Elon Musk Takes 9.2pct Stake in Twitter Shares

[engine]

News that Elon Musk has taken a 9.2% share in Twitter has boosted the social media company stock up 26%.

The stake is worth about $2.89 billion, based on Friday’s market close.

“It looks like Elon has his eyes laser set on Twitter,” said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives in a research note, adding that the stake could lead to a “more aggressive ownership role.”

It’s unclear what Musk is planning with his stake. The filing with the SEC shows that the date of the event that triggered the disclosure was March 14. The type of form used often indicates the investor isn’t seeking to acquire control of a company, or to influence who controls it.

[bloomberg.com...]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I find much of the derogatory jargon used in describing the transaction to be quite offensive.

- It's not unclear what he's done, he's become Twitter's largest stakeholder
- He's not nefariously plotting to ruin the world with secret plans, he's quite clear - political censorship needs to end in the defacto town-square.
- People don't have to like other people's opinions but they shouldn't be allowed to silence them, they are free not to follow or listen.

ie: He's fixing something that had become quite broken, and there's news there as well coming from former CEO Jack Dorsey this week.https://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-founder-jack-dorsey-regrets-playing-a-role-in-centralising-the-internet/

Twitter founder Jack Dorsey has admitted he regrets his involvement in creating a centralised internet.

"The days of usenet, irc, the web...even email (w PGP)...were amazing," he said in a tweet on Sunday.

"Centralizing discovery and identity into corporations really damaged the internet. I realize I'm partially to blame, and regret it."

This is much the same as Elon has said only Elon wants to fix it. I'm sure those who want control over social media will hate it, and we'll read how horrible a human he is in other publications, but the town center needs to be brought back center, imo, and the stock price suggests people approve.

Fun fact: This town square may be going to Mars! Communications is just another aspect towards that goal. Most of Elon's companies advance some part of that goal for humanity.

[brotherhood of LAN]

>He's fixing something that had become quite broken

Good on him if he's looking for alternatives. He's not alone in thinking that the major platforms are/have become arbiters of truth, and it's increasing hard to find alternative sources of information. The town square analogy sounds like an honest one.

[engine]

We don't yet know his exact motives.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Exactly, which is why all the negative political rumors in media are sincerely offensive to many. He's been vocal about anti-censorship and he hasn't bought the stock through a process one would if he were planning to take control of Twitter's decision making, but he very much did become the largest shareholder. Hopefully that's enough to see the company self-regulate a bit more evenly.

I just might return it to my sites if it does.

[Marshall]

This town square may be going to Mars!

Social media platforms are not town squares in the sense of regulating what is posted.

major platforms are/have become arbiters of truth

Truth is like art, it is in the eye of the beholder.
A major problem stems from the fact that so many are ignorant of the First Amendment, and even what document says what. <relevant side note>Recently Sen. Marsha Blackburn posted on Twitter "The Constitution grants us rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – not abortions." I am not going to address the last part, but it is the Declaration of Independence that grants us rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.<end side note> In my reading I see so, so many people argue the media platforms are violating their First Amendment rights. Like Blackburn, people are lacking the basic knowledge of how this works.

If you actually had a town square, you cannot be censored BY THE GOVERNMENT for free speech. That is what is guaranteed in the First Amendment. However social media platforms ARE NOT the government, but like a business environment, your work place for example, you have no right to free speech. So I say, let us first educate people on what their rights truly are before we chastise media platforms for what they think is right for them. To me it falls in line with "You do not tell me how to run my business, and I should not tell you how to run yours."

[brotherhood of LAN]

Truth is like art, it is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps, IMO being able to see the full picture helps you hone what is and isn't. We're not really born with a BS detector, it takes practice and experience. Only seeing part of the picture harms the ability to decide for yourself.

I've noticed when it comes to these topics that Americans often compare to the idea of government censorship and often their definition of censorship is exactly that. I wouldn't disagree that companies should be able to enforce whatever policy they choose, but there's a bit of an issue with centralisation on the web where a handful of portals are filtering what can be seen, and it can be considered an issue.

[Marshall]

where a handful of portals are filtering what can be seen

That is not exactly true. There are portals for every point of view. And the only reason I mention the government is the First Amendment is too often being claimed to be violated when, in fact, it does not apply. Personally, I never post to anything (other than here) as people will believe what they want even when truth/facts are staring them in the face. So again, a) it is a point of view and b) it is not anyone's place to tell these platforms how to run their business, in this context.

