Speculation on why Musk wants twitter…

[David Emm]

17 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

 

Twitter is at its most powerful when people need to disseminate information quickly or coordinate large groups of people. Think Arab Spring or wartime. It does quite a lot of good for people then, as it's an extremely fluid, fast-moving medium.

 

Twitter is also good in that you can often communicate directly with people in a way that doesn't seem to occur with FB or IG. I mean, I get to exchange sentences with some huge photographers once in a while, so I think it's cool for that.

 

Apart from that, either I'm just not using the medium very well or not putting enough time into it or I'm not sure what. But I wouldn't ever say that it does "very very little good for anyone."

 

I don't refute your comments about its useful moments, but I stand by my views on its ongoing tidal wave of knuckleheads. I had some welcome exchanges with people whose work earns my high esteem. Some of it was as funny as hell. It was the signal-to-noise ratio that drove me away. Every time anything serious comes up, its an instant knife fight. 🙄 I didn't want to filter it that hard so often. It was like a car with dangerously unpredictable steering. As Tom Waits said, "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." 

 

[Anderton]

19 hours ago, David Emm said:

It was the signal-to-noise ratio that drove me away.

 

You mean noise-to-signal, right?

[Anderton]

Here's the problem.

 

We all know how objectionable feedback is in a PA system. All the main social media sites use algorithms that create a feedback-based process. There's nothing wrong with feedback per se, except in this case, it's regenerative. Uncontrolled regenerative feedback, which is exactly what's happening with social media, causes instability.

 

As long as these companies insist on using algorithms that cause regenerative feedback, they will continue to destroy society at a rate that outpaces how much they help society. 

[David Emm]

5 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

You mean noise-to-signal, right?

 

WHAT?? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! WHAT??

[ElmerJFudd]

“

Elon Musk said his $44 billion bid to purchase Twitter was “on hold” until he could get more details to confirm that spam and fake accounts represent less than 5 percent of the social network’s total users.

Mr. Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, made the announcement in a pre-dawn tweet on Friday. He linked to a Reuters article published on May 2 about a regulatory filing by Twitter that included an estimate of the number of spam and fake accounts.”

nyt

[Joe Muscara]

I really don't get this. Is he saying he's less interested if only a little bit of Twitter is spam and fake?

[Anderton]

It takes away his "I'm buying this to clean out the spammers, and make this a beautiful site for glorious free speech" rationale. The irony, of course, is that he wants to monetize free speech, so it's free speech that's actually not really free. And if he hasn't figured out that spammers will get in regardless, he's not as techno-savvy as he thinks.

[KuruPrionz]

6 minutes ago, Anderton said:

It takes away his "I'm buying this to clean out the spammers, and make this a beautiful site for glorious free speech" rationale. The irony, of course, is that he wants to monetize free speech, so it's free speech that's actually not really free. And if he hasn't figured out that spammers will get in regardless, he's not as techno-savvy as he thinks.

 

My guess would be that he is backing away because he hasn't found enough other people to loan him the money to buy Twitter. 

He could do it if he sold a buttload of Tesla stock but tossing that many shares on the market in a short time period will quickly devalue his company. 

 

I would further guess that somebody knowledgable that he respects gave him the low-down on spam, hackers, insane people, angry people and others that will provide a constant barrage of "free speech" that will drag Twitter down to a much lower level of discourse - like it is now and has always been. Another pipe flowing with human sewage. 

 

And monetizing it any other way than advertising will send "tweeters" off to other free places where they can spew their nonsense without paying to do so. 

Looks like he's on the hook for $1 billion according to what I've read. That might be an inexpensive lesson compared to buying Twitter and sinking it. 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, KuruPrionz said:

Looks like he's on the hook for $1 billion according to what I've read. That might be an inexpensive lesson compared to buying Twitter and sinking it. 

 

In the future, this phrase will be found when you search for example of "astute" on Wikipedia

[KuruPrionz]

Not an angle I'd considered but they have a point.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-invited-legal-scrutiny-by-tweeting-doubts-twitter-bid-211555141.html

[Joe Muscara]

People think Musky is smart, and maybe in some ways he his. But this tweet/conversation shows what he doesn't know. And if he doesn't know how to properly do this, then you have to wonder how he handles manufacturing.

