wouldn't want any binding constraints on his maximal free speech.
SpaceX and Tesla tycoon Elon Musk won't be joining Twitter's board, despite last week revealing he had acquired a 9.2 per cent stake in the microblogging service. News of the change of heart came in a tweet from Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, who got straight to the point: "Elon has decided not to join our board. I sent a brief …
This. Musk has already discovered with Tesla that people who run publicly listed companies do not have the right to maximum free speech. Becoming a board director at Twitter would very likely have further limited his right to free speech.
Secondly, if Musk's 'vision' was to let Donald Trump, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and various terrorist organisations back on Twitter, while the investigations and trials for last year's coup attempt are still ongoing, that could have a disastrous effect on Twitter's capacity to do business.
It's not the binding of his free speech.
It's the binding of his maximum stock ownership.
I assume he plans to buy Twitter outright eventually.
For an analysis of his SEC filings with appropriate sections highlighted see
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Didn't you get the memo...
Anyone driving a Tesla is free to do whatever they want on the roads.
Given some of the lunatic driving that I've seen recently by Tesla Computers on Wheels... sorry Model 3's that seems to be what they believe.
Besides... Grant Shapps drives one so... you do the sums.
Tesla's (of any model) are not a luxury car. If they are what does that make a Bentley or a Roller then?
I'll carry on driving my Zoe. It might be slow but at half the price of the Tesla, it is a bargain.
It will be a waste if he buys enough stock to eventually take it over, and makes "maximal free speech" the law of the land. Its value will collapse as it slowly becomes a toxic hellscape like Gab (since all the truly toxic people sidelined to Gab will come back to Twitter once Musk pulls the door wide open for people who threaten violence, or worse)
But he has so much money I'm sure he doesn't care, he'll be happy that he can go back to calling people "pedo guy" if they fail to bow down to him properly.
I think this is what happened.
1) Musk told them he was planning to purchase a significant stake (apparently he held talks with the CEO for a while before it became public and before he purchased).
2) The board had to weigh various conflicts. Do we want an irritant outside the tent pissing in or inside the tent pissing out? Once he purchases the stock, can he be more of a nuisance as a vocal large shareholder or as a board member? In which position is he of best value to the company (considering Musk's primary skill is being a marketing machine but he's also a major liability)?
3) The board figured it was better for them to have Musk muzzled by fiduciary duties and SEC regulations so they offered him a board seat.
4) Once it became clear to Musk what it would really entail to be on the board, what the board demanded in return for his board seat, and what he could no longer do or say about Twitter, either he decided not to pursue it or the board said 'take it or leave it'.
I think there's also a paperwork issue. When the purchase was announced, the regulatory filing was for a passive investment. Many regulators have similar rules, ie if you buy a large stake, you're meant to notify the market if it's active or passive, and if it's a prelude to a buyout.
No idea what the SEC penalties would be for becoming actively involved in running your investment would be if the wrong forms were used.
Twitter probably offered him the place as a sop but in reality he would have created a massive headache if he had joined. How would it go down with shareholders if he was regularly boosting / denegrating crypto (for his own obvious financial benefit), 4am drunk / drug tweets or flat out calling people pedos? What if he crossed the line and said something worthy of a suspension (arguably something he has done many times) and still they refused to act? Their stock price would go up and down like a yoyo and there would be lawsuits galore from shareholders.
Anyway, the Onion says it best about Musk:
That is good. Really good. I too thought that level of meta-awareness had been stomped out by the 'progressives'.
But then, he isn't THAT bad. He's much better than knobhead Jobs. And... many successful people have a desire to be liked and succeed.
Honestly, I dont think I could do as good a job a Elon as done with all that power and money. I know he drinks deeply from the Tony Stark well, but even so, if I had that power and money, you'd all be dead!!! LOL
And no ads. The power of corporations to dictate policy is greatly enhanced if Twitter depends on advertising money to survive.
I don't see how he expects Twitter to generate an income then. As I see it, if no advertising revenue, then income would have to come from either (a) subscription model (I don't think enough people would be willing to pay to cover the shortfall in advertising revenue), or (b) mining/analysis/sale of users' data on an obscene level (would enough people be prepared to sign up for that?).
Hmmm...looking at option (b)...yes, there probably are enough stupid/gullible people.
That's easy. There are many "data brokers" that pay good money for data sets. You don't need to run ads yourself (the Google model), you can just sell the data to data brokers that combine, filter and repackage that data to sell on to other companies.
If your data is part of three different data sets then a data broker can combine information about you into a new data set containing more or better info about you. That new data set will be worth more than a sum of its parts.
The admin of one of the world's largest Mastodon servers said that he noticed an increase in sign-ups since the Musk/Twitter announcement. Mastodon is essentially a decentralised version of Twitter.
The aggregated user count of most Mastodon instances (Gab and Trump's Truth.social are also using Mastodon but have chosen to be walled gardens so have disconnected themselves from the global Mastodon network) seems to support that statement.
Seems to me he wore out his welcome before he even started. Probably a bunch of those polls he's been running made the Twitter board think he was just a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.
Sherlock because he'll get to the bottom of the real reason behind the band breaking up before it even formed.
Twitter has reportedly thrown its $44 billion buyout by Elon Musk to a shareholder vote, which could take place around late July or early August.
