Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Twitter

Elon Musk Becomes Twitter's Largest Shareholder (bloomberg.com) 175

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Elon Musk has taken a 9.2% passive stake in Twitter, according to a 13G filing, Bloomberg News reports. Twitter rose about 26% in pre-market trading. Bloomberg News adds: Musk, 50, polled his more than 80 million followers on Twitter last month, asking them whether the company adheres to the principles of free speech. After more than 70% said no, he asked whether a new platform was needed and said he was giving serious thought to starting his own platform. UPDATE 4/5/22: Musk will join Twitter's board of directors, according to Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elon Musk Becomes Twitter's Largest Shareholder More

Elon Musk Becomes Twitter's Largest Shareholder

Comments Filter:

  • What I don't get is why doesn't Musk just setup a good old fashioned blog? Everyone knows who he is already, and pretty much everything he says of significance will be sprayed all over the normal media channels anyway. For a fraction of what he spent on his twitter shares he could even distribute an App so the true believers can get his stream of consciousness as push notifications.

    Outside of a few big celebrities, twitter is just a massive fountain of noise. Why would he want to get involved in holding bac

    • Re:Why does he need twitter? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:10AM (#62415278) Homepage Journal

      Because a blog isn't nearly as much fun, and a lot more work.

      On Twitter he gets to shitpost to millions of people and see their responses, without needing to put any effort into moderation. He can shitpost at other celebrities too. It's the social shitposting aspect that really attracted him to the platform.

      I wonder what the SEC will have to say about this. Last I checked they were in court arguing that he hasn't been sticking to his agreement with them.

      • > I wonder what the SEC will have to say about this. Last I checked they were in court arguing that he hasn't been sticking to his agreement with them.

        The SEC generally exists to legally persecute political enemies in the corporate sphere. So if he's meaning to restore free speech to Twitter we would expect SEC attacks to escalate.

        He was dumb to throw Donald Trump under the bus like he did.

      • I wonder what the SEC will have to say about this.

        Nothing. The SEC has nothing to say about an large stake in a company providing it doesn't breach any trade rules, which this doesn't. And unless he gets charged with securities fraud and banned from trading he can spend his money how he wants. Welcome to capitalism.

      • I don't think the SEC will have a thing to say about it - nothing about their agreement forbids ownership of Twitter, being elected to the board of Twitter, or outright owning Twitter.

        The more interesting angle is why he's buying up such a large position, unless he is looking to self-elect to the board in order to do a little more than shitpost.

    • If he runs his own Social Media Platform, or creates a blog just for his own Ego, it will have a much limited appeal then being a big presence on Twitter.

      While there are a good number of people who are just Fans of Musk. Other people who are less interested in him, may still get a random tweet or feed from him, where they may find interesting or at least got their intention. And conversely it will often get some attention to his companies.

      This as a strategy works for Musk, I am unsure if it would work for

    • If Elon Musk created a blog site of some sort, he'd only get the people viewing it who are into what he says enough to make specific visits to the web page.

      Microsoft, for example, does this now. There are blog sites maintained by various individuals there responsible for major products they sell like Teams or SharePoint or Office 365. Yet I find almost nobody faithfully follows those, outside of some tech journalists who are always desperate for the next news story.

      With a platform like Twitter, it's a reall

  • Kill it with fire (Score:5, Informative)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:02AM (#62415266) Homepage

    Twitter may once have been a useful place, but they have become far too censorship-happy. Just to name the most recent examples: Twitter doesn't allow death threats. However, they have recently decided to allow death threats against the Russian leadership (because: Ukraine), and also against JK Rowling (because of her trans politics). They also censor tweets according local politics: what users are allowed to see, depends on the country they live in.

    Sadly, Musk's stake is too small to close down the company.

    • Re:Kill it with fire (Score:5, Funny)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:07AM (#62415268)
      I've been tweeting death threats to JK Rowling for years, but for the books and movies. I didn't even realize she was anti-trans until now.

      • Re:Kill it with fire (Score:4, Insightful)

        by splutty ( 43475 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:52AM (#62415348)

        That's because she isn't. But some of her comments about her personal thoughts have had all the usual offended-for-profit people/outlets up in arms.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        She's pro-reality.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Precisely. Trans are no different than someone who identifies as Napoleon Bonaparte and then expects to be treat as such.

