The valuation for Twitter seems to be basically fair, so it wouldn't be surprising to see this deal eventually close. I think it's fair to say most people's view was that the biggest barrier to closing the deal was Musk actually making an honest offer. Which now, with Morgan Stanley actually standing behind the offer, looks more or less certain. So really it's going to be down to details which are unlikely to be an issue unless Musk uses some pretense to blow up the deal (I don't think that's hugely likely, but I think it's very possible).
What I find really interesting personally is that Twitter is a unique entity. It has practically failed to adapt over a decade. That is both good and bad. It has given it a very specific character and a very specific user base. We have seen over the years that it's very easy for social media companies to die rather than adapt. This has been shown in slow trends like people moving on from Facebook or all at once like at Digg. It's very easy to alienate users without attracting new ones. So it'll be very interesting to see what happens there.
> Which now, with Morgan Stanley actually standing behind the offer, looks more or less certain
Morgan Stanley only covers part of the total deal and Musk still needs to find a solid 21 billion from somewhere. That's probably doable for him but definitely not easy. I don't see it as "more or less certain" at least..
> We have seen over the years that it's very easy for social media companies to die rather than adapt
I’d also argue that it’s very easy for a social network to be so dedicated to adapting for growth that it loses character. For example, how every single app these days seems to have a “story” feature.
In fact, Twitter had one too: fleets. They were pushed by an activist investor and flopped horribly. Best case Musk is a wonderful steward for the company, worst case we see ideas like fleets and much worse and Twitter loses much of what makes it unique in the first place.
We do not want to "blow up the deal", a lot of effort & ongoing research has been applied to adapt without breaking it's purpose or charecter or brand.
The board is simply obligated to entertain the offer, they will reject as it is not in the best long term interest of the share holders. Yes it is monetarily competitive but also Twitter will basically lose most of their users if Elon is in charge. It's no secret that he has alt right motives.
A billionaire should not be able to do this in the first place.
Yes, we should keep it under the influence shareholders like the Saudi Monarchy. Twitter users’ values definitely align with them??
Im curious why do you think a billionaire shouldn’t be able to buy a company?
I actually prefer it when several billionaires are “at odds” eg bezos vs musk. Rather than just silently agreeing and covering for each other as it has been for what feels like eternity.
I'd consider myself pretty far left, especially by American standards, but Musk is in no way some sort of crypto (in the traditional sense) fascist. He's got some pretty libertarian views on free speech, a blind spot for PoC, and that's about it. I'd hardly categorize that as "alt right".
Really hard to imagine the richest and most accomplished dude on the planet not being able to secure funding. Somehow people still think he’s just a showman. At some point in time, accomplishments can’t be explained away
I'm finding media coverage and opinions on trending news topics to be increasingly superficial and partisan. It has certainly always been the case to some degree, but as someone who does truly want to understand how things work and are, it's become more difficult to make sense of things. It seems like media entities feel they need to be entrenched on their side of the American culture war, and show no empathy/humility/curiosity or attempt to take a holistic view on issues.
The mainstream media takes on Musk and Twitter have certainly been something. For some reason, he's been coded as 'right wing' by many among the media set, and is getting the treatment that those coded that way get. The available evidence doesn't support that coding, and it all shouldn't matter anyway.
He hasn't financed the full amount and is still short. He'll have to unload Tesla shares to raise the balance; I'm very curious if he'll do that. Maybe in being overly cynical, but it feels like it may be the board calling his bluff rather than prolonging the process/having to find a white knight. I'm morbidly curious about what a private Twitter will look like in 2 years (both the company[1] and product)
I don't know of people saying that he had "no possible way" to finance a deal.
Quoting the excellent Matt Levine, the situation is more like the following: '''the answer to the question “might Elon Musk have made an offer to take a large public company private, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, without giving any real thought to where the money would come from?” is “absolutely yes, and he’s done it before.”'''
