"the bird is freed" Elon Musk and Twitter

ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 07:08
Last edited 29/10/2022 - 12:35 by 1 other user

Elon Musk has seemingly been undecisive on whether he is wants to buy Twitter, but it now looks like that dilemma is over.
To avoid a trial, a judge ruled that Elon Musk had until October 28 to close his acquisition of Twitter. He has done so and is now the Chief Twit. He explains why he bought Twitter

Basically he says he wants to help humanity but doesn't want Twitter to be a "free-for-all hellscape" I guess there's Gab for that 😂

I wonder if this part of the reason why Paypal will start charging users(at least in the US) a USD $2,500 fee per violation of its Acceptable Use Policy which includes misinformation?

No account reinstatements yet, but is there any account that OzBargainers are looking forward to be reinstated?

Title is a quote from the Chief Twit's twitter.

Poll: Is Elon Musk buying Twitter good for society?

Poll Options

  • 267
    Yes
  • 554
    No
  • 70
    Unsure
Internet

Related Stores

X (formerly Twitter)
X (formerly Twitter)

Comments

        • sir-screwball on 31/10/2022 - 08:21
          +7

          You just leak irony from everywhere you comment lol

        • Alderson on 31/10/2022 - 10:58
          +10

          I have to agree with the others who have replied to this comment.

          Despite claiming otherwise, I get the impression you are 'right' leaning from your messages above. You're also the most vocal person in this thread by far, appearing absolutely confident in your many claims. Finally, there are numerous spelling and grammatical errors in almost all of your messages - which cannot be directly equated with stupidity of course (you make quite a few reasonable arguments), but it's at least a warning sign.

          • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 09:37
            +1

            @Alderson: Irony doesn't register for 'righties' mate. I commend you for trying, though

      • poboy on 29/10/2022 - 13:22
        +33

        Conservative media has done a great job with labelling anyone against a conservative idea as 'a radical leftist'.

        We get to fight among ourselves while donars fleece the world. Right wingers just don't think they are a pawn in this game.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/10/2022 - 13:51
          +2

          Conservative media has done a great job with labelling anyone against a conservative idea as 'a radical leftist'.

          im not defending the media i partly agree with you but it goes both ways i heard the media called the Italian PM a right wing extremist because she identifies as a Catholic…..whilst at the same time said nothing when Albo championed having a practicing Muslim in cabinet and the British PM being a devout Hindu

          We get to fight among ourselves while donars fleece the world. Right wingers just don't think they are a pawn in this game

          we are all pawns in fairness - i like to think im a centralist but i do laugh at both sides of politics as they both think they are right and the other is wrong - although the internet is more left these days i find it fun to debate with either side of politics because they are both pretty stupid

          if you don't believe me just look how 'offended' people get when you call them stupid for not understanding both sides of the argument - what is worse these days is people who 'refuse to listen' to other peoples point of view - i do acknowledge Murdoch media is bias af to the right though and needs to be taken and understood as bias media

          • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 14:25
            +18

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            called the Italian PM a right wing extremist because she identifies as a Catholic…

            Pretty sure that's not why her views are deemed right wing
            You either misheard or need better source of news content.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/10/2022 - 15:06
              -2

              @SBOB: 'Far-right leader Giorgia Meloni becomes Italy's next prime minister, forms government

              Ms Meloni an ultra-conservative Catholic'

              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-22/giorgia-meloni-sworn-…

              keep in mind the abc is meant to be a unbiased government funded source of information

              in for the most part i 'like' the ABC but there is a feeling it leans left to combat the right leaning Murdoch media which i'd rather it didnt

              contrast that with https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/first-muslim-federal-…

              i would argue the Muslim religion has fairly 'extreme' views on the issues you would consider to be 'extreme right wing' but it is being 'championed in one article' and demonized in another…

              similar things happen with the extreme right wing fox in the US and the extreme left wing CNN

              as a 'centralist' i got no issue what you're beliefs are but it shouldnt be a reason to give someone a job nor should it be a reason to demonise someone

              • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 15:14
                +21

                @Trying2SaveABuck: You're taking two sentences from an article that are almost at complete ends from each other, and joining them together, and also misquoting the second one.

