back to article Twitter preps poison pill to preclude Elon Musk's purchase plan

Twitter on Friday said its board of directors had unanimously approved a plan to prevent a hostile takeover, something that became a distinct possibility after billionaire Elon Musk offered $43 billion to buy the social media network. The poison pill, or "Rights Plan," the biz said, "will reduce the likelihood that any entity …

Page:

  1. Teejay

    And again, no.

    I had never realised how morally righteous Twitter is, and how populist Musk, until I read this article. Twitter's board are clearly in it for the good, and not for the money.

    Joking.

    Once again, a piece of journalism I have much trouble agreeing with.

    I also do not understand what Covid has to do with anything else in the article, apart from being a cheap emotional trigger.

    1. Martin-73 Silver badge

      Re: And again, no.

      Musk is a disgusting human being, he promotes hate speech.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: And again, no.

        how did you get THAT out of wanting FREE speech?

        (leftist "logic"? what is next, an accusation of RACISM?)

        We both know that promoting FREE speech is *NOT* the same as promoting *HATE* speech.

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      'I have much trouble agreeing with'

      So, wait, you're for or against free speech?

      C.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        I'll leave this here: https://xkcd.com/1357/

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Amen to that

        2. Eric Kimminau TREG

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          If this is TRULY the case, I can build quite the list of people the world thinks are a-holes but havent been banned. The problem is that the "platform" has decided someone is an a-hole, not the world at large and then decided to show someone the door.

          1. Tilda Rice

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            Or like the Hunter Biden laptop story that was in the public interest buried by the legacy and social media.

            Or Facebook removing a British Medical journal highlighting the poor quality of clinical trials at Ventavia.

            This isn't about some singular racist gammon, this is about what these big tech companies allow single humans (citizens or influential people like politicians) or entities like the BMJ to post.

      2. Martin-73 Silver badge

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        This boldly assumes that your correspondent has Sassed the US constitution (Sass: know, be aware of, meet, have sex with;)

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        "So, wait, you're for or against free speech?"

        Yes.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          I'm not against Free Speech, it's just that I think I've always made a lot of money from it.

          Elon^H^H^H^H^H

      4. Tams

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        Jein.

      5. Teejay

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        Joking? What a polarisation... if I agree with the article, I am pro free speech and vice versa?

        1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          Joking? What a polarisation... if I agree with the article, I am pro free speech and vice versa? .... Teejay

          Welcome to leading worlds with quantum communication, Teejay. Where a this is a that and together something else altogether quite different dependent upon the time and the place where the raw info for advancing intel is shared and with whom and for what it is shared able to make valuable sense of its decoded message/stealthy instruction sets.

          1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            This is the global control leverage which is always going to be questioned and fought over in order to lead the great ignorant unwashed and arrogant dilettante alike with news they want you to believe without question. ....... MSNBC Blast From The Past: It's Our Job To Control How People Think... Not Elon Musk's

            And hey, although we are absolutely crap at it without command and control of IT and AI, that's our job ......https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1515105781560971266?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1515105781560971266%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10

            And now y'all know what's raging on all around you, and with no end in sight of the almighty fight for which very few are equipped to deal with and survive unscathed with reputations and fortunes intact and enhanced/reinforced and fortified.

            IT and AI are a Brave New NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive World which does not suffer the useful fool with useless tools.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              WTF?

              Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

              I am having trouble figuring out whether I agree with you or are just confused.

              Free speech: yes. "Big Tech" manipulating and controlling the masses through censorship: No.

              That's how I see it. I like narrowing it down to a simple concept.

              (NOTE: pejorative, harassing, and libelous/slanderous speech is NOT "free speech" In My Bombastic Opinion. Everything ELSE should be ALLOWED, and NOT censored)

              1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

                A Right Crooked Game That’s Been Played by a Self-Indulgent Thought Chosen Few for Generations

                (NOTE: pejorative, harassing, and libelous/slanderous speech is NOT "free speech" In My Bombastic Opinion. Everything ELSE should be ALLOWED, and NOT censored) ........ bombastic bob

                Howdy, bombastic bob, nice to speak to you, to speak to you nice, nice.

                The problem is not in pejorative, harassing, and libelous/slanderous speech being allowed, it is in its owners and supporters, both active and passive, not suffering punitive crippling sanction ..... which one would have to admit and conclude is not their fault ... [the pejorative, harassing, and libelous/slanderous speech owners and supporters] .... but an omission and dereliction of higher office duty perpetrated by everyone else. Fix that simple fault and the subsequent results will be bound to be inordinately better and quite different.

                And is not everything else, by natural autonomous default, uncensored, and benefits unreservedly from free rein to roam and reign? Maybe that is something humanity is still yet to learn/discover/experience/experiment with?

      6. Steve Button Silver badge

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        So if I was to post something like "I believe it's possible Covid came from a lab leak in Wuhan" around one year ago, that would have got me banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation. Now that's pretty much accepted as a possible source. Who should decide what's free speech?

        If Twitter are a private company and it's up to them what they publish on their platform, then they should also respect the fact that they are a private company and do what's best for the shareholders (which means NOT poisoning their own share value against a possible take over). Utter hypocrites.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          No, it wasn't like that.

