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.

[Sissi]

That s equivalent to Slovenia GDP

[brotherhood of LAN]

I wonder what he wants to see done differently.

[engine]

>I wonder what he wants to see done differently.

In public ownership you're limited because of shareholders and the responsibilities towards the market. Once it's private, you can pretty much say what you want, within reason, of course.

[brotherhood of LAN]

>In public ownership you're limited because of shareholders and the responsibilities towards the market. Once it's private, you can pretty much say what you want, within reason, of course.

True, but I can't see him looking for autonomy on the matter, so I wonder whose choices are to be made.

[engine]

I just don't get it. With $43 billion he could build a competitor.

With $43 billion he could do a lot of good in many areas, such as education, health, etc.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I just don't get it. With $43 billion he could build a competitor.
With $43 billion he could do a lot of good in many areas, such as education, health, etc.

If you don't get it you're not paying attention to half the population who feel it's been quite broken for some time.

He's been crystal clear in that people don't need alternatives or competition, they need to be allowed to speak without the political flavor of the day suppresing those with different opinions. The former CEO and Musk are oddly of the same mind on this, see Jack's regret message.

Regardless - offer rejected.

Twitter's board hired Goldman Sach's to advise that $54 per share was too low. Problem is that Goldman also has a sell rating and target price of $30 for Twitter. Politics wins and Twitter shareholders are the likely initial losers..Restoring free speech shouldn't be a threat to anyone.

[motorhaven]

If you don't get it you're not paying attention to half the population who feel it's been quite broken for some time.

He's been crystal clear in that people don't need alternatives or competition, they need to be allowed to speak without the political flavor of the day suppresing those with different opinions. The former CEO and Musk are oddly of the same mind on this, see Jack's regret message.

Regardless - offer rejected.

Twitter's board hired Goldman Sach's to advise that $54 per share was too low. Problem is that Goldman also has a sell rating and target price of $30 for Twitter. Politics wins and Twitter shareholders are the likely initial losers..Restoring free speech shouldn't be a threat to anyone.

If you believe Musk is interested in free speech, you're not paying attention to his history. He has repeatedly tried to muzzle freely speech at Tesla. This is about control.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Elon said this about his reason to want to purchase Twitter. He ran a poll asking Twitter users what they thought first and the response was as expected.

“This is not a Way to Make Money – To Have a Public Platform that Is Maximally Trusted and Inclusive Is Important to the Future of Civilization”

A person can't disagree with a narrative on Twitter right now. Something as simple as "you can't ban pickup trucks or farmers will have to fill their prius with chicken feed" gets one in trouble, it's not aligned with an approved narrative, like climate.

Anyway - the man has accomplished some amazing things so far and fixing Twitter would have been nice..

[Kendo]

i didn't know Twitter was broken.

[tangor]

It's a bit premature to engage in speculation since the sale has NOT happened, and we don't know when or if it will ever take place.

[bwnbwn]

Keno Twitter is BROKEN. They censor what they feel goes against THEIR ideology and allow post that highlights their ideology.
In other words it's run by a small group of people suppressing freedom.
This buy WONT happen EVER Twitter is gonna end up like Ma Bell.

[Kendo]

They censor what they feel goes against THEIR ideology and allow post that highlights their ideology.

Their ideology or any ideology that prevents it from serving as a sewer?

If preventing hate speech and false news is preventing freedom of speech, then I recommend the latter.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Kendo wrote: Their ideology or any ideology that prevents it from serving as a sewer? If preventing hate speech and false news is preventing freedom of speech, then I recommend the latter.

What would a sewer look like - people saying everything and everyone they disagree with comes from a sewer with fake news and hate speech? It's there now and not just broken, it's fixing to go broke. IMO of course.

That's why we are here now. Lets wait for actual facts to emerge about Twitter's direction in the coming months, they have much to discuss..

[Kendo]

There is a simple solution... don't use it.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I haven't for some years, personally or on my sites, because it's been broken.

Then again I happen to think opposing views, and the right to have them, are a good thing.

[motorhaven]

"Opposing" views exist and are expressed in many places.

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.

1. You have no right to free speech on someone else's property.
2. You do have a right have government not control your speech.

The same group of people who complain about Twitter have been supporting government laws and policies all over the US censoring libraries. They care little about actual rights.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

1. You have no right to free speech on someone else's property.

Twitter has become a one sided political echo chamber. Don't worry about everyone being treated the same anytime soon on Twitter.
Musk may go in with a partner and defeat the "poison pill", he may sell his shares and cause an estimated 20% stock price drop, he may launch a competitor and not require political adherence to one party,.. or he may leave it broken. Time will tell.