 

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, Joe Muscara said:

People think Musky is smart, and maybe in some ways he his. But this tweet/conversation shows what he doesn't know. And if he doesn't know how to properly do this, then you have to wonder how he handles manufacturing.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's a SMALL sampling. 

Pretty sure if I had done as well as Elon financially that I would cash out to the extent possible, resign from all positions and disappear forever. 

Just a few measly billion and I could get by pretty well I'm thinking...

[Joe Muscara]

21 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

Pretty sure if I had done as well as Elon financially that I would cash out to the extent possible, resign from all positions and disappear forever. 

Heh, I hear you.

 

I give the guy some props for trying to do good and cool things in the world with all that money. SpaceX is keeping space in the news and has become a great way to get astronauts and supplies to ISS, Tesla has pushed electric car tech, The Boring Company could do some good things. If, and that's a big if, he can make Twitter a platform that's a useful communication tool and flush the cesspool aspects of it, that's a good thing. But I tend to think if it could have happened, it would have already. One can only hope that taking it private will give him the flexibility to do it somehow.

 

If he's really smart, he has smart people around him who knows what he doesn't and he lets them do their thing. I look at how Steve Jobs learned after he was booted from Apple. When he came back, he had really grown in many ways that caused Apple to flourish under his leadership. A lot of that had to do with the team he built. If Elon dropped dead on Monday, would his companies still be able to do it without him? Do they have good leaders and tech that can continue to grow and develop? I don't know. With his lack of social skills (he has Asperger's), it's likely difficult for him to develop that.

[KenElevenShadows]

On 5/11/2022 at 3:12 PM, David Emm said:

 

I don't refute your comments about its useful moments, but I stand by my views on its ongoing tidal wave of knuckleheads. I had some welcome exchanges with people whose work earns my high esteem. Some of it was as funny as hell. It was the signal-to-noise ratio that drove me away. Every time anything serious comes up, its an instant knife fight. 🙄 I didn't want to filter it that hard so often. It was like a car with dangerously unpredictable steering. As Tom Waits said, "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." 

 

 

Sure. There's lots of stupid comments there. I just wanted to point out when its useful.

[KuruPrionz]

Looks like Musk might be backing away. 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-using-dog-ate-134454420.html

[analogika]

I suppose that buying Twitter to get rid of all the bots and paid hate speech amplifiers, while reinstating freedom from censure, in an attempt to create a natural balance, makes sense, even if Popper’s Law means it will be impossible (as tolerance of those who wish to destroy an open society invariably results in the destruction of that open society, because they explicitly set out to violate the rules of fair discourse). 
 

When it turns out that FAR more than 5% of actual content is paid propaganda, astroturfing, and fake-account hate-mongering, even the most naïve buyer might realise that a) the problem might not be solvable, and b) even if it IS solvable, then Twitter’s real numbers look nothing like what he was actually offering the money for. 

[KuruPrionz]

42 minutes ago, analogika said:

I suppose that buying Twitter to get rid of all the bots and paid hate speech amplifiers, while reinstating freedom from censure, in an attempt to create a natural balance, makes sense, even if Popper’s Law means it will be impossible (as tolerance of those who wish to destroy an open society invariably results in the destruction of that open society, because they explicitly set out to violate the rules of fair discourse). 
 

When it turns out that FAR more than 5% of actual content is paid propaganda, astroturfing, and fake-account hate-mongering, even the most naïve buyer might realise that a) the problem might not be solvable, and b) even if it IS solvable, then Twitter’s real numbers look nothing like what he was actually offering the money for. 

Yep. If I were going about this I would have hired a small team to do an investigation into the pluses and minuses before committing to anything or making any announcements. 

Get experts in that field of endeavor to probe and learn and go on about my own business. 

Way cheaper than the billion dollar "step away" fee. If I found it was questionable (which it most definately is), I could simply remain silent and move on - and nobody would know anything about it. 