Of course they were wrong. Just like how they buy the stock AFTER the announcement hoping that it goes up, but instead it falls. [0] Typical.
Always be skeptical of what is widely reported on the news and don't blindly listen to what is being said by the brainless parrots on twitter re-tweeting everything that they think is 'going' to happen. Especially even if this deal goes through. As I said before. [1]
As always, not even the most upvoted or top comments are correct either. It's yet another bias projection.
The Elephant in the room is what is being provided.
Elon is already at the limits of his hours on a daily basis to devote to things with SpaceX, Boring Company, Tesla, etc.
Picture it this way, Twitter is your startup and Elon proposes to buy you out. Would you not question how much time we would devote as part of the buyout talks?
It’s not relevant. Is anyone expecting him to be the CEO? Far more likely he’s going to appoint competent operators to run Twitter. Whether this is a good outcome for the shareholders is the only germane point up for discussion IMO.
From a strictly financial shareholder perspective, it doesn’t matter if he shuts it down tomorrow.
There may be many people holding Twitter that care more about the product then the financials though.
It would seem that Musk already spends a fair amount of his spare time using Twitter, for free. One might attribute no small amount of Tesla's stock price as well as his child with Grimes to it. Even with a diminishing amount of time to dedicate to running Twitter as a business, Musk is one of the most effective Twitter users of all time and clearly understands the platform on an intuitive level, which bodes well for any critical interventions he might make on it.
Aside from a supposed pedestrian tunnel in Texas and that Tesla demonstration tunnel in Las Vegas, Boring Company has delivered 0 tunnels. Pretty sure it was started for meme potential only.
I’ve been following SpaceX for many years. Usually, Musk says that he works only on SpaceX and Tesla. He spends basically no time on Boring or any of his other companies.
I doubt that he plans to run Tw himself. Tw’s problem is that it is run by ideologues. To remove the ideologues is the main goal of this entire move. That step alone would probably double the value of the company.
No matter what Twitter does, they face legal issues. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If they accept the deal at the proposed price, then the board will definitely get sued by the ones who bought TWTR at a higher valuation.
If they refuse the deal, then the board will definitely get sued by people who bought TWTR at a lower valuation.
No matter what they'll do, there's going to be _someone_ who's going to sue them.
I have a question for those who say things along the lines of twitter becoming "more open platform, with reduced censorship of unpopular people and ideas"
Wasn't the only "censorship" twitter has done simply against harmful misinformation and hate speech? What exactly is twitter censoring that's outside of those two?
I haven't used HN long enough to know why I can reply to some posts but not others, so sorry for this top level
Here is a just one major example of censorship that was neither misinformation nor hate speech:
The Hunter Biden laptop story.
This story was broken by the right-leaning New York Post. Twitter banned its sharing in the weeks before the election, claiming it to be misinformation (with the implication that the leaking of its contents was part of a Russian plot).
~2 years later (when its relevance is greatly diminished) both the Washington Post [1] and the New York Times [2] have confirmed the major aspects of this story.
This was a coordinated censorship campaign, and a free speech platform would have allowed it to get the the sunlight it deserved.
Now, does it appear the NY Post's coverage was slanted and, in some areas, inaccurate? Yes. But that is where the rest of the media (including and especially Twitter) should have stepped in to perform its function in an open society: producing more and better speech.
that's the problem. These days anything you don't agree with can be considered harmful misinformation and hate speech. A year ago, doubting the almost 100% efficiency of masks or vaccines was "harmful, dangerous and may result in deaths", these days it's "common sense and valid skepticism".
Twitter said that their censorship was against misinformation and hate speech. A great many people noticed that their actual implementation was erratic, inconsistent, and partisan, and would like for them to stop.
Why? What I’m earth changes the next day? I’d you enjoy Twitter, use it. If it stops bringing you joy, stop using it. I, on the other hand, already dislike Twitter and may very well give it another chance under new leadership. But it’s just a social media account, everything doesn’t need to be some kind of statement. If you want to delete it, just do it, we don’t all need to hear about it.
