Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Edge-]

Mark Zuckerberg owes him a beer. Takes the heat from his burning $16 billion on some crappy VR suite.

You're just not ready for the future, where we'll FINALLY HAVE LEGS IN 2023!

But real, I don't think even this dumbass waste of money can distract from Zuckerberg absolutely imploding one of the most valuable companies on the stock market over the past year+.

[Rasulis]

Thanks to Mr.Mush for spending $44 billion on a company that losses $221 million a year.
I'm sure that Twitter will be self driving just a month from now.


Mark Zuckerberg owes him a beer. Takes the heat from his burning $16 billion on some crappy VR suite.

There is no comparison. Even while burning 16B on Reality Lab, Meta 3rd quarter 2022 net profit margin was still a whopping 28.16% and sitting on top of $40B in cash reserves.

- - - Updated - - -

You're just not ready for the future, where we'll FINALLY HAVE LEGS IN 2023!

But real, I don't think even this dumbass waste of money can distract from Zuckerberg absolutely imploding one of the most valuable companies on the stock market over the past year+.

It is still one of the most valuable companies on the market. People were unhappy that it failed to meet earnings expectations. However, all the other metrics are strong.

Earnings per share (EPS): $1.64 vs $1.89 expected
Revenue: $27.71 billion vs. $27.38 billion expected
Daily Active Users (DAUs): 1.98 billion vs 1.98 billion expected
Monthly Active Users (MAUs): 2.96 billion vs 2.94 billion expected
Average Revenue per User (ARPU): $9.41 vs. $9.83 expected

[Draco-Onis]

I perfectly knew you could not understand the issue. It has nothing to do with free market.

Do you think publicly traded companies operate on feels or morals not money?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

https://twitter.com/official_kju


Twitter lets a person who has enslaved a whole country, murdered dozens (if not more) people, and shot missles at countries we are allied with be on there...... seems a strangely followed policy.

Did he do anything that violated Twitter's rules?

[Specialka]

Do you think publicly traded companies operate on feels or morals not money?

Twitter (as Facebook for instance) is not a "simple" traded company like any other.

[Biglog]

Meta profits down 52% and sales down 4% year-over-year compared to 2021 is the issue, much more than meeting analyst expectations for what their numbers would be. The numbers are still good at the moment in a snapshot, but their costs increasing (up 19% from 2021) while revenue from ad sales are decreasing is not the direction you want to see a company going.

As for Elon and Twitter, if he removes all moderation it's going to quickly turn it into an unusable cesspool that drives users to another platform. Zuckerberg knows a little about another once more popular platform that has shown great decline after questionable moderation. He might want to remind Elon how that went.

[Edge-]

Twitter (as Facebook for instance) is not a "simple" traded company like any other.

Meaning what, exactly? Your extremely vague innuendo is hard to parse.

[Zantos]

The fact that I should explain why is an issue in itself.

Because banning them just "validate" their views and they just create alternate network where they only meet people agreeing with them, etc....

The only way any of them could realistically create such a website is if they have the money and resources to actually accomplish that. As well as the ability to spread awareness among those like them of the site. Even then, it couldn't be left unmoderated. They would have to enforce certain rules, otherwise, they would face massive legal consequence's if something happened. Such as if a crime was planned freely on their site and they didn't step in to stop it.

Websites are not obligated to allow free speech. They have rules. People who act like these idiots wont learn. If you let them stay unopposed, theyll think they are doing good and have the support of that website. If you ban them, theyll scream they were targeted and unfairly shut down. They like to twist the truth around to their side.

Elon firing the head of the legal department is a huge no-no. He is showing that twitter probably wont be around much longer under him. He has already sunk in a ton of money and I see him losing far more to come.

[Orange Joe]

Twitter (as Facebook for instance) is not a "simple" traded company like any other.

So advertisers shouldn't have a say whay their ads are next to?