 

If it was a good deal, then I would buy it and make the announcement after all was said and done. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, Elon's mistake was opening his yammering yap too soon. 

[analogika]

Elon's mistake is invariably opening his yap too soon. 

 

I suppose it comes with smoking weed when there's an open mic or browser nearby. 

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, analogika said:

Elon's mistake is invariably opening his yap too soon. 

 

I suppose it comes with smoking weed when there's an open mic or browser nearby. 

That's possible, I don't know him.

He may be one of those unfortunate individuals who thinks out loud as well...

[funkyhammond]

On 5/15/2022 at 8:45 AM, Joe Muscara said:

If he's really smart, he has smart people around him who knows what he doesn't and he lets them do their thing. I look at how Steve Jobs learned after he was booted from Apple. When he came back, he had really grown in many ways that caused Apple to flourish under his leadership. A lot of that had to do with the team he built. If Elon dropped dead on Monday, would his companies still be able to do it without him? Do they have good leaders and tech that can continue to grow and develop? I don't know. With his lack of social skills (he has Asperger's), it's likely difficult for him to develop that.

 

I don't think it matters that much. Apple is no longer a visionary company, IMO. From what I've read about Elon (including the fascinating biography by Ashlee Vance), his main drive seems to be to get society and businesses to see his vision and participate in it. He has successfully popularized electric cars. He has successfully revolutionized the rocket industry. He has made big pushes for solar power and batteries. He is developing his Neuralink company to help with brain diseases (and possibly also help deal with advanced artificial intelligence if that ever becomes a problem). The guy does not think like a normal CEO. He has a crazy good memory, is excellent at creatively synergizing information, is excellent at finding efficiencies, has a very good business acumen, and works twice as much as most people (80-100 hours/week). In interviews, he often sounds like he simply hopes that other companies take over what he is doing and continue the work. He doesn't seem to care who is doing it as long as people are working towards some of these big lofty engineering ideas to help society. I once read a quote from him stating how disappointed he was in the fact that so many PhDs in Silicon Valley were dedicating their brain power to simply figuring out how to get people to click more.

[KuruPrionz]

3 hours ago, funkyhammond said:

 

I don't think it matters that much. Apple is no longer a visionary company, IMO. From what I've read about Elon (including the fascinating biography by Ashlee Vance), his main drive seems to be to get society and businesses to see his vision and participate in it. He has successfully popularized electric cars. He has successfully revolutionized the rocket industry. He has made big pushes for solar power and batteries. He is developing his Neuralink company to help with brain diseases (and possibly also help deal with advanced artificial intelligence if that ever becomes a problem). The guy does not think like a normal CEO. He has a crazy good memory, is excellent at creatively synergizing information, is excellent at finding efficiencies, has a very good business acumen, and works twice as much as most people (80-100 hours/week). In interviews, he often sounds like he simply hopes that other companies take over what he is doing and continue the work. He doesn't seem to care who is doing it as long as people are working towards some of these big lofty engineering ideas to help society. I once read a quote from him stating how disappointed he was in the fact that so many PhDs in Silicon Valley were dedicating their brain power to simply figuring out how to get people to click more.

Snoop Dogg stirs the pot, on twitter...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-reacts-snoop-doggs-193215764.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink

[funkyhammond]

10 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

Snoop Dogg stirs the pot, on twitter...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-reacts-snoop-doggs-193215764.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink

 

Not sure why you quoted me but that's hilarious. I have no idea why Musk wants Twitter but I think it would be a lot more fun if Snoop Dogg bought it.

 

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, funkyhammond said:

 

Not sure why you quoted me but that's hilarious. I have no idea why Musk wants Twitter but I think it would be a lot more fun if Snoop Dogg bought it.

 

I think I quoted you becasuse I was going to make a case for Apple not being done yet but then I decided I don't really care about that so much and it's kinda off topic. 

Plus, Snoop Dogg. Yeah, that would be hilarious. 

