this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
1397 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

58150 readers
3828 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The didn't buy Twitter for a profit.

He bought Twitter to destroy it because big free horizontal communication platforms are bad for billionaires.

He can't just close it, so he just destroy it little by little until it is no more.

The same way conservative groups bought Tumblr because it was too sexual liberating for their conservative views.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

he offered to buy twitter for a joke, and he actually did buy twitter because a court forced him to. not because this was some grand plan to accomplish anything - he literally spent months in court arguing that he shouldn't have to buy twitter, and he lost. that's the only reason he owns twitter now.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Yeah, he owns it because he's a dumbass and he's running it into the ground like a dumbass

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

You cannot make a "joke" offer file it with the SEC and expect to get out of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

the court didn't force him, he could have paid a penalty that was much lower than his current losses.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He bought Twitter by mistake, and was forced into it by Twitter shareholders who saw the opportunity to make bank.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"mistake" in this case actually means by shooting his mouth off and thinking he was smarter than everyone else in the room. He fucked around, then immediately began finding out.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But, $420.69, bruh!

It’s so frustrating to be in the Valley, and be subjected to one set of rules to tightly follow, while a group of special sociopaths (e.g., Musk, SBF, Holmes, Neumann) are free to do whatever they like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just playing devil's advocate. But aren't two of your examples either on their way or in jail right now?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I should have been more clear: The Valley allows and even encourages certain sociopaths to flout rules and conventions around ethics and reporting, while the rest of us are held tightly to those rules and conventions. For example, Sequoia seemingly didn’t even perform de minimis due diligence when leading a nine-figure round in FTX.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is also the case, however he had the option to drop out with much lower losses.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

That would involve him backing down and admitting an error, which he's clearly not capable of.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

You give Musk too much credit. The fucking guy is a big baby with impulse issues - who happens to have billions of dollars at his disposal. He is running Twitter exactly as I would think a dipshit narcissistic tantrum baby would run it, although dismantling Twitter does coincidentally benefit the top .1% for now

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why couldn't he just close it, if that was his goal? He owns it outright doesn't he? He could announce that Twitter was ceasing operations, sell off the remaining assets, cover (or default on) the debts, and then Twitter would be no more.

So no, I don't think destroying it was his aim. He's just really, really bad at this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

He bought Twitter because he (along with the Saudi royal family, the monarchy ruling Qatar, and the larger worldwide cabal of authoritarians) thought he could use it to control public discourse in the same way oligarchs bought up newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations in the past. He's killing it because he never understood what most people liked about Twitter, he only understood what he liked about Twitter (getting a lot of attention and being able to be shitty to people without having to actually socialize).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly. His old friend Peter Thiel couldn't make a rival platform take off, so Musk bought Twitter and saddled it with an untenable $13bn of debt.