Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 110 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
IMO, another spite move by Musk. Probably knows he really doesn't have grounds to deny severance, but he can tie them up in court and the keep their money from them for a while, just because he's an asshat.

This. because he also knows that even though these guys are well-compensated and will be winning their lifetime-fortune salaries in the end, the cost of their lawyers while suing for their bonuses isn't going to be as easy for them as it will be for Musk. It will still cost them a lot, and they will probably feel it, assuming they live like asshats of course and have long had trouble living on less than $5 million/year, lol.

Musk uses lawyers and tort just like Trump does. Spite.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,478
9,379
136
Tiny and might are the qualifiers in that statement. I understand the need to make the statement fit a particular narrative, but the words are right there and a little hard to ignore.
So why is he posting something that needs those qualifiers?
Either he thinks the story has some legs or he doesn't. If he doesn't the only reason he's using those qualifiers is to not get sued but still get to shitpost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsinni Dave

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,284
10,882
136
Let the fun Begin!

Elon Musk, new owner of Twitter, tweets unfounded conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi attack (msn.com)

“There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye,” Musk wrote to Clinton, linking to a story published on a right-wing website called the Santa Monica Observer that questioned the circumstances of the attack on Pelosi, according to an archived version of the story.

The fact-checking website Media Bias/Fact Check rates the Santa Monica Observer as a "questionable source" based on "the routine publication of false and misleading information and the use of poor sources."
Now, wouldn't Section 230 no longer apply to his content, since he is the company?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,478
9,379
136
So why is he posting something that needs those qualifiers?
Either he thinks the story has some legs or he doesn't. If he doesn't the only reason he's using those qualifiers is to not get sued but still get to shitpost.
Quoting myself now!

This is a prime example of why right wing types get banned then cry about bias.
Transparently adding qualifiers to posts doesn't suddenly give you a get out of jail free card. It's like you can't just say "I'm not meaning to be rude but..." and then be rude to someone and its ok!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous and Zorba

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,927
3,688
136
Quoting myself now!

This is a prime example of why right wing types get banned then cry about bias.
Transparently adding qualifiers to posts doesn't suddenly give you a get out of jail free card. It's like you can't just say "I'm not meaning to be rude but..." and then be rude to someone and its ok!
It has worked so far for Tucker on the air, as almost literally a get out of jail free (or in his case, get out of lawsuits "free") card. Just call it entertainment, and frame it in the form of a question, and you too can become a master liar without any liability.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,478
9,379
136
It has worked so far for Tucker on the air, as almost literally a get out of jail free (or in his case, get out of lawsuits "free") card. Just call it entertainment, and frame it in the form of a question, and you too can become a master liar without any liability.
Thing is he's paid to do that by the platform he does it on, it's the numties that do it on other peoples platforms then get all outraged when then find out that that platform might not want disengenuous shitheads that surprise me!
 

borosp1

Senior member
Apr 12, 2003
476
427
136
This. because he also knows that even though these guys are well-compensated and will be winning their lifetime-fortune salaries in the end, the cost of their lawyers while suing for their bonuses isn't going to be as easy for them as it will be for Musk. It will still cost them a lot, and they will probably feel it, assuming they live like asshats of course and have long had trouble living on less than $5 million/year, lol.

Musk uses lawyers and tort just like Trump does. Spite.

The State of California might get involved as this is a labor law issue in California as you cant just make up a reason with 'just cause' the same day you started on the job to fire 4 execs and not give them their golden parachute's which where written in their contracts. I am not for those rich c-suite workers winning the compensation game when a company does bad or good they get huge payouts, but its written in their contract and Musk cant just makeup a reason to not pay them.

Musk denies reports he is firing Twitter employees in attempt to avoid payouts
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,032
16,250
126
LoL what shall I do today? I know, let's piss off the government of California!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
This. because he also knows that even though these guys are well-compensated and will be winning their lifetime-fortune salaries in the end, the cost of their lawyers while suing for their bonuses isn't going to be as easy for them as it will be for Musk. It will still cost them a lot, and they will probably feel it, assuming they live like asshats of course and have long had trouble living on less than $5 million/year, lol.

Musk uses lawyers and tort just like Trump does. Spite.
They will win the case easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

borosp1

Senior member
Apr 12, 2003
476
427
136
I sincerely doubt enough people will want to buy Twitter clout that does nothing else which will create meaningful revenue.

Celebrities and wanna-be celebrities' buy fake followers on Instagram and Twitter all the time in order to build their so called "brand"... So I do see public facing celebs and wanna-be celebs buying verification to heighten those public facing idiots more clout.

I remember a couple years ago there was an expose by the NYTIMES on people buying Twitter followers and the movie critic Richard Roeper was caught and suspended by his employer for doing so.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
What does the check give you? As far as I can tell nothing. Why would someone pay for that?

Well, instead of reading comments from completely anonymous strangers, now you can read comments from verified strangers!

I know I for one never trusted the rantings of “anonymous_billy_bob23”, but now that he’s “verified _billy_bob23”, well now, “trustful” seems like an understatement.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Celebrities and wanna-be celebrities' buy fake followers on Instagram and Twitter all the time in order to build their so called "brand"... So I do see public facing celebs and wanna-be celebs buying verification to heighten those public facing idiots more clout.

I remember a couple years ago there was an expose by the NYTIMES on people buying Twitter followers and the movie critic Richard Roeper was caught and suspended by his employer for doing so.

How does this change things? Fake followers would still be a thing, unless you think regular people will pay to be verified just so they can follow their favorite people.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,197
2,266
136
Who knew the shit show would start so soon. Maybe he will lay off 75% as rumored and the other 25% quit then he has to merge with “truth” social.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gothuevos

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,971
5,593
136
So why is he posting something that needs those qualifiers?
Either he thinks the story has some legs or he doesn't. If he doesn't the only reason he's using those qualifiers is to not get sued but still get to shitpost.
Twitter is now the Elon Musk show, as long as he stays just shy of slander he can say pretty much anything he want's. Qualifiers matter, preface almost anything with "in my opinion" and you're good to go.
I'd like it if twitter was moderated fairly, but it's an absolute certainty that there will be no agreement on what's fair. Extremism is where the money is. Anger, accusations, partial truths, and outright lies, all of those generate clicks, get adds in front of people with a credit card, and generally support consumerism. The system works.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Celebrities and wanna-be celebrities' buy fake followers on Instagram and Twitter all the time in order to build their so called "brand"... So I do see public facing celebs and wanna-be celebs buying verification to heighten those public facing idiots more clout.

I remember a couple years ago there was an expose by the NYTIMES on people buying Twitter followers and the movie critic Richard Roeper was caught and suspended by his employer for doing so.
That does not seem like a strong revenue generator at $20 a celebrity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gothuevos

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,990
7,506
136
So there's now a distinct possibility that Twitter being morphed into The Musk Message Board For "Free Speech" may allow every single lie, false accusation, misinformation and disinformation that the GOP and it's mouthpiece FOX can dream up?

I guess the nation being normalized into accepting outright lies, false conspiracies and blatantly false accusations as everyday discourse is the best way to make a fortune in the info sharing business?

Well it's one way for Musk to muscle his way into the hearts and minds of the people of the nation. I can see Trump all giddied-up and raring to go with getting revenge on those who rightfully applauded his being banned. Unleashing his pent up rage at being humiliated from being kicked out will draw a much larger following than he had before he was banned methinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo