patrick.net

Hircus says

epitaph says

After the official rejection of the offer comes in Twitter is probably going to dip pretty hard.

I bet he has contingencies for this. Maybe he expects blackrock et.al. to reject, in which case he will use his moment in the extra large spotlight to point out their broad media and communications control.

Blackrock and vanguard have both been buying up shares today.

clambo says

The guys (foreigners) who run google and Twitter don’t give a shit about your free speech nor privacy rights.
Neither does that twerp Zuckerberg.
A pox on all of them.

Do you own any of their stocks?

richwicks says

I bet he's going to sell all his shares.

I bet he's already bought options to sell

I don't see why people think Twitter matters as a company. They have a terrible reputation, nobody that matters go to platforms that engage in censorship, their userbase is a bunch of low grade morons, and it's a propaganda outlet.

Let's see, but I bet this was just a plan to make a quick buck. Purchase the stock, give people hope the company will reform, buy options to sell, sell the stock, and profit as the stock reverts.

I'll tell you why your comment makes sense to me...If Elon buys Twitter, the MSM simply stops reporting anything about Twitter. This means Twitter would simply die. The biggest reason Twitter matters imo is because the MSM reports about who Tweeted what and when.

gabbar says

Truth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.

This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.

Patrick says

gabbar says

Truth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.

This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.

If private business is able to curtail 1A rights then it should be free to discriminate based on anything not just by what a person says.

gabbar says

Ceffer says

So much for Saint Musk:

Let's wait and see how this pans out. If he is able to buy Twitter, it may be one of the best things to happen in 2022.

Yeah this is far fetched, black cock and minions are everywhere, and they don't need Musk helping them making more money. You can shit on anything and always find angles as to why it's not selfless.

epitaph says

After the official rejection of the offer comes in Twitter is probably going to dip pretty hard.

Agreed, stay away from twatter, chances are much higher that the leftards will reject his offer and the stock will nosedive. Buy only if you're a gambler

84% will not leave twitter following the elonification. Thats good news. The 14% that will are likely mostly bluffing, hoping by voting to leave that it will help sway to board against elonification.

Agree with @mell
Do NOT buy twatter right now! Elon is playing a game with the woketards. First he offers a sell price that is far above the current evaluation. This means the board has to seriously consider it and will be criticized by shareholders for NOT taking the offer should they reject it.
Second, when the inevitable rejection comes, he immediately dumps his twatter stocks and reaps a large capital gains reward for his speculation.
Third, investors, seeing Musk withdraw his offer and reading that the board is destructive to investment and gains, also drop the stock leading to a massive dip in stock price.
Fourth, when the stock bottoms, Musk buys it back and either
1)Offers the board half price
Or
2)Initiates a hostile takeover at bargain basement prices.

Either way, Musk wins. He just wins more when the woketards act woketarded.

Patrick says

gabbar says

Truth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.

This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.

These quasi-monopolies and other corporations are like the arms of the octopus (government)

Nah, looks like Vanguard took a stake over 10%, locking out Musk. For Now.

https://m.theepochtimes.com/twitter-shares-slide-after-saudi-investor-rejects-musks-bid-for-twitter_4405018.html?source=patrick.net&utm_source=share-btn-copylink

So stock values drop over the refusal of one shareholder to sell to Musk.
How much will they slide when his offer is rejected by the board?
Betting he still makes a killing selling the peak and buying the trough in a takeover.

Shaman says

So stock values drop over the refusal of one shareholder to sell to Musk.

Can that one shareholder block the sale?

Patrick says

Shaman says

So stock values drop over the refusal of one shareholder to sell to Musk.

Can that one shareholder block the sale?

No. The board will likely refuse it though, and that will open them up for lawsuits violating their fiduciary duty etc. Stock will tank if it's rejected

mell says

that will open them up for lawsuits violating their fiduciary duty

True, the board legally must act in the best interests of shareholders. Elon is offering quite a premium over the market price, which does clearly is in the interest of shareholders. I think their only counter-argument is bin Talal's, that the stock is really worth more than what the market is pricing it at. But how can the board plausibly claim to be smarter than the stock market?

Patrick says

mell says

that will open them up for lawsuits violating their fiduciary duty

True, the board legally must act in the best interests of shareholders. Elon is offering quite a premium over the market price, which does clearly is in the interest of shareholders. I think their only counter-argument is bin Talal's, that the stock is really worth more than what the market is pricing it at. But how can the board plausibly claim to be smarter than the stock market?

There's no rule of law.

Twitter is a device for disseminating propaganda. Jack Dorsey realized that was the only way to profit and became a haggard old man over the course of a year once he did, then he finally resigned.

Twitter will not change. It exists to misinform the public.

You guys MUST see War Room's evening episode today.

original link


Posobiec, Cernovitch, and Beattie all explain various aspects of the Twitter Deal:


* Executives are scared of the Trust Fund Baby Employees who don't need the job, but love to virtue signal from it.
* Executives feel pressure to take the 38% premium
* Talal, that agent of evil par excellence! . After watching the episode I was unsurprised to see him opine. MbS needs to kidnap his ass and beat him harder this time..
* Most importantly, REGIME MEDIA aka FAGAT can't let a hole appear in the Dam - if Twitter goes, what about the rest of Big Tech?

Cenovitch and Poso suggested the Ape Army get ready to intervene, GME style.


Speaking of FAGAT, I remember all the Libertarian Articles in the 90s and early 2000s about how freedoming the Pacific Coast was, esp. in Tech. LOL!

AmericanKulak says

Cenovitch and Poso suggested the Ape Army get ready to intervene, GME style.

That could be very amusing!

AmericanKulak says

Speaking of FAGAT, I remember all the Libertarian Articles in the 90s and early 2000s about how freedoming the Pacific Coast was, esp. in Tech. LOL!

It's sad cause it was true back then. Golden times, glad I could be part of it.

Winehorror1 asked if I own stocks of Twitter, Facebook, Google.

I must, since I own mutual funds which likely own them.
I own several index funds and a “science and technology fund” which surely own them.

Selling my funds isn’t practical.

mell says

It's sad cause it was true back then. Golden times, glad I could be part of it.

I agree. Before the massive centralization, it was very open and democratic, nothing censored, all very exciting.

Google is one of the great evils that ruined it.

Decentralizing Tech out of the SFBA is key. Elon should move most of Twitter's Operations to Tulsa and Lubbock. Joe six-pack Tech wouldn't mind those places, esp. if they are savvy to save up and succeed or start a family. Karen Purplehair would hate living there.

WineHorror1 says

Patrick says

gabbar says

Truth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.

This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.

If private business is able to curtail 1A rights then it should be free to discriminate based on anything not just by what a person says.

Plenty of private businesses don't allow firearms on their premises.

AmericanKulak says

Decentralizing Tech out of the SFBA is key. Elon should move most of Twitter's Operations to Tulsa and Lubbock. Joe six-pack Tech wouldn't mind those places, esp. if they are savvy to save up and succeed or start a family. Karen Purplehair would hate living there.

If they kept the SF salaries, they would droves of people going for the jobs in Tulsa or Lubbock. You could live like God.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/elon-musk-also-offered-buy-cnn-twenty-eight-bucks-tweets-musks-takeover-twitter-epic/?source=patrick.net

Misc says

Plenty of private businesses don't allow firearms on their premises.

True, so if a private business can suppress a right, they can suppress all of them or any of them they want. I have no problem with that. It's just that the government allows private businesses to suppress the rights that the government doesn't mind being suppresses. Shit is fucked up and bullshit.

DooDahMan says

Musk said "I have sufficient assets" when he was asked whether funding had been secured for the potential purchase.

Amazing. The richest man in the world can't come up with enough to buy Twitter? Somehow, I don't think Buffet would have any issues coming up with the $$.

Patrick says

AmericanKulak says

Decentralizing Tech out of the SFBA is key. Elon should move most of Twitter's Operations to Tulsa and Lubbock. Joe six-pack Tech wouldn't mind those places, esp. if they are savvy to save up and succeed or start a family. Karen Purplehair would hate living there.

If they kept the SF salaries, they would droves of people going for the jobs in Tulsa or Lubbock. You could live like God.

He should move Twatter to Brownsville Texas where SpaceX is now homed. Pretty poor area in a low tax state where the lefties who work at Twitter wouldn’t wanna live.

Why has Twitter not banned her yet?
Why has YouTube not banned her yet?
Its likely this is in the pipeline.

