Twitter “no longer exists” as a company, merges into Musk’s X Corp

Re:Twitter “no longer exists” as a company, merges into Musk... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @02:04PM (#35528807)

IMO only, but it seemed obvious to me that he bought Twitter because he signed a contract in a mixture of arrogance and bad faith entirely expecting to find be able to use the process to embarrass Twitter on the way to wriggling out of his commitment and then found himself trapped by it while Twitter’s now-former management and owners laughed all the way to the bank.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter “no longer exists” as a company, merges into Musk... by kjs3 on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @02:13PM (#35528930)

I don't think those necessarily are contradictory rationales. With that much hubris being slung around, there's room for any number of reasons, which seemed to have changed over time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter “no longer exists” as a company, merges into Musk... by v0idzer0 on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @07:25PM (#35533110)

Speaking of hubris, is it possible there’s tons of non public factors that affected his rationale and we’ll never really know the whole truth?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter “no longer exists” as a company, merges into Musk... by mindslight on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @03:28PM (#35530170)

But didn't he forgo many of the standard contingency clauses that he would have been able to use to wiggle out of the deal?

I'd say the attitude you're describing seems more like the second chapter of the story, where the first was that he earnestly wanted to aggressively acquire it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter “no longer exists” as a company, merges into Musk... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @03:44PM (#35530447)

> But didn't he forgo many of the standard contingency clauses that he would have been able to use to wiggle out of the deal?

That's the arrogance part, yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]