Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter for $43 Billion

[engine]

Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter for $43 billion, which is the equivalent of $54.20 per share.

Musk, 50, announced the offer in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, after turning down a potential board seat at the company. The billionaire, who also controls Tesla Inc., first disclosed a stake of about 9% on April 4.

Twitter said that its board would review the proposal and any response would be in the best interests of “all Twitter stockholders.”

[bloomberg.com...]

www.bloomberg.com Elon Musk Makes $43 Billion Unsolicited Bid to Take Twitter Private Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk offered to take Twitter Inc. private in a deal valued at $43 billion, lambasting company management and saying he's the person who can unlock the -śextraordinary potential-ť of a communication platform used daily by more than 200 million people.

[Kendo]

Tweeted personal opinion is editorial and commentary, not the same as news.

Yes and no. I see a lot news that has to be personal opinion. That is most obvious when I two different local news sites reporting different slants on the same events.

After all, they are only human and looking at the reports that they get, they make their own assumptions... or work them to make a more interesting story.

[thecoalman]

In the US, there is no right to have one's speech amplified through someone else's books, newspaper, magazine, radio station or tv. And now, Internet sites.

Books, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations and others don't get to hide behind the liability exemptions in section 230.

While I'm of the opinion that section 230 is one of the most important laws the US has to promote free speech I'm also of the opinion that it is being abused by these large platforms like Twitter. Generally speaking when the US government carves out a special law for an industry there is an expectation the US population gets something in return.

Cruz had a bill a few years back that I think could serve as starting point for a discussion. His bill would of required these larger platforms with X million users certify they were not censoring political speech. Granted how you would certify this is very problematic but I think the gist of the idea is fair. Smaller operators and sites like Webamasterworld could continue to operate how they want.

[thecoalman]

You are assuming the US constitution is correct in what rights it grants. I would say the world has changed quite a bit since it was written.

There is only a few things not protected in the US, yelling fire in a crowded is the common example. You can publicly say almost anything you want no matter how ignorant or vile it may be. You can research the Westboro Baptist Church for extreme examples.

It's a double edged sword but I'll take the double edge over some bureaucrat deciding for me what is acceptable speech.

[edited by: thecoalman at 2:40 pm (utc) on Apr 19, 2022]

[motorhaven]

3. Obliges the directors to agree to sell it if the offer is worth enough to be the best option for shareholders (this law is not well enforced and directors usually do what suits them).

It does not oblige them. See Dodge vs Ford. Directors are not obliged to look at short term share pricing only. If there is good cause to believe the price will go up to that over time, then they have to consider that. Plus many shareholders will be given a forced capital gain tax hit whether they like it or not, or are prepared for it, and that is not in their best interest.

[motorhaven]

Cruz had a bill a few years back that I think could serve as starting point for a discussion. His bill would of required these larger platforms with X million users certify they were not censoring political speech. Granted how you would certify this is very problematic but I think the gist of the idea is fair. Smaller operators and sites like Webamasterworld could continue to operate how they want.

Cruz is of the same group who in the past moaned about the "Fairness Doctrine" not allowing radio and tv to decide which political views could be expressed on their programs. If they don't want the Fairness Doctrine because its absence benefits them (on talk radio and editorial tv shows), they shouldn't on the other hand push for its equivalent online.

What's next, forcing large newspapers and magazine not to have a political lean?

[thecoalman]

Twitter operates on the US side of things is governed by that law.

Only government is governed by the first amendment. The only time this would apply to another entity is typically when they were commiting some other. crime.

The issue is section 230. Twitter and other platforms abuse this privilege so they can assert editorial control over content without the liability other publications have. Granted every site on the internet with USG does this to some degree or another but due to their dominance in the industry it's something that needs to be addressed.

[thecoalman]

Cruz is of the same group who in the past moaned about the "Fairness Doctrine" ...

There is politicians on both sides of the aisle that have taken positions for/against the Fairness Doctrine and other similar legislation dependent on whatever was politically expedient at the time. Biden for example supported completely removing section 230 altogether and wholesale removal would be a travesty.

Any comments on the proposal itself?

[thecoalman]

What's next, forcing large newspapers and magazine not to have a political lean?

Apples and oranges, they are liable for the content they publish.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The same media publishing doom headlines today praised Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post and veering it hard left. News media has become a political tool more than it's ever been, as has social media, which is how we got here. Regardless...

Back to the subject of this thread, another update - Elon secured a partner to move forward with and overcome the "poison pill" response from Twitter's board, as you may have guessed by the sheer volume of dramatic stories being published tonight.

[motorhaven]

Apples and oranges, they are liable for the content they publish.

Newspapers and magazines have for the most part, moved online, and have user comments covered by section 230.

If precedent is set with government regulating speech on Twitter, it's not a big leap for this to carry over to small social networks (WebmasterWorld for example) and other user generated content. You can't predict future politicians won't grossly expand this new power. Historically, they always have.