NO POLITICS > ALL POLITICS > 1 SIDED POLITICS

[blend27]

-- Twitter has become a one sided political echo chamber. --

Says who, the other side?

Private company, they do whatever they want to the extent of allowed. If they don't want 'MUSK-SEE my tantrums' on their platform they have the right to say 'Not So Fast'.

I have a 2mm net on one side of the My Garden so the seeds of that weed flower from the neighbor who does not take care of his property do not get thru when it is windy. I could still see it but it does not grow in my garden. On the other side, the owner does not care, so she spends countless hours - daily/weekly/yearly, pulling that stuff from the soil.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Blend, I don't see what your analogy of nets catching people you don't like has to do with the subject but it illustrates the divisive nature of the problem. Regardless, from a user point of view, it's doubtful a Twitter bird with only a left wing flies very well moving forward.

Back on topic...

Fact: Now that Jack left, Twitter's board members own roughly 0.2% of Twitter's shares with several members owning none at all. Their objectives aren't very aligned with that of the shareholders, as evidenced by their recent decision making without consulting those shareholders..There are problems @Twtter. Even Jack agrees and said he feels partly responsible..

If Musk doesn't buy Twitter and find a way to re-balance free speech it's a moot point and alternatives will continue to grow...

There was a bit of hope there for a minute. This thread can be locked unless more "Elon news" unfolds, which is unlikely now. The political divide is wide.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

*Update*

Musk posted a tweet today simply saying "Love Me Tender".

An open tender is a method of buying shares directly between a buyer and the shareholders. A specific minimum and maximum price are set, along with a time limit, and any shareholder wishing to sell directly to Elon can do so without board approval. The SEC and DOJ have taken interest making the entire process seem that much more newsworthy.

It seems the true value of Twitter is in the influence sector. This is likely to become precedence, who knows what else is in Twitter records but former CEO Jack Dorsey has already appologized for where Twitter is now.

Popcorn please.

[graeme_p]

Twitter's board hired Goldman Sach's to advise that $54 per share was too low. Problem is that Goldman also has a sell rating and target price of $30 for Twitter.

An optimist would say that is evidence that their different business are operating independently as they are legally supposed to.

A pessimist would say that is because Twitter's board hired them to say what the board wanted rather than an independent opinion.

Both are probably true.

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.

Twitter operates globally.

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.

[topr8]

>>Twitter operates globally.

yes that is right - as do many other companies these days, perhaps there needs to be a rethink about how 'globalist' companies should be regulated (or not)

regarding Twitter in the UK. it has been heavily promoted by the likes of the BBC over the years and has been presented/perceived as a news platform and not as a private company persuing its' own agenda. therefore i personally believe it should have to behave like a news platform and should be regulated as such, eg. it is not for twitter (in the UK) to say who should or should not have a voice.

obviously this is a super hot potatoe and it is full of nuance and grey areas and thus is hard to discuss seriously in a forum where you just write a few lines of text.... especially when it is so potitically charged.

[motorhaven]

Twitter operates globally.

Thanks Captain Obvious. :-)

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.

I am not assuming anything. It is the highest US law, whether you, I or anyone else believe it's correct or incorrect. So how Twitter operates on the US side of things is governed by that law.

therefore i personally believe it should have to behave like a news platform and should be regulated as such, eg. it is not for twitter (in the UK) to say who should or should not have a voice.

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

[topr8]

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

i think what is considered news has changed a lot of the last couple of decades.

for instance, my wife is ukranian and she is currently in her motherland. if she tells me a 'fact' about what is currently happening and i post that fact on twitter, i'm not a journalist and it would be second hand info (although i believe it is absolutely true fact as i believe my wife), would that be considered news? or should it be considered news?

how about if she posts it herself on twitter. she is a first hand eye-witness to events, but she isn't a journalist either .... is what she posts to be considered news? or not? what if she says that a missile fell several blocks away and the russians fired it ... is that opinion or news, she can be sure a missile fell and exploded - however she cannot know for sure that the russians fired it, she is just assuming that - is it now just opinion not news?

in the UK, television 'news' shows and channels have blurred what used to be thought of as news. their shows are full of 'opinion' as part of news bulletins ... should it not be allowed to be called news? should it have a disclaimer on the screen saying that what is being said is opinion not facts.

i can see this on all sides, both with the political parties and with special interest groups (climate etc) ... i see tv news channels make reports of opinions and present them as facts.