[analogika]

On 5/16/2022 at 6:52 PM, analogika said:

I suppose that buying Twitter to get rid of all the bots and paid hate speech amplifiers, while reinstating freedom from censure, in an attempt to create a natural balance, makes sense, even if Popper’s Law means it will be impossible (as tolerance of those who wish to destroy an open society invariably results in the destruction of that open society, because they explicitly set out to violate the rules of fair discourse). 
 

When it turns out that FAR more than 5% of actual content is paid propaganda, astroturfing, and fake-account hate-mongering, even the most naïve buyer might realise that a) the problem might not be solvable, and b) even if it IS solvable, then Twitter’s real numbers look nothing like what he was actually offering the money for. 

 

Well, it seems that is exactly what's going on. 

 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/05/17/musk-threatens-to-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-over-high-fake-user-count

 

And yes, the issue here was keeping his yap shut once he had a bright idea, until he knows it actually checks out: 
 

Quote

"It's not clear why Musk failed to do due diligence of the service before offering to buy, which should have included an accurate count of fake users. It's also not clear why the SEC hasn't said anything about Musk's Tweets or remarks at Monday's seminar, both of which are fairly textbook examples of stock manipulation -- which they have cited him for before."

 

[Anderton]

On 5/17/2022 at 12:01 PM, analogika said:

And yes, the issue here was keeping his yap shut once he had a bright idea, until he knows it actually checks out:

 

The way you're supposed to do things is ready, aim, fire. Seems this is more a case of fire, aim, ready

[KuruPrionz]

The bots are winning!!!

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-may-never-be-able-to-kick-bots-off-twitter-183132976.html

[Jazzmammal]

You guys are trying to apply what's normal to regular people like us to a genius like Elon.  It was mentioned he has Aspergers.  I know something about that because the son of the CPA I worked for for 25 years also has it.  Never sat next to a more brilliant kid than him.  I became friends with him and still am now.  He has an over the top IQ and is focused on whatever he needs to be focused on to the total and complete detriment of any social skills.  He got accepted to USC and majored in mental illnesses with of course a focus on Aspergers.  He aced every class and his counselor offered to put him right into the PhD program after he got his Bachelors which he did.  He sent me his thesis to proofread.  It was brilliant and way over my head, all I did was proof it for grammar.  While he was getting his Doctorate he was appointed as a special advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger.  He is now a Doctor of Aspergers because that's what his thesis was all about and is an associate professor at the University of Exeter in the UK. 

 

I'm explaining this because Elon knows exactly what he's doing.  Given my experience with my friend, Elon is totally focused almost like a savant on what he wants to do and could care less about anything else.  I believe he's come to the conclusion that Big Tech including Twitter is totally far left liberal with an extreme anti conservative bias because he's said after being a lifelong Democrat he will vote GOP going forward.  He wants to expose that bias.  This is not a simple business decision type pf purchase, he's on a crusade.  He knows all about the estimated 20% or more of fake accounts and he's also using Twitters SEC filing saying it's only 5% as leverage to reduce the price.  An SEC filing is a big deal and people have gone to jail over false filings.   At the same time I believe that is just a device to make a big splash exposing just how biased Twitter and by extension the whole Big Tech industry actually is.

 

Twitter shareholders are already spending the money they will get from this deal.  Nothing like making someone think they've just made a big score then having the rug pulled out.  They've already got that money in their minds, they won't kill this thing over say, 5-10 billion dollars less in total.   So Twitter sells for $50 or even $45 per share instead of $54, still a huge payday compared to the current price.  AND, if it can be proven that SEC filing was false, they will accept his price offer thus avoiding an investigation.   Nobody is harmed if shareholders reap a big windfall from the sale of the company so no need for the SEC to get involved.  Elon gets it at the price he probably already had calculated in the first place but doing it this way he creates a huge media splash exposing what's been going on there.  Why do this all businesslike and behind the scenes when he can have this much fun? 

 

Of course this is all speculation on my part but geniuses are perfectly capable of thinking many moves ahead of us regular folks.