          It's a mental disorder and should be treated as such. To say otherwise is to be a science denier. It harms the person, harms society and harms woman's sports.

          • Precisely. Trans are no different than someone who identifies as Napoleon Bonaparte and then expects to be treat as such.

            It's a mental disorder and should be treated as such. To say otherwise is to be a science denier. It harms the person, harms society and harms woman's sports.

            Hurts society is a bit of a stretch. Can you elaborate on that one? I have no personal desire to change my gender, but I just don't give a shit if Bruce wants to be called Caitlin/her. You want to change your name to Napolean Bonaparte? Why do I care? What difference does it make to me? Your example is stupid. There are many people with famous names. Changing your name to Napolean Bonaparte doesn't have any meaning other than it's the same name as a more famous person.

            I don't really get the stron

            • Re:How exactly does this harm society? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @12:50PM (#62416362)

              I care when these surgeries are covered at 100% which means it does effect me as I pay more for insurance.

              I'd also care if I was a woman's athlete that trained my whole life just to get beaten by a man. You many as well just not have men's and women's league if you are going to allow biological men to compete in women's leagues.

              • I care when these surgeries are covered at 100% which means it does effect me as I pay more for insurance.

                I'd also care if I was a woman's athlete that trained my whole life just to get beaten by a man. You many as well just not have men's and women's league if you are going to allow biological men to compete in women's leagues.
                Flag as Inappropriate

                Tough shit, I have to cover for your dumbass lifestyle choices so it's only fair that trans people get to live their lives in the bodies they're comfortable in.

              • Re:How exactly does this harm society? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:43PM (#62416818)

                What countries are covering those surgeries 100%? I would imagine some European countries might but they almost all already have some degree of a socialized medical system and considering how actually small percentage of people are in fact trans to the point of wanting bottom or top surgery I doubt it's going to move the needle much, nevermind that in those countries as well you have to go through a fair amount (like years) of therapy and hormone treatment before surgery is considered an option.

                I personally think this is a bit of a canard in terms of concerns to be honest and in America our medical insurance system is so very fucked up in so many other ways that gender surgeries should be pretty low on the list of things to fix.

                The sports issue I have far more sympathy towards as we have decided women get a protected section carved out to compete in sports and it should be respected. This is a valid discussion to be had but the worst people are the loudest on both ends so it's becoming a battle of extremes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      If you own nearly 10% of a company, you're on the board of directors and have a huge say in what goes on. If you own nearly 10%, you own enough to potentially end censorship,

    • Sadly, Musk's stake is too small to close down the company.

      Why are you desperate to close the company? If you don't like their practices then don't give them any business. Why do you feel the need to meddle with others who don't affect you in any way?

      • Because that's the way of grievance politics. If you can't force it through whatever levers of power you control, you just raise a big public stink and shit all over it until it swings your way. And you keep the constant diarrheal fire hose pumping.

    • Might be big enough to earn him or someone he trusts a board seat though. There are currently 11 seats according to their website, and I'll bet Musk isn't afraid to use his position as a large shareholder to swing some votes his way, or at least make a whole lot of public noise if they don't.

      If that's what he wants with it.

  • Free speech smh (Score:5, Informative)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:22AM (#62415290)

    As usual, the intellectual derelicts don't grasp the simple concept of free speech. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government. It does not apply to private companies. Twitter is free to prohibit certain speech just as your local grocery store is free to prohibit people from posting flyers about orgy parties with 12 year olds.

    Also, and it can't be hypocrisy, but Musk routinely fires people [businessinsider.com] who say bad things about him or his company, or reveals massive flaws in Tesla's prodcution. He even fired someone who posted a review [mashable.com] of the fake self-driving software.

    So, to review, Twitter prohibits certain types of free speech because it's a private company, whereas Musk fires people who post bad comments or reviews because he owns a private company.

    • Re:Free speech smh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:31AM (#62415306)

      >"The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government. It does not apply to private companies."

      While that is true (in principle, not sure about reality), it doesn't mean we can't also want platforms that are also held to that high standard. If there is enough demand, it might happen. The result might also be a mess that doesn't work. Or, with tools (creative filtering, mod sharing, etc) placed in user's hands, it might work.