          People were posting - without evidence - that it was the China virus created intentionally by the Chinese in the Wuhan Lab. Groundless conspiracy bollocks spread around by Trump and MAGA arsehats.

          The fact that some conspiracy bullshit turns out to have some truth in it doesn't discount the fact that at the time, it still was conspiracy bullshit.

          If I pick a name from a phonebook, then start a successful campaign vilifying that person as a paedo, if down the line it turns out he was a paedo, that doesn't absolve me of wrong doings, it just means that in this case I was lucky.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            So what. Let people say what they want

            1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

              Yes. That way we'll know who to avoid.

          2. Steve Button Silver badge

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            Actually AC it WAS like that. People were posting circumstantial evidence, such as the gain of function research being carried out on Bat coronaviruses in Wuhan funded by Echo Health Alliance and that was being taken down by Twitter. Also posting anything about the dozens of other "coincidences" around that lab.

            Even worse, if you posted anything about the Hunter Biden laptop story in the New York Post that was also immediately taken down.

            1. Tilda Rice

              Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

              Or the British Medical Journal article about poor clinical trials practices at Ventavia, being taken down as "no context".

              Outrageous censorship to promote a singular narrative.

          3. Falmari Silver badge

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            @AC “If I pick a name from a phonebook, then start a successful campaign vilifying that person as a paedo, if down the line it turns out he was a paedo, that doesn't absolve me of wrong doings(1), it just means that in this case I was lucky(2).”

            1) Yes, it does if there is sufficient evidence they were, then you have not committed slander and or libel even if your intent was to wrong them with slander/libel.

            2) Yes, you would be lucky in that case.

            Of course a campaign vilifying a person maybe viewed depending on the language as intending to cause harm and may be subject to criminal laws. Laws that "down the line", would not change.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

              > 1) Yes, it does if there is sufficient evidence they were, then you have not committed slander and or libel even if your intent was to wrong them with slander/libel.

              I think you're confusing legal wrong with moral wrong.

              In that situation, he'd probably win a legal case because he'd (now) be able to argue that what he'd said was true.

              That doesn't change the fact that he was wrong to pick a random name from a phonebook and spread (as far as he knew) lies accusing them of some fairly heinous crimes.

              So no, it wouldn't absolve him of wrong-doings - he could just as easily have wrecked the life of an innocent person.

              1. Falmari Silver badge

                Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

                @AC "So no, it wouldn't absolve him of wrong-doings - he could just as easily have wrecked the life of an innocent person."

                I agree as I pointed out in my final line about "intending to cause harm". They would be lucky as they have not committed slander/libel. But they might still run foul of the law due to "intending to cause harm".

                So I do not think there was any confusion on my part.

          4. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            "People were posting - without evidence - that it was the China virus created intentionally by the Chinese in the Wuhan Lab. Groundless conspiracy bollocks spread around by Trump and MAGA arsehats."

            That is complete nonsense! People were posting that "there is considerable circumstantial evidence that the virus 'escaped' from the Wuhan lab!" And that got people banned!

            Yet, people WERE posting that "the virus came from a natural source in the Wuhan wet market"! Without ANY evidence, even circumstantial! And that was taken as gospel!

            Hunter Biden's laptop story was banned as "Russian Disinformation" and that claim has been proven to be 100% Leftist Disinformation!

            Just about everything Twitter has claimed was "Disinformation" has over the last 2 years been proven to be true!

          5. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            So what you're saying is if you agree with it it's OK but if you don't it's either hate speech or misinformation that should be banned. Since you bring up Trump, there was no shortage of twits on (one of many examples) the Steele dossier, which has since proven to be a fabrication commissioned by Clinton as a campaign ploy, and nobody was banning those as misinformation. Twits are only banned on Twitter if they go against the leftist narrative of the US. While Steele has been cleared of wrongdoing, the analysts that helped him gather information are in legal hot water for lying. The Clinton campaign was also fined by the FEC for lying about paying for it to happen.

            The thing about free speech is either everyone must have it, or nobody can. It doesn't matter if you get to speak because you agree with the censors, because the minute you disagree you too will be silenced.

      7. Martin-73 Silver badge

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        I'm against libertarian bollocks. Free speech comes with a requirement. A brain (or, ideally, should come with such)

        1. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          "I'm against libertarian bollocks. Free speech comes with a requirement. A brain (or, ideally, should come with such)"

          No, it does not! The village idiot has every right to say "the end is near" as does anyone else. It is up to you to believe him or not!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            But, you're also free to move him out of your pub when you're fed up of him bothering your punters.

            The thing about free speech is it comes hand in hand with freedom of association - the right to be associated, or not, with whoever you like.

            > It is up to you to believe him or not!

            What's that saying: a lie is halfway around the world before the truth's even got it's shoes on

            The idea that things can be left to that is idealistic naivety. I wish it were true, but humans really aren't wired that way. Studies have shown, repeatedly, that once someone's accepted a "truth" they'll tend to ignore any evidence that contradicts their belief (one example here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146124-we-ignore-what-doesnt-fit-with-our-biases-even-if-it-costs-us/).