As long as he follows through with the idea of a more open platform, with reduced censorship of unpopular people and ideas, I'd create an account. It would be a hopeful sign that freedom of expression isn't on a death march. And not that it would be easy, but I'd probably end up listening more often to people I disagree with.
The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. If the existing Twitter is so bad that Elon needs to buy it and save it, then the value of the userbase is low - particulary considering that the time cost for a user to switch is much lower than say a Myspace to FB shift.
I am assuming that Elon is not this much of a dumbass - what am I missing here?
> The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b.
No it wouldn't. Literally tons of people would do it and plenty of competitors have tried or are trying.
Per the value of the userbase and the cost of switching: well look at some of the competitors I mentioned, the ones Joe Rogan and others flock too when they get a temporary Twitter ban, do they not return immediately after their ban is lifted?
The cost of code and marketing can't beat Twitter's network effect. Getting Elon, Joe, and plenty of other personalities to move also is no guarantee that even a slight portion of the userbase switches.
Twitter's userbase is immensely valuable, but the company's execution has both been slow to unlock its full potential and also is on a fairly clear trajectory of eroding the window of permissible speech on the platform which presents grave risks to society at large. For an activist investor of the right type, the former checks the box of financial opportunity, and the latter checks the box of impact opportunity.
[+] [-] greenyoda|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Traster|3 years ago|reply
What I find really interesting personally is that Twitter is a unique entity. It has practically failed to adapt over a decade. That is both good and bad. It has given it a very specific character and a very specific user base. We have seen over the years that it's very easy for social media companies to die rather than adapt. This has been shown in slow trends like people moving on from Facebook or all at once like at Digg. It's very easy to alienate users without attracting new ones. So it'll be very interesting to see what happens there.
[+] [-] tauntz|3 years ago|reply
Morgan Stanley only covers part of the total deal and Musk still needs to find a solid 21 billion from somewhere. That's probably doable for him but definitely not easy. I don't see it as "more or less certain" at least..
[+] [-] afavour|3 years ago|reply
I’d also argue that it’s very easy for a social network to be so dedicated to adapting for growth that it loses character. For example, how every single app these days seems to have a “story” feature.
In fact, Twitter had one too: fleets. They were pushed by an activist investor and flopped horribly. Best case Musk is a wonderful steward for the company, worst case we see ideas like fleets and much worse and Twitter loses much of what makes it unique in the first place.
[+] [-] foxhop|3 years ago|reply
Same Twitter, just better.
[+] [-] exabrial|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bezospen15|3 years ago|reply
A billionaire should not be able to do this in the first place.
[+] [-] twox2|3 years ago|reply
If it's no secret, can you cite some sources?
[+] [-] wara23arish|3 years ago|reply
Im curious why do you think a billionaire shouldn’t be able to buy a company?
I actually prefer it when several billionaires are “at odds” eg bezos vs musk. Rather than just silently agreeing and covering for each other as it has been for what feels like eternity.
[+] [-] bigbluedots|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amachefe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yurishimo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] systemvoltage|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greatpostman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FFRefresh|3 years ago|reply
The mainstream media takes on Musk and Twitter have certainly been something. For some reason, he's been coded as 'right wing' by many among the media set, and is getting the treatment that those coded that way get. The available evidence doesn't support that coding, and it all shouldn't matter anyway.
[+] [-] sangnoir|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pxx|3 years ago|reply
Quoting the excellent Matt Levine, the situation is more like the following: '''the answer to the question “might Elon Musk have made an offer to take a large public company private, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, without giving any real thought to where the money would come from?” is “absolutely yes, and he’s done it before.”'''
[+] [-] mzs|3 years ago|reply
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/elon-musk-holding-compan...