      • Re:Free speech smh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @08:13AM (#62415396)

        The market is working fine. You have Truth Social. I'm looking forward to what Bernie Sanders has to say over there. Oh wait he's banned? Isn't that odd...

        • Sounds like the vast majority of potential users are banned, through the simple fact that they can't use the system because it doesn't scale to even the small percentage of Twitter that they are likely to peak at.

          This is why you don't hire a career politician hack to run your half-assed tech clone business, and also why you don't alienate actually competent people with abhorrent political views and a history of stiffing contractors on their invoices.

      • Re:Free speech smh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @08:58AM (#62415492)

        The problem, of course, is that very few people are really behind total free speech. Some want to be able to say things like Trump won or covid is fake or pizzagate is real, but even those folks would be against things like nude photos, kiddie porn, promoting rape, snuff films, etc., even though these can also be expressions of truly free speech.

        Most people have some kind of line that they would not support being crossed. The real argument right now is where that line should be drawn, and whether it can or should be dragged a bit more to the right...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fuzznutz ( 789413 )

          but even those folks would be against things like
          nude photos

          You'll have to dig either very deep into the bible belt or very deep into the radical feminist groups to find supporters of banning nude photos. There are extremists in all camps but no sane American has called for their ban.

          kiddie porn

          When one right runs up against another you have a dilemma of which one takes precedence. Would you rather support the rights of the most vulnerable or those who would seek to exploit them. I think the choice is clear but you can decide for yourself where your allegiance lies.

          promoting rape

          Direct a

          • Would you rather support the rights of the most vulnerable or those who would seek to exploit them

            That is the justification for quite a lot of censorship. People here have supported banning Joe Rogan for the things he said about COVID, not because they themselves were influenced to eat horse dewormer but because they imagine some vulnerable, dumb, group of people out there would be and that groups needs their betters to shield them from the message.

            • Would you rather support the rights of the most vulnerable or those who would seek to exploit them

              That is the justification for quite a lot of censorship

              It is the siren's call of authoritarians. Comparing adults who have the ability and rights to make decisions for themselves and dependent minors is a false equivalence and they know it.

            • And the sort of folks seeking to demagogue by demonizing a miracle anti-parasite drug that turns out to also work in animals as a horse pill have come out of the woodwork, seeking to virtue signal superiority while appearing as dumb as those advocating a medication in the absence of a double blind trial supporting it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Most people's line is "they disagree with me."

          That's why Slashdot doesn't have mod points anymore.

          • I have mod points right now. Don't know what you're talking about.

            Now maybe they aren't distributed nearly as often, or they've gamed the distribution to cut people out - I have no visibility on any of that. But they do still exist.

        • but even those folks would be against things like nude photos, kiddie porn, promoting rape, snuff films, etc., even though these can also be expressions of truly free speech.

          First of all snuff films don't exist. They never have. They're an urban legend. Secondly, murder, rape, and molestation are crimes. It's not free speech if you're committing a crime, particularly one where you're directly harming another person. You really need to look up the definition of free speech because you have no idea what you're talking about.

      • While that is true (in principle, not sure about reality)

        I often get people don't understand laws, but to not even read the first word in the first sentence of the law you're talking about is a new one. Here's the text for your education:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      • >"The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government. It does not apply to private companies."

        While that is true (in principle, not sure about reality), it doesn't mean we can't also want platforms that are also held to that high standard. If there is enough demand, it might happen. The result might also be a mess that doesn't work. Or, with tools (creative filtering, mod sharing, etc) placed in user's hands, it might work.

        And what platforms are those? Parler? Gab? Truth Social? Usenet?

        It doesn't work. Without moderation by editor it becomes moderation by abuse, Twitter's big problem isn't Conservatives leaving because of censorship, it's ordinary people (and celebrities) leaving because of abuse and a toxic environment.

    • Re:Free speech smh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @07:34AM (#62415314) Homepage

      As usual, the intellectual derelicts don't grasp the simple concept of free speech. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government.

      Intellectual derelicts don't even notice when they move the goalposts from "free speech" to "The First Amendment" IN A SINGLE SENTENCE.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      I guess you've not heard of common carrier laws. Twitter, Facebook, etc. act like common carriers do. They need to be governed under the same rules as other common carriers.

