Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu...
by majestic5762 on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @02:34AM
(#38376113)
He bought Twitter for power, omnipresence and reputation. Allowing him to play the game his way.
Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu...
by DoreenMichele on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @02:35AM
(#38376120)
Funny, I thought he bought Twitter because he shot his mouth off in public and the courts made him follow through.
Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu...
by strikelaserclaw on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @08:57AM
(#38379178)
I haven't seen this type of drama in years, surely thats not enough to sustain X
Re:We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to retu...
by nickpp on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @10:24AM
(#38380467)
> Why would one person owning something so important be better than being publicly owned?
Usually publicly owned things end up being controlled by someone: a CEO, a main investor, a crooked board, a government, a shady governmental organization. At least with Elon owning X, things are a little more transparent, he’s rather candid where he stands.
Now, the question is “who owns Musk?” of course.
1. He tried to not buy Twitter very hard and OpenAI’s new board member forced his hand
2. It hasn’t been a good financial decision if the banks and X’s own valuation cuts are anything to go by.
3. If his purpose wasn’t to make money…all of these tweets would have absolutely been allowed before Elon bought the company. He didn’t affect any relevance changes here.
Why would one person owning something so important be better than being publicly owned? I don’t understand the logic.