 

Speaking of EV's and biases I think Biden really pissed Elon off when he had his big EV thing shortly after he was inaugurated and only invited Ford and GM while talking about saving the planet, providing more US green energy related jobs and driving the new Ford Lightning F150 with no mention of Tesla which is first, an All American company and second, merely the largest EV maker in the world by orders of magnitude.  I know that would piss me off big time.  Tesla's market cap is greater than Toyota, Volkswagen, Diamler, Ford and GM combined.  Yes, COMBINED.  Those of you who don't follow EV's or the stock market don't realize what a giant Tesla truly is.  And Biden ignored him? 

 

Bob

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, Jazzmammal said:

I believe he's come to the conclusion that Big Tech including Twitter is totally far left liberal with an extreme anti conservative bias.

 

Then he's come to the wrong conclusion about Twitter, doesn't know what a "search" function is, and obviously, hasn't spent much time on Twitter. Nor does he understand that are plenty of extremely powerful companies and organizations that are hardcore conservative, and have as much, if not more, influence on American society than "big tech." (Rather than debate that last statement, look into who gets dark money campaign contributions - hint: it's both left and right.)

 

A zillion conservatives are happily tweeting away on Twitter right now, including Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, John Eastman, Marsha Blackburn, etc. etc. etc. etc., and they are most certainly NOT being censored. Nor are the people who respond.

 

Twitter gave the former president and other conservatives a huge megaphone, to the point where many believe Twitter was essential in getting the former president elected. He was only banned permanently on January 8, for the obvious reasons. Yet his "press secretary" still posts stuff anyway.

 

If that's far left, and if that's not free speech, then somehow, I've entered a parallel universe. (Not that any private company has to abide by giving a platform to everyone - the first amendment restricts the government, not private entities. And the hypocrisy of shouting "free enterprise" while insisting that privately owned companies can't conduct their business however they see fit speaks for itself.)

 

I really don't want to get political, so I'll end with a story that sums this up PERFECTLY. When I moderated the "SSS Political Party" on Harmony Central (which I had created as a home/septic tank for political stuff so it wouldn't pollute the real threads), half the people were mad at me for being a liberal and coddling liberals while banning conservatives, and the other half were made at me for being a conservative and  coddling conservatives while banning liberals.

 

The reality is that I banned stupid or toxic people. It just so happened that both sides had their fair share.

 

And I have no faith in either side, so for one side to point out the hypocrisy of the other side, while not pointing fingers at the hypocrisy in their own side, is both dishonest and not doing any of us any favors.

 

But that's the beauty of keeping people divided into "teams." While the plebians fight among themselves, the ones pulling the strings can get away with anything.

 

I'm thankful that I don't have that many years left, and won't have to see the ongoing de-evolution for too much longer.

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

5 hours ago, Jazzmammal said:

You guys are trying to apply what's normal to regular people like us to a genius like Elon.

I'm explaining this because Elon knows exactly what he's doing.  

 

I believe he's come to the conclusion that Big Tech including Twitter is totally far left liberal with an extreme anti conservative bias because he's said after being a lifelong Democrat he will vote GOP going forward.  He wants to expose that bias.  This is not a simple business decision type pf purchase, he's on a crusade. 

So the owner of an incredibly successful business selling cars (not that this was ever the topic of the OP) is now brilliant genius by alienating a large group of people who have purchased and potentially could purchase in the future, a signifacant percentage of the automobiles he is selling?

 

That just sounds incredibly stupid to me. I sell things all the time. I don't denigrate any of my potential customers in any way, I am happy to sell my items to anybody who can afford to purchase them. 

That is just smart business and nothing will convince me otherwise. 

 

Intelligence and focus do not equal sucees or prosperity. Albert Einstein is famous for forgetting to wear his pants to teach a class. In his field of endeavor he could run circles around Musk. He was a genius. That does not mean he never made a mistake or acted like an idiot. Commom sense is not always common. 

 

The same is true of Elon Musk. Nobody bats 1000 and he isn't. 

[analogika]

Just to clarify what really ought it be obvious: banning people who actively try to violently overthrow the government is not “left-wing bias”.  
 

The people who are making that out to be a partisan issue are lying.