      • Re:Free speech smh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @09:42AM (#62415646)

        Twitter, Facebook, etc. act like common carriers do. They need to be governed under the same rules as other common carriers.

        State hypothesis, state conclusion, however don't even bother presenting evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

        SMS messages are an information service [natlawreview.com]. Broadband internet [arstechnica.com] is an information service. No combination of the two makes Tweets a telecommunications service subject to Title II.

        • Number of Sprint network customers: 55 million
          Number of Facebook users: 2.9 billion

          • Oh, well let's start enforcing laws that don't exist then, because of a false equivalence shitpost on Slashdot!

            You're trying to convince the wrong people. It's Congress that needs to hear your opinion, not dipshit neckbeards on Slashdot.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            Number of Sprint network customers: 55 million
            Number of Facebook users: 2.9 billion

            Wait, Sprint is the only network that uses SMS messaging?

            And all 2.9 billion Facebook users are in the U.S.?

            And you're just throwing out random numbers to disguise the fact that entire categories of messaging, including SMS and broadband, are not "common carriers" no matter who is involved?

            Hint: if it's not voice communication, it's not regulated as a common carrier in the U.S., and it's not going to be because the actual pro

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbialac ( 320955 )
          How exactly is sending a message, audio or video to multiple other people via SMS is not equivalent to a tweet?

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            How exactly is sending a message, audio or video to multiple other people via SMS is not equivalent to a tweet?

            It is. And you'll note that the FCC has classified SMS messages as an "information service" under the telecommunications act (Title I), not as a "telecommunications service" (Title II, also known as common carrier [engadget.com] rules) under the act.

            Glad to see you agree with my point, that neither are services subject to common carrier regulation.

            *mic drop*

      • I guess you've not heard of enforcing laws as they actually exist?

        Do you voluntarily pay more taxes than you are legally obligated to, just because of what the law "should" be rather than what it is? No? Then why would these companies fuck themselves up over what you think the law should be, rather than what the United States Congress says it is?

        This sounds a whole lot like someone is salty over disagreement of a particular ideology than "censorship". After all, if Twitter et. al. didn't like "conservati

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbialac ( 320955 )
          Go pick up a phone in the US. Nobody will get censored because of political views. The phone carrier is a private company. Next argument?

          • Nice false-equivalence non-answer.

            No social media company has the designation of a "common carrier", and thus none are beholden to common carrier regulations. Not a single one.

            You appear easily distracted, so I'll ask it again with clear focus: why are you trying to enforce laws and regulations that either don't exist, or don't apply?

            If you think there should be regulations or laws to change that, then that's fine and you should take it up with your congressional representation. Just bleating out "common

      • They aren't at all common carriers. I can post messages on plenty of other web sites, including a web site that I created and manage myself. A common carrier is part of the basic infrastructure, and you generally have very few (if you even have more than one) choices.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbialac ( 320955 )
          You can also put up a radio tower or wire up your neighbors with wires. The argument still doesn't stop AT&T from being a common carrier.

      • Twitter, Facebook, etc. act like common carriers do.

        No. They do not. You need to go look up the definition of common carrier again. None of these guys act like that. In fact that's the #1 big complaint about them, that they don't act like that at all. They promote, bury, push, or delete whatever is necessary to maximize engagement. Common carriers just carry what you hand them, for a given price, and maybe on a regular schedule. And usually without inspection.

    • As usual, the intellectual derelicts don't grasp the simple concept of free speech. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government. It does not apply to private companies.

      A single man firing a handful of people in his own company, doesn't affect the rest of us worth a shit. It probably hasn't even affected those he fired worth a shit.

      Musk himself has proven the power of a single fucked-up tweet which can affect hundreds of millions of investors. You are dismissive of the power and influence platforms like Twitter and Facebook actually hold in society, in the exact same way that no one dares to label Amazon or any other mega-corp, a monopoly.

      If you think social media isn't

    • As usual, the intellectual derelicts don't grasp the simple concept of free speech. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government. It does not apply to private companies. Twitter is free to prohibit certain speech just as your local grocery store is free to prohibit people from posting flyers about orgy parties with 12 year olds.

      Also, and it can't be hypocrisy, but Musk routinely fires people [businessinsider.com] who say bad things about him or his company, or reveals massive flaws in Tesla's prodcution. He even fired someone who posted a review [mashable.com] of the fake self-driving software.