[NickMNS]

Truth is like art, it is in the eye of the beholder.

No! Truth is by definition absolute, it is the thing/state that represents reality. Determining what the actual truth is may be an art, but a truth itself is absolute.

Only seeing part of the picture harms the ability to decide for yourself.

It was believed for hundreds of years that swans where white. Scientist at the time believed that they were seeing the "entire picture", and every time they saw a swan it was white, this confirmed their hypothesis. Then an explorer traveled to Australia and saw a black swan and suddenly the believe was shattered.

Now your probably thinking, "See a bigger picture is better". But no, by that logic one would need to continue searching and in fact one could never draw a conclusion as to what is the "truth" because one can always keep searching. A single instance of a black swan is sufficient to falsify the claim that all swans are white, continuing to search for more swans doesn't provide any benefit. The key is that the framing of the hypothesis was such that it could be falsified, where what we see these days is the framing of hypotheses that can never be falsified, instead these hypotheses are presented in a state where they are not "False", and since Not False == True then they must be true or at least potentially true and if only one keeps searching we will find the evidence to show that it is true. Just like the scientist in Europe, that kept finding more and more white swans allowing them to confidently draw the wrong conclusion about swans.

The missing element is a better understanding of critical thinking not more data. There is no lack of data in our society, no lack of opinions, what we need is to learn how to better parse the data and make sense of it.

[brotherhood of LAN]

There are portals for every point of view.

Yes, there likely is given the saturation of people with online access, but if you can't be seen on FB/Twitter/Google/Reddit then you're pretty much invisible. By taking a stance on any particular topic, these portals can ensure you're pretty much invisible. Seems decent enough for Musk to ask the question of whether a portal properly represents all opinions.

by that logic one would need to continue searching and in fact one could never draw a conclusion as to what is the "truth" because one can always keep searching.

I guess there's maybe too much emphasis on 'truth' here, after all science has no definitive answers, just degrees of probability. Seeing a black swan changes that probability, being able to know there are black swans changes your own probability to accepting all swans are white.

The missing element is a better understanding of critical thinking

For sure, but having the choice of being able to decide for yourself is one of the salient points IMO.

not more data

How many businesses or scientific discoveries were built on failure. Knowing what's wrong helps you move towards what's right.

[Marshall]

what we need is to learn how to better parse the data and make sense of it.

And that is why there is an actual organized group that truly believes the world is flat regardless of the evidence. Regardless of how you define truth, people will believe what they want no matter how you may filter, censor or limit information, PERIOD! I do not think the platforms are to blame, ignorance is.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Twitter CEO Agarwal shed some light on current events this morning.

“I’m excited to share that we’re appointing @elonmusk to our board! Through conversations with Elon in recent weeks, it became clear to us that he would bring great value to our Board,” said Agrawal in a tweet.

The CEO knew about what was happening for weeks even if we just found out this week. He has spoken repeatedly with Musk and, in a deal that prevents Musk from becoming majority shareholder, has appointed Musk to the board of directors. All of the doom articles were premature, as they usually are.

I suspect Elon is quite interested in seeing if people can be de-polarized and actually form inclusive communities despite differences. Accusing him of anything should probably wait until he actually does something, imo.

[tangor]

I suspect that what is actually happening is, in fact, a platonic hostile take-over.

T needed some cash, Elon needed an "in", and once the dust settles that 9.2% is going to find others in the shareholders that will join in via proxy and t just might be split into pieces... but, as always, only time will tell!

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Right after the CEO posted the message quoted above the staff and lower level managers issued a statement saying they were not going to be told by shareholders who they silence and don't. That message alone suggests there is indeed a battle unfolding @Twitter, from within.

I suspect Elon will see if those internal problems, and the hugely one-sided political bias/censorship, can be brought back towards neutral or if it's a lost cause.

tangor, Twitter is split in half already.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

CEO Agarwal updated the situation today, informing that Musk has decided NOT to join the board in this tweet.

"I believe this is for the best," wrote the CEO. "We have and will always value input from our shareholders whether they are on board or not. Elon is our biggest shareholder and we will remain open to his input."

With his decision not to join the board Musk can buy as many more shares as he wishes. The agreement to limit how much of the company he can own was contingent on his being a member.

[tangor]

The agreement to limit how much of the company he can own was contingent on his being a member.

... and a background check. :)

Waiting to see how this all shakes out!