Hostile? He made a offer, in public, how is this hostile?
Elon is not the richest fellow on the planet.
Elon hopes to disrupt the existing oligarchy and provide for free speech by buying Twitter
Elon doesn't silence critics. In fact, he criticizes.
Bidet got elected in a democratic but sham election, so where is the oligarchy?

Anything that comes out of the mouth of a commie globohomo lefties mouth is pure projection when talking about opposition.

https://babylonbee.com/news/liberals-worried-that-if-they-cant-ban-opposing-viewpoints-theyll-actually-have-to-defend-their-ideas?source=patrick.net

SAN FRANCISCO, CA—A growing number of left-leaning voices are concerned about a dangerous increase in free speech if Elon Musk buys Twitter. Early reports confirm that this is because they would have to debate their opponents, instead of just banning them.

"Any statement that I don't like is literally incitement, promoting violence, and an existential threat to worldwide democracy" tweeted one user named Resist_The_System90210. "I never had to debate a real person, as Twitter just buries them in the 'additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content' to protect me!"

Don Lemon called out the widespread misunderstanding about so-called "free speech" on his "Don Lemon Tonight" segment: "There are obviously limits to free speech. You can't yell 'fire' in a theater, or claim that you can still catch and spread COVID even if you have the vaccine, or talk about the laptop proving that Joe Biden's son leveraged his Dad's position to make a fortune for the family - free speech is more like speech that I already agree with and won't hurt prevailing liberal narratives."

One commenter disagreed, however, on the grounds that Twitter was already an unbiased bastion of free speech principles. "If Elon takes over Twitter, he'll let literal Nazis like Donald Trump and Gina Carano say whatever they want! I won't be safe!"

At time of publishing, left-wing Twitter users were relieved to find that Elon was outbid by a CCP-connected Chinese oligarch.

There are many reasons to be skeptical of Musk's motives and, even if pure, his ability to restore free speech to Twitter. Way too many powerful interests need this censorship. But the panic reveals so much. My @getcallin show yesterday covered all this:

callin.com/episode/elon-musk…

Elon Musk Provokes Liberal Panic. Plus, reluctantly: “groomer” discourse | The Glenn Greenwald...
As the war um Ukraine ushers in an unprecedented censorship regime, liberal hysteria explodes over the possibility of free speech. Plus: is there validity, malice or both in the “groomer” debates?

How dumb do you have to be to believe that journalists - who work at Bloomberg and the Bezos-owned WPost or Comcast or CNN - are worried about billionaires controlling media?

They're only petrified that the wrong billionaire, one who may not censor for them, might reign.

Social media was heralded as an innovation that would liberate individuals from centralized control by the state and oligarchical power over their speech.

It has become the exact opposite: the most powerful tool of information control and speech constraints ever devised.

Censorship of conservatives gets most attention because it's so common, but censorship of anti-establishment leftists is also frequent: any dissident can be banned.

Pretending this is about bots or spam is fraudulent. This censorship is about control of political information.

You're allowed to spread any lies, propaganda and disinformation you want if it advances the Ukrainian cause (i.e., the US/NATO cause), but will be instantly banned if you say anything that challenges that on the ground of "Russia disinformation." This is all explicit.

Throughout the COVID pandemic, you weren't allowed to question the efficacy of cloth masks. You weren't allowed to interrogate the origins of the virus. You weren't allowed to debate vaccines or lockdowns. No dissent from Fauci/WHO was allowed.

The censorship is 100% political.

Let's put it this way:

On Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, you are free to say the 2000 and 2016 elections were stolen and fraudulent. You can't say that about 2020.

Before the 2020 election, you weren't allowed to post reporting on the Biden emails.

It's all ideological.

Everyone knows they are lying. Nobody cares about Twitter censoring bots or spam. That's not what this is about.

The social media censorship people care about is 100% ideological: banning dissent on COVID, the Biden emails, culture war debates, etc. That's what's at stake.

In US culture, we're inculcated from childhood that censorship is bad. So of course nobody -- especially journalists -- wants to say: "I favor censorship."

That's why they need euphemisms like "content moderation": to pretend it's about bots, abuse, etc. rather than ideology.

Yesterday was a flagship day in corporate media. It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it.

Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter, never forget what yesterday revealed.

One of those stories that went down the memory hole.