                The line regarding ultra conservative Catholic was with regards to a minister she has chosen.
                "On Friday, Ms Meloni tapped an ultra-conservative Catholic, Eugenia Maria Roccella, to be her minister for family, birthrates and equal opportunities"

                Perhaps look at your own internal bias being applied to your article reading, rather than the article itself.

                  • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 15:32
                    +17

                    @Trying2SaveABuck: "called the Italian PM a right wing extremist because she identifies as a Catholic…"

                    the article you linked to, in no way, did this. Point blank or otherwise.
                    Great to be 'centralist' and question both sides, but would also be wise to re-adjust your views when you mis-read something or apply correlation between parts of an article to therefore conclude it meant something it didnt, which you have clearly done in this case.

                    direct quotes from both

                    No they weren't.
                    You removed words from the second quote from the article. Applying a conclusion, rather than the article doing so

                    Being a politician in Italy whose not Catholic would be considered 'extremist', so unsure why you think being Catholic in Italian politics could possibly be the basis for someones 'right wing' views.

                    • freefall101 on 29/10/2022 - 18:59
                      +9

                      @SBOB: Leader of the party that formed out of the remnants of Mussolini's fascist party…

                      MUST BE BECAUSE SHES CATHOLIC!

                      Either you’re arguing with an idiot or a troll, no winning either way.

                  • SydStrand on 30/10/2022 - 08:21
                    +9

                    @Trying2SaveABuck: You did exactly what they said in an attempt to misrepresent. You can't salvage this argument, and I think you know it.

    • AlanHB on 29/10/2022 - 20:25
      +7

      Eh I'm cool. I was always confused why right wing dudes felt they were being silenced though, given that my social feeds tend to be stacked full of right wing commentary.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/11/2022 - 19:08

        The Twitter algorithm was designed to increase engagement, so it showed them only left wing comments and everyone else right wing comments. It's a platform that gets people to reply by upsetting them. So everyone thinks it's biased against their views. That's why it was and will continue to be a horrible place no matter who you are.

        • SBOB on 06/11/2022 - 19:13

          But Elon said he was going to make that algorithm more transparent…
          Oh, and he also fired the team responsible for doing that :)
          https://futurism.com/elon-musk-twitter-ethical-ai

          • trapper on 07/11/2022 - 10:35

            @SBOB: The first step is to get rid of those toxic teams that were crippling Twitter though, then rehire more level headed people.

    • iDroid on 29/10/2022 - 21:56
      +1

      I'm ambidextrous wing'd so cruiz'n down the middle.

    • AS2035 on 31/10/2022 - 13:01

      only alt right wing nut jobs think that. Nothing has changed

    • gmatht on 31/10/2022 - 13:55

      How rabidly left wing would you have to be to not want the Republican (ex)VP to be lynched?

    • gmatht on 31/10/2022 - 23:13
      -1

      Also, Centrist Nut Jobs who just think Trump shouldn't be allowed to use Twitter to set a lynch mob onto his own VP.

    • ThithLord on 08/11/2022 - 12:38

      lol I am absolutely loving your comment right now. have you seen the absolute cluster **** that is Elon at the moment?

      How's your "free-speech" warrior treatin' ya?

      Wa'hold up he's … HE'S LIMITING FREE SPEECH!!!1!

      Free speech for me, not for thee.

  • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 07:21
    +23

    Basically he says he wants to help humanity

    Indeed. Which is why he spent months trying to get out of his regretful impulse buy decision.
    Was he trying to hurt humanity for the last few months and had a change of mind?

    • m0usju1c3 on 29/10/2022 - 07:25
      +7

      True but there was the issue of fake accounts and bots. The twitter platform is very powerful, and can be used for better dialogue and debating of ideas but if it's festered with fake accounts/bots, it wouldn't be as effective.

      • Cluster on 29/10/2022 - 10:26
        +12

        Musk had an option to do due diligence and make the sale conditional, but no, he chose to buy the company outright with no conditions. No ifs, no buts. Only after he bought it and signed the contract did he wonder 'is there any fraud on Twitter…?' Is that the sign of a genius?

        Then he spent months trying to wriggle out of the deal, while bad mouthing Twitter as much as possible and destroying shareholder value.

        And finally, he said 'screw it' and paid full price anyway.

        His deal is more than a little strange.

        • m0usju1c3 on 29/10/2022 - 10:53
          -3

          Well in hindsight, sure, he could have added conditions to the sale. I'm not sure he would have had access otherwise without first engaging in the purchase to the extent he did to then discover the issues.

          • greatlamp on 29/10/2022 - 11:37
            +11

            @m0usju1c3: He didn't 'discover' anything, the existence of fake accounts and bots was already disclosed by twitter in their SEC filings - before he made an offer. He is lying. Just because Elon says something, doesn't make it true.

        • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 02:52

          Fraud is always a 'way out' of a contract lol

          If the seller lied about the product you aren't still forced to buy it.

          So good that he did buy it anyway though.

          • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 03:28

            @trapper: Except he literally signed a contract that had zero conditions, he voluntarily waved his rights to it being in any state whatsoever. Which is why he was heading for a loss in court (and seemingly revealing some fraud on his part - paying someone within Twitter to make false claims and quit) and he had to buy to avoid more damaging things coming out.

            • trapper on 31/10/2022 - 12:21

              @[Deactivated]: Musk also had option to back out with a $1 billion termination fee.

              Thankfully he decided in the end to go ahead with it though.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 03:22
        +1

        Lol. When they did discovery for the trial to force him to buy it that was revealed to be a complete lie, just what he was pushing (and failing at) to get out of what his text messages said was regret at overpaying.

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 07:27
      +5

      My guess is that he wanted to try to save a few billion due to the number of bot accounts. Better late than never.

      • m0usju1c3 on 29/10/2022 - 10:24
        -1

        Yep he likely used that issue to bargain cheaper deal.

        • Sleeqb7 on 29/10/2022 - 11:00
          +10

          When you sign a legally binding agreement to pay a certain price for shares, you are no longer able to bargain a cheaper deal, no.

          • m0usju1c3 on 31/10/2022 - 06:14

            @Sleeqb7: True I guess he did sign, but with the legal disputes on going he probably tried to bluff the twitter board into accepting the new, lower price, abandoning the first deal.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 03:24

          Well it failed because he had already agreed on the price in a contract that specified zero conditions. Even a moron knows you negotiate before signing a deal. His text messages revealed in the court case show he was facing severe regret at making the offer.

  • Loot N Plunder on 29/10/2022 - 07:21
    +12

    The bird isn't free you need an account to read it (see more from XXXX Don't have an account? Sign up).

    It has nothing to do with the good for society and all to do with ego

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 07:29

      How much does that cost though?

      • Loot N Plunder on 29/10/2022 - 07:40
        +1

        Free speech my @ss it comes at the cost of your privacy just to read it.
        Make a fake account, why bother its just another tracker.

        The government/community use it for news releases/information but you have to sign up to read it. No thanks. It should be accessible to everyone without joining if its to be used this way.
        Just my 2c

        • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 07:49
          +2

          Can always go directly to the relevant website. eg. for covid info, I check Mark Mcgowans facebook page sometimes. It doesn't give all the info but usually enough with links for more additional information.

          I don't think any government should use social media exclusively for announcements but the amount of people on the major sites, it makes sense to do so.

          • lew380 on 30/10/2022 - 09:54
            +1

            @ozhunter: Your going to the most corrupt and dishonest people(polititians) for info? Its part of the job, a polititians primary goal is re-election, honesty is counter productive.

            • ozhunter on 30/10/2022 - 14:38

              @lew380: Yea only really for covid rule changes or if someone sends it to me, it's concise and convenient. Barely go to it anymore since covid is like over.

        • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 18:31
          +2

          It should be accessible to everyone without joining

          Yeh exactly. The web was founded on the principle of open access, but more and more "sign in now to continue" is mandated just to read a few posts. Was disappointed when Twitter started doing it. And like you say, if government services are using it for key announcements then we have a problem.

          Actually, government services including public broadcasters like the ABC have been using Twitter for a long time before Twitter mandated sign-up to read. In some ways Twitter set a trap… invited all these government services inside, then closed the door and put a little window in the door for everyone to register through. Facebook did exactly the same thing. FB pages were at one time accessible without sign-in. Businesses and public broadcasters flocked to the platform, then they shut the door. Utterly dodgy practice, in plain sight.

      • barge-in hunter on 29/10/2022 - 08:35
        +1

        It costs all your data, in the form of a detailed psychographic profile that twitter sell to anyone willing to pay (aka advertisers anywhere between your average household brand to political parties attempting to influence your vote and scammers)

        If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product

    • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 17:11
      +3

      Pro-tip: If you click the "Sign up" button and then click the 'X' on the next popup that comes up, it lets you keep scrolling timelines.

      Alternatively, you can go in and get rid of the popup elements in the developer console and change the overflow behaviour back to scroll for the html page and it fixes it. (Which means that you can userscript this behaviour to automate it for whenever you browse twitter, which thence means that someone probably already has for whatever your favourite browser of choice is.)

      If Elon ever starts to charge people to view Twitter feeds though, then that will be the height of cringe. So: 50/50 on whether it happens, I say. As 'based' as Elon is, he has a history of doing nonsense with his companies, so I honestly could see him tossing all of that 'free speech, public square' rhetoric to the wind if he reckons he can get more of a buck by closing it all off.

      • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 18:21

        Do you happen to have a pro-tip for skipping to a point in the song on SoundCloud in a browser?

        Not sure when they changed it, but SoundCloud no longer allows skipping to a point in the song without being logged in. Playing is allowed from beginning of song, but nothing else. Tried briefly looking in dev console, but no luck.

        • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 19:18

          I'm too much of a boomer to be a SoundCloud user (literally the first time I've ever looked at that site just now), but does adding something like #t=0h1m3s to the end of the URL work? They seem to have the same setup that YouTube uses for preloading positions in vids.

          e.g. apparently this is trending, whatever that means (you kids and your doof-doof techno remixes), so loading it up at the 0-hour, 1-minute, 3-second position can be done by using this URL, for example.

  • Nutrino on 29/10/2022 - 07:25
    +3

    He showed the money. Let him play a while.

  • DingoBilly on 29/10/2022 - 08:16
    +8

    The accounts that were banned were all well justified.

    Having said that, Twitter is generally a cesspool of morons and cryptoshills so the platform itself is still trash.

    Hopefully this platform goes the way Meta has been and both Elon and the Zuck keep making bad choices until they get the hint and just give up/fade into obscurity.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2022 - 14:17

      Tell them Billy!

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:57

      Twitter obviously thinks so, but now maybe Twitter will have a change of mind and they will be reinstated.

    • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 18:36
      +4

      well justified.

      Not at all. What you could have done is simply stop reading Trump's tweets. That's your brain at work… making basic choices for yourself, about what to read. Sounds like you want someone else to make those choices for you?

      • Deals For Days on 29/10/2022 - 19:47
        +4

        Not really, since Trump’s claims to his fanatic followers almost got the VP killed…

        My point being, we can't have a healthy society if our leaders are spreading proven falsehoods to millions of people on the internet. The decision to ban Trump was entirely reasonable - and simple: he presented a very clear danger to democracy and the functioning of government by lying, repeatedly, and inflaming his followers to attack the US capitol. His supporters got within something like 20 metres of VP Pence, whist also being outside with mock gallows. That's not healthy, and as a social media platform, amplifying dangerous rhetoric about stolen elections - 'fight like hell' etc. - from a bad actor is irresponsible.

    • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 02:57
      +5

      The accounts that were banned were all well justified.

      lol man people were literally banned for tweeting silly jokes like "learn to code"

      • Kirkitplayer3 on 30/10/2022 - 09:38

        Or when a page tracking Pelosi's public trades was taken down for no reason. Many examples.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2022 - 20:53
          -1

          This seems (profanity) weird since that information was publicly disclosed by Pelosi herself (it's legally required in congress, though stupidly not for the president; the former one never disclosed anything, even things all presidents before and since have) , willing to bet the owner took it down themselves, and probably in typical right wing fashion asked for donations, it's always about grifting the people that support them. The dumbest thing ever is it's the very people who support them that always end up getting screwed by them the hardest, they're just too dumb to realize.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 04:40
        -1

        I really doubt that. People got away with murder.

    • Scythic on 31/10/2022 - 20:32

      "well justified"

      Yeah right, for one side

  • tonka on 29/10/2022 - 08:19
    +1

    I confused about why someone would pay so much for a company and ensure they thoroughly disengage the employees and destroy morale before they even get there? ie stating 75% of employees will be sacked. From a distance it kinda feels like Elon's reality is getting a bit out of sync.

    • treekangagaroo on 29/10/2022 - 09:00
      +7

      Elon's ego

      • dealsucker on 29/10/2022 - 19:31
        +3

        Or that twitter is tech company and in no way needs 7500 employees for the platform it is?

        • kraigg on 30/10/2022 - 10:26
          +2

          I heard WhatsApp only has 50 employees to keep it running. On that scale, I'm not sure why Twitter would need 7500 employees. There would be a lot of dead wood, lots of blue haired leftists and their biases, that Elon would be right to trim off.

          • tonka on 30/10/2022 - 14:18
            +1

            @kraigg: Absolutely would be a normal process in an acquisition. Usually handled as skillfully and delicately as possible so the essential employees that are high value assets, don't get disengaged and/or line up new jobs and you end up with a company consisting of very expensive dead wood.

          • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 04:56
            +1

            @kraigg: WhatsApp is end to end encrypted, so they don’t have to have 7,000 employees to remove all the child pornography. It’s not even close to the same type of business. They also had 55 employees when bought by Facebook in 2014, they now are effectively part of a company with over 70,000 employees, so your information is a little out of date.

            8 years after buying WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta are still losing significant money on it, it’s not remotely profitable. Twitter was profitable, albeit not profitable enough by a long way to support what Musk paid.

          • Scythic on 31/10/2022 - 20:34
            +1

            @kraigg: 7500 employees is a very humble number for a platform that requires heavy censorship. You should look into China's WeChat

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 04:46
          +1

          Almost all of them are there to delete things like illegal pornography. Not sit around chatting. It’s why he’s walked back his statement. The statement itself is stupid because any half decent employee will make for the exit leaving you with just the ones with no other options to run the company.

          If you’re going to fire 75% of people (dumb, but pretend it isn’t). You don’t tell anyone who doesn’t absolutely need to know until you’ve chosen who will be fired, you fire them all at once and tell the rest their jobs are safe. This is pretty basic stuff.

          • dealsucker on 31/10/2022 - 07:42
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: Not just illegal porno, any differing opinions, people they dont like etc etc because it does not seem that there is a consistent policy applied across the world. In USA or most of the western world, Twitter is an echo chamber of rabid extreme left brain dead leftists while in a place like India its a hateful, communal cesspool of filth. How is it so dramatically opposite when they claim to have consistent content moderation policies? Well your guess is as good as mine.

            That said I am pretty sure some of the moderation is automated which will be further automated because Elon can use the Tesla vision algorithms to weed out such stuff. For what the platform is and does, it does not need 7500 employees. Elon and engineers from Tesla will make sure that is not the case.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 10:47

              @dealsucker: Replace left with right and I agree. The algorithm shows you what you respond to, and for a lot of people that’s the opposite viewpoint.

              Automation would further reduce minority viewpoints.

              It’s going to be interesting if he uses engineers from Tesla as that could lead him to being sued by Tesla shareholders.