[+] [-] mcv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|3 years ago|reply
Always be skeptical of what is widely reported on the news and don't blindly listen to what is being said by the brainless parrots on twitter re-tweeting everything that they think is 'going' to happen. Especially even if this deal goes through. As I said before. [1]
As always, not even the most upvoted or top comments are correct either. It's yet another bias projection.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30984349
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30984397
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fredgrott|3 years ago|reply
Elon is already at the limits of his hours on a daily basis to devote to things with SpaceX, Boring Company, Tesla, etc.
Picture it this way, Twitter is your startup and Elon proposes to buy you out. Would you not question how much time we would devote as part of the buyout talks?
[+] [-] sjtgraham|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WatchDog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shellbuddy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brtkdotse|3 years ago|reply
Aside from a supposed pedestrian tunnel in Texas and that Tesla demonstration tunnel in Las Vegas, Boring Company has delivered 0 tunnels. Pretty sure it was started for meme potential only.
Oh, and the “flamethrower”
[+] [-] bombcar|3 years ago|reply
How much time he can spend is a much bigger question if he’s being hired to run the joint.
[+] [-] coffeeblack|3 years ago|reply
I doubt that he plans to run Tw himself. Tw’s problem is that it is run by ideologues. To remove the ideologues is the main goal of this entire move. That step alone would probably double the value of the company.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nova22033|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rieTohgh6|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arc-in-space|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jbverschoor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tauntz|3 years ago|reply
If they accept the deal at the proposed price, then the board will definitely get sued by the ones who bought TWTR at a higher valuation. If they refuse the deal, then the board will definitely get sued by people who bought TWTR at a lower valuation. No matter what they'll do, there's going to be _someone_ who's going to sue them.
[+] [-] McLaren_Ferrari|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chrisan|3 years ago|reply
Wasn't the only "censorship" twitter has done simply against harmful misinformation and hate speech? What exactly is twitter censoring that's outside of those two?
I haven't used HN long enough to know why I can reply to some posts but not others, so sorry for this top level
[+] [-] next_xibalba|3 years ago|reply
The Hunter Biden laptop story.
This story was broken by the right-leaning New York Post. Twitter banned its sharing in the weeks before the election, claiming it to be misinformation (with the implication that the leaking of its contents was part of a Russian plot).
~2 years later (when its relevance is greatly diminished) both the Washington Post [1] and the New York Times [2] have confirmed the major aspects of this story.
This was a coordinated censorship campaign, and a free speech platform would have allowed it to get the the sunlight it deserved.
Now, does it appear the NY Post's coverage was slanted and, in some areas, inaccurate? Yes. But that is where the rest of the media (including and especially Twitter) should have stepped in to perform its function in an open society: producing more and better speech.
[1] https://archive.ph/znP14
[2] https://archive.ph/i3Ip8
[+] [-] skocznymroczny|3 years ago|reply
that's the problem. These days anything you don't agree with can be considered harmful misinformation and hate speech. A year ago, doubting the almost 100% efficiency of masks or vaccines was "harmful, dangerous and may result in deaths", these days it's "common sense and valid skepticism".
[+] [-] jaspax|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andersco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seattle_spring|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] askafriend|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rzz3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tux1968|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wintermutestwin|3 years ago|reply
I am assuming that Elon is not this much of a dumbass - what am I missing here?
[+] [-] no_butterscotch|3 years ago|reply
No it wouldn't. Literally tons of people would do it and plenty of competitors have tried or are trying.
Per the value of the userbase and the cost of switching: well look at some of the competitors I mentioned, the ones Joe Rogan and others flock too when they get a temporary Twitter ban, do they not return immediately after their ban is lifted?
The cost of code and marketing can't beat Twitter's network effect. Getting Elon, Joe, and plenty of other personalities to move also is no guarantee that even a slight portion of the userbase switches.
[+] [-] gfodor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] encryptluks2|3 years ago|reply