Its too bad many people can't put on their big boy pants, realize not every outlet is going agree with their views, grow up and move on. Having billions doesn't mean Musk's diaper isn't seen.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Morgan Stanley, Blackrock and Vanguard, whom some consider the financing arm of the World Economic Forum(WEF) have upped their stake in Twitter to roughly 10% each.

[motorhaven]

You're currently only allowed one-sided views and can question nothing,

No one is stopping you from question anything. You're free to shout your views from public property, start a web site of your own and post your thoughts, post in other places, etc. What you are not free to do it go into someone else's property and determine their rules.

I don't like the politics of Twitter. Yes, they lean left, but so what? Many outlets lean the other way. It's okay with me either way.

I don't see how that means you don't have "big boy pants" if you think it's likely not a good thing..

An analogy:
If I go into someone's home I abide by their rules. If they tell me "don't talk about your video games here, or leave", I leave if I don't like it. I think its childish to cry about it.

[graeme_p]

It does not oblige them. See Dodge vs Ford. Directors are not obliged to look at short term share pricing only. If there is good cause to believe the price will go up to that over time, then they have to consider that.

I did not say they had to look at the short term share price, I said they had to act in the best interest of the shareholders.

Unless they have a real prospect of getting a better offer there is very rarely a good reason to explect the share price to go up. The market clearly does not believe it (or the price would be higher) and is usually right.

This is one of many excuses that directors use to protect their own interests. It is fine in theory, but in practice is just creates a loophole in the law.

If you look at Twitter's current poison pill tactics the aim is to just prevent anyone (meaning Musk) from buying a large shareholding. To put in another way, they are preventing shareholders who do think Musk's offer is good enough from selling to him. How is that in their interests? It would not be allowed in some countries (e.g. in the UK - section 21 of the takeover code).

Directors often fail to act in the long term interests of shareholders and a lot of rejected takeover offers would have been better for shareholders. Microsoft's bid for Yahoo is a good example. There was no realistic prospect of getting a better offer or the business recovering well enough to be worth more and the shareholders ended up with a fraction of what MS offered.

[engine]

It seems Musk has secured funding of $46.5 billion to help finance a takeover deal. So, actually, he's not funding the whole thing.

In an updated filing published Thursday, Musk said that given the lack of response from Twitter’s board, he is now exploring a tender offer to purchase some or all shares of the company directly from its stockholders.

The filing says Musk has received commitments for $46.5 billion to help finance the potential deal. Musk has secured about $25.5 billion in debt financing through Morgan Stanley Senior Funding and other firms, and he said he has committed about $21 billion in equity financing. The other participating firms are Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, Societe Generale, Mizuho Bank and BNP Paribas.

Musk has not yet determined if he will make a tender offer for Twitter or whether he will take other steps to further the proposal, the filing states.

[cnbc.com...]

[ronin]

My stream would look a little something like...

- Politics off (left, right, center and off being the options)
- Science, Tech and History HIGH (High, Low and off being the options on each)
- Humor LIGHT (Light, Dark and off being the options etc).
- Etc...

I very much like the concept of this kind of smart-content-filter but...

if an algo is tuned to do the heavy lifting

... from what little I know of AI (and I could be wrong, GPT-4 could be with us as soon as Summer 2022 and I anticipate it's going to be very clever by AI standards :: [towardsdatascience.com...] ), even the most advanced Natural Language Processing AI would struggle to comprehend / analyse humor.

And politics for that matter.

e.g.

- Is the idea of having a constitution political?
- Is enabling religion political?
- Is promoting the idea of a mercantile society political?

Despite my thoughts above, I agree with many members here that Twitter, as it currently manifests itself in 2022, needs (somehow, some kind of) reform / evolution... but I fear that the part of Twitter which most needs evolution is not the software part but the part responsible for input.

towardsdatascience.com GPT-4 Is Coming Soon. Here's What We Know About It Official info, current trends, and predictions.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I was referring to being given the option to choose my own feed settings, not be forced to hear from some people I don't care for and be unable to hear from some I would like to. We're all different, the one "our community" settings don't work for everyone. The heavy lifting would be filtering out illegal speech, a daunting task given each country has different laws.

I think the input, especially around election time, would be more digestible for all if it wasn't drowned in Zuckerbucks sauce, suddenly hyper-political actors and media paid to egg it all on.

and the bots....

Anyway - it's tough to stay focused on the topic, another update.
- Elon secured partners and funding to take his offer directly to shareholders, despite the "poison pill" defense set up by the shareless board.

I find it doubtful anything more happens, as I pointed out Blackrock and Vanguard upped their stake over 10% each. The timing, and the fact they act as the financing arm of the WEF, suggest they bought to make Twitter insaleable. This is going to end up in court for a long time.

[aristotle]

Trump was banned from Twitter because he used it to help bring about a violent attack on the U.S. Congress.

