size of the planet using humans for batteries! this is the same scale problem, that and pedophilia.
Yes, but one version of XYZ (the board's) has been tried while the other (Elon's) has not. Elon's plan might lead to even worse results than the board's, but he doesn't think it would, hence his optimism if they adopt his plan.
a) Revenue increased 37% y/y.
b) User count growing at 2% y/y.
c) Profit of $273m in 2021 when you exclude once-off litigation expense.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-f...
The once-off litigation expense might soon be recuring in 2022, after this move. The former was a shareholder class action lawsuit, and the latter will most likely be the same.
So even if the lawsuit is recurring (neither of us know) they are still managing to reign in their losses.
By any definition the company is heading in the right direction.
Is that what good faith means now? Being religiously part of Camp A or B?
The balance sheet speaks for itself. Incidentally Parler or his potential Twitter clone will also end up a toxic internet community. Who cares? I personally wouldn't use either one.
Certainly with Twitter already doing a great job losing money and alienating most people (almost nobody actually tweets and usage is falling) an alternative would split the user base and accelerate their demise and the inane concept of web micro-forums being worth tens of billions of dollars. Companies will simply decide advertising on Parler/Twitter is not worth the hassle.