• daniskarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The didn’t buy Twitter for a profit.

    He bought Twitter to destroy it because big free horizontal communication platforms are bad for billionaires.

    He can’t just close it, so he just destroy it little by little until it is no more.

    The same way conservative groups bought Tumblr because it was too sexual liberating for their conservative views.

    • notatoad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      he offered to buy twitter for a joke, and he actually did buy twitter because a court forced him to. not because this was some grand plan to accomplish anything - he literally spent months in court arguing that he shouldn’t have to buy twitter, and he lost. that’s the only reason he owns twitter now.

      • penguin@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, he owns it because he’s a dumbass and he’s running it into the ground like a dumbass

      • JoYo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the court didn’t force him, he could have paid a penalty that was much lower than his current losses.

      • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        “mistake” in this case actually means by shooting his mouth off and thinking he was smarter than everyone else in the room. He fucked around, then immediately began finding out.

        • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But, $420.69, bruh!

          It’s so frustrating to be in the Valley, and be subjected to one set of rules to tightly follow, while a group of special sociopaths (e.g., Musk, SBF, Holmes, Neumann) are free to do whatever they like.

          • LostSchema@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just playing devil’s advocate. But aren’t two of your examples either on their way or in jail right now?

            • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I should have been more clear: The Valley allows and even encourages certain sociopaths to flout rules and conventions around ethics and reporting, while the rest of us are held tightly to those rules and conventions. For example, Sequoia seemingly didn’t even perform de minimis due diligence when leading a nine-figure round in FTX.

      • JoYo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is also the case, however he had the option to drop out with much lower losses.

    • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      You give Musk too much credit. The fucking guy is a big baby with impulse issues - who happens to have billions of dollars at his disposal. He is running Twitter exactly as I would think a dipshit narcissistic tantrum baby would run it, although dismantling Twitter does coincidentally benefit the top .1% for now

    • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why couldn’t he just close it, if that was his goal? He owns it outright doesn’t he? He could announce that Twitter was ceasing operations, sell off the remaining assets, cover (or default on) the debts, and then Twitter would be no more.

      So no, I don’t think destroying it was his aim. He’s just really, really bad at this.

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He bought Twitter because he (along with the Saudi royal family, the monarchy ruling Qatar, and the larger worldwide cabal of authoritarians) thought he could use it to control public discourse in the same way oligarchs bought up newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations in the past. He’s killing it because he never understood what most people liked about Twitter, he only understood what he liked about Twitter (getting a lot of attention and being able to be shitty to people without having to actually socialize).

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. His old friend Peter Thiel couldn’t make a rival platform take off, so Musk bought Twitter and saddled it with an untenable $13bn of debt.