            There isn't a good or simple answer to it, and that includes "just have moar speech"

            1. Barracoder

              Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

              Don't complain then when someone who is more tolerant wants to buy the pub.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

                Ohai. I'm from the future. As it turns out, Musk's alleged ploy to take over Twitter was just a PR stunt to garner attention.

                As was to be expected.

      8. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        So, wait, you're for or against free speech?

        I would want to see the definition of Free Speech before I could decide which side I came down on.

        Free Speech as in "anything goes", completely unrestrained and unrestricted - No, I am against that.

        I have found very few people who genuinely support such an ultra-libertarian implementation of Free Speech. Most are hypocrites who simply want the right to say whatever they want to say while limiting the rights of others to have their say.

        Allowing unrestrained and unrestricted Free Speech means being in favour of allowing terrorists and other scum to radicalise, to promote and incite murder, assassination, killing and genocide, to promote hatred and causes which would harm them, others, their families, tribe, country or lifestyle.

        I am not in favour of that. I believe there should be some restrictions and they should apply to all.

        1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          You should. Alowing radicals and terrorists to speak openly allows you to know who is a radical. It's a lot easier to monitor these groups, and know who needs personal attenton when you can easily find them online than it is when you shut them down and force them into the shadows. People aren't convinced to join radicals and terrorists unless they already agree with them.

          1. MrDamage

            Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

            And allowing them to speak openly also courts the risk of them radicalising those who listen.

            Or did Jan 6th not serve any lesson?

            1. Tilda Rice

              Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

              He did qualify his statement with, nothing inciteful.

              But opinion, or alternate narrative shouldn't be shut down, but often is.

        2. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

          "I believe there should be some restrictions and they should apply to all."

          I suspect you're lying. I suspect you would be very careful about how you defined "terrorism", "incitement" etc. to ensure what you wanted to hear was allowed but what you opposed was banned.

      9. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: 'I have much trouble agreeing with'

        You can say what you like; I don't have to agree with it. Pretty obvious, really.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: And again, no.

      Twitter, through its content moderation, is limiting free speech.

      And I thought such a think was obvious to the most casual observer.

      Looking forward to "the left" squirming over this...

      (oh NOZE our masses-manipulation-system is in DANGER of being... UNCENSORED!!!)

      All In My Bombastic Opinion of course!

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: And again, no.

        I am all for free speech, as long as I agree with what is being said. If I don’t like it then it must be lies and should be banned.

        1. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

          Re: And again, no.

          It is not about free speech anymore. The Left recognized your "right to free speech" but they do not recognize your "right to be heard!"

      2. MrDamage

        Re: And again, no.

        Completely unlike those bastions of free speech, Stormfront, and Parlour.

    4. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

      Re: And again, no.

      Twitters board is ready to undermine the stock price at the expense of the shareholders. That is a direct violation of their fiduciary responsibility. Anyone who owns Twitter stock (I do not) will be prevented from taking advantage of this offer!

      Law suits will be filed!

      If there are people who want to keep Twitter as is, raise the funds and make a better offer!

  2. RuffianXion

    Musk's concept of 'Free Speech', like many of his ilk, seems to boil down to, 'I'm rich so I should be able to say what I like wherever I like' and he's right - apart from the 'wherever' part.

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Winning the rat race...

      If you're a rich shit who can more or less buy whatever you want, it's really annoying to find their are limits on what you can say. What's the point in investing all the time and effort getting rich if some poor guy can still control you?

  3. Jim Mitchell

    "The poison pill, or "Rights Plan," the biz said, "will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person or group gains control of Twitter through open market accumulation without paying all shareholders an appropriate control premium or without providing the Board sufficient time to make informed judgments and take actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.""

    If the current shareholders don't think Musk is offering enough $, they can just say no and not sell them? Poison pills are to protect the current management, not shareholders.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Speaking as someone who's been on the receiving end of this kind of shenanigans before...

      When someone with a big pulpit starts making overtures directly to shareholders, there's a reasonable chance that a significant number of them will go for it despite its being underpriced. When that happens, the 40% or whatever who wanted to hold out - are screwed. They have no recourse but to go along with it, whether they like it or not.

      When that "someone" has a reality distortion field of Musk's calibre, the risk is much higher.

      I'm all for the board doing what they can to raise the bar.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > When someone with a big pulpit starts making overtures directly to shareholders, there's a reasonable chance that a significant number of them will go for it despite its being underpriced

        Exactly that.

        If you're in that position you're left with a choice between selling (at an undervalued prices), or holding out and hoping that not enough other shareholders sell to leave you holding the baby.

        What the poison pill does is help give shareholders some confidence that that's not going to happen overnight - they can hold out (whether on principle, or waiting for a higher offer) without too much concern that the acquirer will just buy from everyone else instead.

        1. Falmari Silver badge
          Devil

          @AC "What the poison pill does is help give shareholders some confidence that that's not going to happen overnight"

          While giving the board the confidence that they would be able to significantly increase their stake in the company for half the share price value before it happens. ;)

          Cynical no. ;)

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like