Quote from the Twitter blog of January 8, 2021, two days after the attack:

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

He hasn't been charged with that, much less found guilty, but mentioning him is a good way to shut down a thread isn't it..

There are still regular people being held 15 months later despite not being armed, some even had kids with them etc. In comparison a suspected gunman accused of injuring 14 as he shot up a mall last week was released on $25,000 bond the next day. Twitter acting as judge on their own leaves them open to future lawsuit, they;ve become part of the problem.

[motorhaven]

Sgt, do you have the right to determine what speech cannot be said on your property?

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Sure, my domain, my rules. That doesn't mean I can't be held liable for my actions though. I can't just go accuse you of trying to start an insurection for example, only the courts can determine guilt on that. This is beside the point anyway, Twitter got very political in one direction and most don't like it judging by poll results on Twitter itself, so here we are now.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

*update* - Elon has upped the offer by 3 billion, secured the funding, brought in partners and has the cash ready to go. Saying no at this level of offer is certain to trigger shareholder lawsuits if the board blocks the sale.

Elon has been clear - if he takes control the board will be let go and the company will become private and taken off Wall St.

He also expects the 10% most radical voices on either end of the political spectrum to be unhappy with the new freedom of speech so long as its legal speech rules.

*wildcard* - buying Twitter would allow the new owners to see who was spending what to influence you and those people are undoubtedly uncomfortable..Elon has not said he'd reveal any such information, in fact it would probably be bad for business... but the fear he might is there.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

April 23 - Over the past year the stock markets are heading lower in record amounts. Inflation is skyrocketing, economists are fairly sure we're heading into a "modest recession" at least and the central bank predicted 4 or more rate hikes to come, maybe more. Inflation + Recession = stagflation, and extremely hard times for everyone.

In that light - the offer is well over pre-stagflation values, can Twitter even afford the lawsuits if they block shareholders from cashing in on the offer? Even if the value only drops a little bit that would be a 50% drop since he's offering well over pre-stagflation value. Does Twitter have 25 billion in cash reserves to cover a likely shareholder lawsuit?

Do the shareless board members?

The stakes are impossibly high.

[thecoalman]

Newspapers and magazines have for the most part, moved online, and have user comments covered by section 230.

And if section 230 is removed they would be liable for the comments too. That's besides the point.

The argument being made is that with extensive amount of moderation/editing and blocking of content they are no longer the service provider but the publisher.

If precedent is set with government regulating speech on Twitter, it's not a big leap for this to carry over to small social networks (WebmasterWorld for example) and other user generated content. You can't predict future politicians won't grossly expand this new power. Historically, they always have.

Section 230 does not regulate free speech, it's an enabler that shields the service provider from civil liability. Twitter is free to publish whatever they want without government interference whether this law exists or not.

One thing to bear in mind about this law is the original context. This was part of a much broader set of laws that would of had service providers blocking #*$!ography, those have mostly been gutted as unconstitutional. Section 230 was included to prevent them from being sued for blocking that content. It's been in existence long before these social media sites exploded in popularity.

[motorhaven]

You have it backwards concerning moderation and publisher status.

I have experience in this area, having run large online communities since 1996 I've had more baseless legal threats by those who have been moderated than I can count thrown my way. Section 230 was crafted to allow moderation while not requiring it (there are exceptions such as FOSTA), and still providing immunity (exceptions here too). Unmoderated content was already protected under precedents and law with common carriers, libraries and book stores.

Powerful people who have been moderated, and their supporters, claiming it only protects sites without moderation - are simply wrong.

The service provider can take:
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(bold and emphasis is mine)

See: [law.cornell.edu...]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

*update* April 25th. Done deal?

Twitter seems to have warmed to Elon's $54.20 offering and are in meetings about the sale today. A deal may be reached in the next 48 hrs. Shares rose $3+ on the news.

[msn.com...]

Twitter employees are still defiant stating it's "our platform" but prevailing market conditions, global inflation, declining stock markets and a likely poor upcoming Twitter quarterly report are alinging in Musk's favor. It's very likely he's overpaying by a good margin according to experts which makes the offer hard to reject. Mainstream media is fearful of Musk, but the same publications didn't fear Bezos buying the WaPo so it feels largely political.

[phranque]

the Twitter board has voted unanimously to accept the offer at $54.20 per share:
[theverge.com...]

[edited by: phranque at 9:02 pm (utc) on Apr 25, 2022]

www.theverge.com Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company It's Elon's show now

[motorhaven]

Restoring free speech shouldn't be a threat to anyone.

Elon has demonstrated since take over that free speech isn't something he actually understands and practices.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Elon has demonstrated since take over that free speech isn't something he actually understands and practices.

The old Twitter did? Does any social network?

[phranque]

the "old Twitter" never declared itself a "free speech absolutist"...

[tangor]

It did in the beginning, but that didn't last long.