[diller]

Twitter (as Facebook for instance) is not a "simple" traded company like any other.

So you made a sentence and didn't say anything!!!

[Endus]

Twitter (as Facebook for instance) is not a "simple" traded company like any other.

If that were the case, Elon Musk couldn't have bought it the way he literally just did. You keep not saying what you're actually driving at. Stop playing coy and just come right out and say it.

[Specialka]

Meaning what, exactly? Your extremely vague innuendo is hard to parse.

A company which is used by quite a few people as a source of information, which allow people to spread their opinion over the globe is not any "simple" traded company.

[Edge-]

A company which is used by quite a few people as a source of information, which allow people to spread their opinion over the globe is not any "simple" traded company.

What makes it different than all the other publicly traded social media companies? Or any traditional media companies?

I mean, a company which produces energy used by millions throughout the world also isn't a "simple" traded company by that same virtue, and that's equally meaningless.

[Endus]

A company which is used by quite a few people as a source of information, which allow people to spread their opinion over the globe is not any "simple" traded company.

That's just saying it's big. Not that it's in a different category from other companies in how it's traded.

Again, you're not saying what you actually mean, because nothing you're saying makes any sense. Elon Musk literally just bought Twitter like he'd have bought any other company, because it isn't any different.

[Specialka]

What makes it different than all the other publicly traded social media companies? Or any traditional media companies?

I mean, a company which produces energy used by millions throughout the world also isn't a "simple" traded company by that same virtue, and that's equally meaningless.

I never said that other social media company were any different (I even gave Facebook as an example).

[Edge-]

I never said that other social media company were any different (I even gave Facebook as an example).

All you've done is establish that they're in a different industry which like...yeah, they are. So are information service companies. So are hotel chains. So are mining companies. You're still relying on vague innuendo to try to make some kind of argument that none of us can understand because we can't read your mind.

[Jastall]

A company which is used by quite a few people as a source of information, which allow people to spread their opinion over the globe is not any "simple" traded company.

As opposed to companies supplying cars or appliances for tens of millions?

Oil for hundreds of millions?

Food for billions?

All those are "simple" traded companies providing crucial goods. I don't see what makes Twitter so special, especially since it's not even close to being the largest social network, merely one where there's more terminally online people discussing politics than is usual.

[TACOshake]

Over at The Verge Nilay Patel kindly explains to MUsk what exactly it is that he has purchased, in words he just might be able to understand.

• You fucked up real good, kiddo.
• Twitter is a disaster clown car company that is successful despite itself, and there is no possible way to grow users and revenue without making a series of enormous compromises that will ultimately destroy your reputation and possibly cause grievous damage to your other companies.
• I say this with utter confidence because the problems with Twitter are not engineering problems. They are political problems. Twitter, the company, makes very little interesting technology; the tech stack is not the valuable asset.
• The asset is the user base: hopelessly addicted politicians, reporters, celebrities, and other people who should know better but keep posting anyway. You! You, Elon Musk, are addicted to Twitter. You’re the asset. You just bought yourself for $44 billion dollars.
• Here are some examples: you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers “brand safety.” That means you have to ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals people to be total assholes. So you can make all the promises about “free speech” you want, but the dull reality is that you still have to ban a bunch of legal speech if you want to make money. And when you start doing that, your creepy new right-wing fanboys are going to viciously turn on you, just like they turn on every other social network that realizes the same essential truth.
• What I mean is that you are now the King of Twitter, and people think that you, personally, are responsible for everything that happens on Twitter now. It also turns out that absolute monarchs usually get murdered when shit goes sideways.

[Endus]

I never said that other social media company were any different (I even gave Facebook as an example).

Why won't you literally just explain what you actually mean? Because "they're social media companies" doesn't make them stand out as any different in terms of purchasability compared to retail chains or energy companies or law firms or what have you.

[Darkeon]

Good.

Twitter has been a delightful experience today.

Looking forward to more changes!