        • GandalfTheCheap on 01/11/2022 - 13:54
          +1

          Wait 7500 employees!? Is that true?

          As a guy who runs a tech company, I'd be surprised if Twitter needed 750 employees.

          • SBOB on 01/11/2022 - 14:20
            -1

            @GandalfTheCheap:

            As a guy who runs a tech company, I'd be surprised if Twitter needed 750 employees.

            does your tech company service 230 million people and provides a service that requires content moderation?

            its not 7500 programmers.

    • sleepyman on 29/10/2022 - 09:17

      Remember you have investors who are worried and you have stock prices to think of.

      You are only looking at it from one angle.

      • tonka on 29/10/2022 - 13:09
        +1

        Ok, I'm not across all the details, but I thought the financing was being done privately and the stock being de-listed.

        • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 13:19
          +3

          It is. There is no longer publically traded twitter stock post acquisition.

          Elon now just needs to worry about banks and his other financial backers, like Qatar Holdings and a Saudi Arabia prince, both well known for their stance on free and open speech and expression.

        • sleepyman on 30/10/2022 - 09:05
          +1

          neither am I, I just know this thing has so many angles. So to simplify it to Elon must be just messing with Twitter staff would be very uncharitiable.

    • Spaceback on 29/10/2022 - 10:16

      It was an impulse purchase undoubtedly linked to his legal case. *cough

    • poboy on 29/10/2022 - 13:26
      -1

      Agree. He wants to control the narrative for himself and others. Perhaps he's being paid, perhaps he's seeking favours for favourable treatment.

      Perhaps he also wants to look in people's DMs and expose sources for others?

      • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 13:34
        +1

        Perhaps it's a leftist long game, and he's going to reenable trumps account, let him tweet self incriminating content while he's being brought before various court/legal battles.

        It's all a big 12d chess game.

      • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 17:31
        +1

        He wants to control the narrative for himself and others.

        Watch this entire multi-billion dollar purchase just be Elon's 4D underwater backgammon strat to get rid of this guy. For whatever reason, having someone track and report on his private jet's movements really triggers Elon.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2022 - 17:47
          +1

          For whatever reason, having someone track and report on his private jet's movements really triggers Elon.

          How would you feel about your actual travel routes being made publicly available?

          • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 19:54
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: I'm a bad example I guess (I don't particularly have a problem with it, and it would be quite hypocritical of me to have a problem with it given some of the Internet communities I like to frequent). That's a fair point though, I suppose.

            I will mention however that it's only been in the last couple of days that Elon has finally had the big-brain idea to just, y'know, not be broadcasting on a known call sign on his private jet if he wants his globetrotting to remain stealthy. These uber-wealthy individuals going after Twitter accounts for rebroadcasting what is already publicly-accessible information is just aiming at the wrong end of the problem, and when people nootice it just makes the nooticers wonder what you're trying to hide.

            • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2022 - 13:44
              -1

              @whatwasherproblem:

              I guess

              I suppose

              lol

              I'm certain you would have an issue with your actual travel routes being publicly available as would anyone else and it's not about being 'stealthy' at all. It's a privacy and security issue that everyone has a right to, be they uber-wealthy or not.

          • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 05:02
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Commercial aircraft flight paths are public information, the aircraft itself publishes it. The reality is being a public figure sucks, but not because this info is available. At least the ultra wealthy ones can afford security, and this sort of thing is a price they pay for monetizing that popularity.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 15:47
              -2

              @[Deactivated]:

              At least the ultra wealthy ones can afford security, and this sort of thing is a price they pay for monetizing that popularity.

              It's the level of scrutiny that I find odd - the guy is just going about his business and is able to afford a Gulfstream to do so yet this mere fact lead someone to think it wasn't a big deal to broadcast his plane routes online with no consideration as to any security implications whatsoever. Also, the fact that since a person is 'uber-wealthy', this somehow doesn't afford them the luxury of privacy that others expect for themselves.

              • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 22:56
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: There’s zero privacy in plane routes, the mistake people make is assuming plane movements = owner movements. Someone put it on Twitter, but they are always available to anyone that looks even without that person Tweeting it.

                Public figures always have scrutiny and not a single one invites it as much as Musk. He runs multiple companies that other people invest in, and that’s not including his crypto pump and dump schemes. He’s basically made his business affect other people so it’s a legitimate public interest what he does. If here were so much as to get seriously I’ll it would affect tens of thousands of people directly and hundreds of thousands to millions indirectly.

                This is not the same as an average person who could drop dead and have barely anyone affected.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2022 - 14:18
      +1

      why someone would pay so much for a company

      when you could download it for free, Amirite????

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:31

      Because he wants to make it better and those employees are the problem.

    • Namesareapain on 29/10/2022 - 17:02
      +2

      The as per the whistleblower, twitter was corrupt to the core anyway.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 05:10
        -1

        https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/04/twitter-musk-zatko-whistle…

        It looks like Musk actually relented and followed through with the deal because his corruption of the whistleblower was about to be revealed.

        The crazy part is he was alleging failings in the department he had sole responsibility for, eg they were his fault. He was a department head, he could have made any changes he liked and no one would have stopped him. It’s such a bizarre story.

    • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 09:54

      From a distance it kinda feels like Elon's reality is getting a bit out of sync.

      One of the world's richest people is out of Sync with the general populace?

      • tonka on 02/11/2022 - 18:13

        Well, I said reality, but I guess his reality may well be better informed than ours these days. Feels like most of our news is straight propaganda for a while now.

  • tonka on 29/10/2022 - 08:22
    +2

    Voting Yes as may just be a redistribution of wealth and a mistake on his part.

  • pegaxs on 29/10/2022 - 08:32
    +5

    So many simps for the planet’s biggest edgelord.

    My money is on the fact that Elon sold his soul and cut a back room deal with republicans to give them back their propaganda machine. There is a kickback for Elon in this somewhere.

    Twitter is a cesspool of misinformation with nothing but incoherent screeching by every side of the political spectrum. Vaccines don’t give people autism, shit like Twitter does.

    If Elon really wanted to send a message, he would buy it and then just switch it off.

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:55
      -4

      Twitter is a cesspool of misinformation

      Yea, hopefully this buyout will drown them out with less people getting banned for speaking the truth 😄

      If Elon really wanted to send a message, he would buy it and then just switch it off.

      Then another site would just fill in the gap. Also since he didn't buy it himself, his investors wouldn't like that

    • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 18:44

      Twitter is a cesspool of misinformation

      So many absolutists around here making big bold statements like this. I can imagine you have a cigar in your mouth as you typed that sentence.

      nothing but incoherent screeching

      Amazing insight. You've ignored all the non-screeching, interesting updates from interesting people on Twitter, but I guess you were going for the edgelordy final "end of story" remark. Good work.

  • ForkSnorter on 29/10/2022 - 08:48
    +4

    Complete waste of money. I don't use twitter, and I don't know anyone who does. The few times I've gone on there I've only seen brief announcements from politicians, which we can get from the news anyway, egotistical posts from influencers, rather boring statements from celebrities, and a cesspool of comments, retweets and spam. What value would this add to my life, or anyone's life?

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:27
      +1

      If it was just about the money, I'm sure there other cheaper less risky investments he could have made.

      What value would this add to my life, or anyone's life?

      Twitter along with Facebook I guess can be considered the digital town square, whether we like it or not.

  • Benoffie on 29/10/2022 - 08:51
    +1

    Cant be any worse than Jack. Besides, Twitter is long dead in Australia.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2022 - 14:20

      Captain Jack is already on web 5 while ozbargain is on web 2…..pfffttt
      https://t.co/DESDogeXwA

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:28
      +1

      But still seems to be huge in the USA.

      • Benoffie on 29/10/2022 - 17:08
        +3

        Yeah, special folk in the US…

  • tsunamisurfer on 29/10/2022 - 09:07
    -1

    1 task is to give Donald Trump his account back.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join