we can get philisophical and ask, what is truth? what is fact? what is real and what is propaganda? ... and news has always been to some (large) extent propaganda.

i'd argue that, today, opinion and commentary IS news ... consider this:
in the UK, it is common for news companies to go out on the street and ask people a simple question about a current event ... they then broadcast the answers and it is presented as news ... but why should the opinion/thought of random people we don't know anything about be relevant to the question ... and how do we know how many answers they didn't broadcast because it didn't suit them.
i'm sure news companies in other countries do the same.

i'm just throwing things up in the air ... however i'm absolutely suggesting that what we call 'news' has changed dramatically in recent times and platforms such as twitter need to reflect that.

they do without doubt censor some people and not others ... my view is that it shouldn't be their call. because. they are not a normal company, they are a huge worldwide information network.

and btw. i'm not anti USA or US companies. I love the usa, have travelled throughout the country (more than most americans) and have promoted it extensively (this for motorhaven)

[brotherhood of LAN]

@topr8 fully agree and well put. It feels like uncharted territory and indeed divisive. The point you make about getting first hand information is crucial IMO. Beyond that, crowdsourced facts seem to be the way things are going as a best effort in mitigating any one particular narrative.

Most of us are sat far way from the news about Ukraine and who's to say one way or the other, honestly.

I guess ideally in the same way the Internet could deal with being fractured, information discovery could cope the same way.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Topr8 - best wishes for the safety of your wife.

You mentioned that "we could get philosophical and ask what is truth, what is fact etc and I just wanted to remind of one ultimately important fact. Twitter is just a place for people to discuss.

Twitter is not a doctor, a lawyer, a financial advisor, editorial news, your plumber, etc, etc etc... you should NOT look to Twitter to be any of these. As such there is no need to seek absolute truth in every tweet, nor should ANYONE expect to find only absolute truth on Twitter, least of all about politics. What everyone SHOULD find is the ability to ask questions, and to question the answers, and have the ability to follow who they want and ignore who they want on an individual level.

If you need medical advice only your doctor should give that, not Twitter. If you need legal advice talk to your lawyer, not Twitter etc. This has been forgotten along the way, or ignored and used as an excuse to silence. By "you" I mean everyone, not you specifically Topr8. I suspect the real battle happening @Twitter has more to do with political influence and, perhaps, knowing who has paid for such influence, and to what end. The former CEO, Jack, seems to be suggesting that over the past few days, he says the "backstabbing" by the board would make a good movie. He should know.

Again.. best wishes for your wife, I can't even imagine how difficult it is to be unsure of physical safety like that. Whatever happens with Twitter is irrelevant in comparison but lets hope it brings regular people together.

*UPDATE* - Elon told investment advisor Gary Black today that if he succeeds in purchasing Twitter he will fire all board members and downsize the staff by 10%, moves that would save the company enough to underpin an additional $10 billion in financing. He also seems set on using Twitter's largely unused San Fran offices for the homeless in California.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Mr Musk has asked what other features users would like to see, here's my wish: The ability to tune what I see myself. 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...

There is no need for a part time twitter board or as many twitter chaperones to decide what I see if an algo is tuned to do the heavy lifting and I can give my desired content list myself. If I want to follow a specific topic I should be able to join a like-minded group. Twitter would thus allow people to surround themselves with people like them while not preventing others from doing the same.

[graeme_p]

I am not assuming anything. It is the highest US law, whether you, I or anyone else believe it's correct or incorrect. So how Twitter operates on the US side of things is governed by that law.

True, but the laws as they stand:

1. Allow Elon Musk to buy it for whatever reason he wants.
2. Run it however he wants if he takes it private
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).
4. If he thinks his plans will get twitter more users and potential users its good business too.

One of the reasons takeover happen because it is often hard to remove bad management through voting (because insititutional investors tend to vote with and for the current directors) so a takeover lets better management make the business perform better.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Elon was invited to speak at TED2022 this week were he was interviewed and answered many(most?) of our questions or concerns so far - [youtube.com...]

He thinks the code should be made open source and put on github for all to see and help improve and that NO tweets should be manipulated without a note being attached to inform on how it was promoted or demoted, no more shadow stuff..

He touched on the legalities a bit - if it's legal to say in the country it's said in the tweet would stand, even if not allowed elsewhere, though it may be buried where it's illegal. It's complex but having just one set of laws, existing country laws, and not try to work out seperate laws for twitter would simplify things.

See what he thinks Twitter should be from his own mouth in that TED talk interview, it's 54 minutes long and specific..