Execs told employees of the plans on Wednesday, according to outlets including CNBC and the Financial Times.
Elon Musk is prepared to terminate his takeover of Twitter, reiterating his claim that the social media biz is covering up the number of spam and fake bot accounts on the site, lawyers representing the Tesla CEO said on Monday.
Musk offered to acquire Twitter for $54.20 per share in an all-cash deal worth over $44 billion in April. Twitter's board members resisted his attempt to take the company private but eventually accepted the deal. Musk then sold $8.4 billion worth of his Tesla shares, secured another $7.14 billion from investors to try and collect the $21 billion he promised to front himself. Tesla's stock price has been falling since this saga began while Twitter shares gained and then tailed downward.
Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others promised to loan the remaining $25.5 billion from via debt financing. The takeover appeared imminent as rumors swirled over how Musk wanted to make Twitter profitable and take it public again in a future IPO. But the tech billionaire got cold feet and started backing away from the deal last month, claiming it couldn't go forward unless Twitter proved fake accounts make up less than five per cent of all users – a stat Twitter claimed and Musk believes is higher.
A group of employees at SpaceX wrote an open letter to COO and president Gwynne Shotwell denouncing owner Elon Musk's public behavior and calling for the rocket company to "swiftly and explicitly separate itself" from his personal brand.
The letter, which was acquired through anonymous SpaceX sources, calls Musk's recent behavior in the public sphere a source of distraction and embarrassment. Musk's tweets, the writers argue, are de facto company statements because "Elon is seen as the face of SpaceX."
Musk's freewheeling tweets have landed him in hot water on multiple occasions – one incident even leaving him unable to tweet about Tesla without a lawyer's review and approval.
Elon Musk still hopes to quash a 2018 settlement agreement with the SEC requiring Tesla-related tweets to be approved by a lawyer before he can post them: on Wednesday, he took his case to the US Court of Appeals after a lower court denied this request.
The Tesla CEO landed himself in hot water with the watchdog when he tweeted he was thinking of taking the company private at $420 a share, and claimed to have already secured the necessary funding (sound familiar?) In reality, however, Musk did not have the funding or approval to do so. Investors, however, took him seriously and they started buying more shares, bumping up the stock price over 10 per cent.
The SEC accused Musk of fraud, saying his tweets were false and misled the public and caused disruption in the market. Musk was sued by the US regulator; he later settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay $40 million in penalties, step down as chairman of the automaker's board, and accepted that any tweets discussing Tesla would have to be screened from now on.
It's been a good week for free speech advocates as a judge ruled that copyright law cannot be used to circumvent First Amendment anonymity protections.
The decision from the US District Court for the Northern District of California overturns a previous ruling that compelled Twitter to unmask an anonymous user accused of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed a joint amicus brief with the ACLU in support of Twitter's position, said the ruling confirms "that copyright holders issuing subpoenas under the DMCA must still meet the Constitution's test before identifying anonymous speakers."
Elon Musk must personally secure $33.5 billion to fund his $44 billion Twitter purchase after allowing a $12.5 billion margin loan against Tesla stock to expire.
Regulatory filings released Wednesday show the Tesla and SpaceX boss agreeing to secure "an additional $6.25 billion in equity financing" on top of the original $27.3 billion.
The Tesla boss's Twitter purchase originally relied on $21bn of equity that he had to provide along with $12.5bn in margin loans secured by his Tesla stock. That margin loan was dropped to $6.25bn on May 5, and this additional financing would eliminate it altogether.
SpaceX has reportedly reacted to an open letter requesting accountability for Elon Musk by firing those involved.
The alleged dismissals come just two days after an open letter to SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell began circulating in a SpaceX Teams channel. The missive from employees said Musk's recent actions have been a source of distraction and embarrassment for SpaceX staff.
The letter asked for the company to "swiftly and explicitly separate itself" from Musk's personal brand, hold all leadership accountable for their actions, and asked that SpaceX clearly define what behaviors it considers unacceptable. The authors also said the company failed to apply its stated diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, "resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo."
America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance.
A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.
Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.
A US congressional hearing on "combating tech bro culture" in the venture capital world is will take place this week, with some of the biggest names in startup funding under the spotlight.
The House Financial Services Committee's Task Force on Financial Technology is scheduled to meet on Thursday. FSC majority staff said in a memo [PDF] the hearing will focus on how VCs have failed to invest in, say, fintech companies founded by women and people of color.
We're told Sallie Krawcheck, CEO and cofounder of Ellevest; Marceau Michel, founder of Black Founders Matter; Abbey Wemimo, cofounder and co-CEO of Esusu; and Maryam Haque, executive director of Venture Forward have at least been invited to speak at the meeting.
A totaled Tesla Model S burst into flames in a Sacramento junkyard earlier this month, causing a fire that took "a significant amount of time, water, and thinking outside the box to extinguish," firefighters said.
The vehicle was involved in a comparably unexplosive accident that sent it to the junkyard three weeks ago – it's unclear what caused the Tesla to explode nearly a month after being taken off the road. Like other electric vehicle fires, it was very difficult to extinguish.
"Crews knocked the fire down, but the car kept re-igniting and off-gassing in the battery compartment," the department said on Instagram.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022