      So, to review, Twitter prohibits certain types of free speech because it's a private company, whereas Musk fires people who post bad comments or reviews because he owns a private company.

      Your newfound devotion to the freedom of private companies is quite admirable. I wonder how consistent it is?

    • As usual, the intellectual derelicts don't grasp the simple concept of free speech. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government. It does not apply to private companies. (...)

      As usual idiots think First Amendment is the same as free speech. Hint: it's not. It's a measure designed to protect free speech from the government,. That doesn't mean free speech is not being attacked or threatened by other actors (or even that FA is effective at actually doing what it was designed to do). So no, Twitter may not be violating FA, but I'm still going to call them out for the censoring, free speech threatening assholes they are, and wholeheartedly support anyone trying to stop them.

      • And we've arrived at the first consistent and nuanced argument that actually makes sense in this whole ignorant shit show of a thread. Thank you.

        If I hadn't posted already, I'd give you a mod point.

    • The US government has long acknowledged the need for free speech in private platforms with a large public reach. The Equal Time Rule [wikipedia.org] from 1927 requires radio and television broadcast stations to provide an equal opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. It's only since the advent of cable and then the internet that these platforms have become wholly unregulated to shut down viewpoints of the opposing political party with impunity. I believe a similar rule is needed for social media an

      • Equal Time Rule, as well as tings like the now dissolved Fairness Doctrine could be enforced for radio and broadcast TV as the "public" owns that spectrum. As soon as it hits privately owned physical wires the government has far less control and this has held up over decades of court precedent.

        Also let's not hyperbolize here, conservatice voices have plenty of sway on these platforms. They are the highest engagement on Facebook by a long shot and Twitter has no lack of conservative pundits, commentors and

    • I seriously hope you do not believe the concept of free speech is only alive because if the US constitution. I mean sure, it is enshrined within the first amendment but it was no accident that it became that way.

      Of course the first amendment only applies to government and agents of the government. And to that effect, only one particular government. But that doesn't mean every single discussion about speech being open or free is about the first amendment rights to free speech. You see, there is this conc

    • Beyond that, the people who complain about Twitter "censorship" are overwhelmingly conservatives, probably of the QAnon sect, that run around acting like the rules don't apply to them and then whining like a truly spoiled brat the second they are treated like everyone else. And this is all done with absolutely zero sense of irony since this is also usually the crowd that talks big about "law and order".

      • And don't forget that's the same crowd passing laws to keep teachers from saying "gay people exist" and "systemic racism still exists in the United States."

        They don't care about free speech. They never did.

        They only care about attacking people they hate.

      • Grievance politics doesn't include consistency in it's core values. It's all about performative outrage, especially hypocritical performative outrage. And the more outrageous, the better.

        Remember, these are the same people who laugh while saying "fuck your feelings" to the "snowflakes" while they "own the libs" right up until they themselves get "owned" and then they all turn into "snowflakes" themselves complaining about how they feel censored.

        Act like an asshole on a privately owned system, get treated

    • No one said anything about the first amendment, until you did.

      I complained about censorship, which is a serious issue with Twitter. Censorship of views they dislike is (IMHO) ethically wrong.

      Something can be legal, and still be wrong.

    • What I got from that article is that he fires people he considers to be idiots handling shit they have no business of touching. One of the examples in the first article was firing the head of the factory making Model Xs because a line worker knew what the fix was and the guy purportedly running the show there didn't have the slightest clue and hadn't done anything as to educate himself on the problem or possible solutions. What the article is short on is examples of him firing workers low on the totem pole.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      Twitter is a communication platform, and is even used for political discourse by most (almost all?) politicians. SpaceX is not a communications platform. Do you see a difference?

    • As usual, people like who you bandy around terms like "intellectual derelict" (nice job) don't understand that there's a distinction between the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the principle of free speech.

      The principle of free speech and those who say it's a good virtue exist in other countries, contrary to what you might imagine, and have existed before the United States of America was founded.

      >As usual, the intellectual derelicts don't grasp the simple concept of free speech. The First Amen

    • You know, people outside the USA have free speech as well. Free speech is broader than just the first amendment. There is free speech beyond the US constitution. As such you are the one who doesn't grasp the simple concept of free speech

  • This is literally the financial version of "F around and find out"

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close