Elon vs Twitter update: Elon in Israel !

Lol… the more you speak the more the right wing extremism comes out.

Free speech does come with accountability… which is something your ilk has a hard time with….

 

The extreme right doesn’t care about facts or logic… they just need to define the enemy and attack.

 

There were manny people on waiting list that could not attend our MLMU talk so I am sharing slides and comments here.

 

I'm not blaming Agrawal for banning Trump. I was actually quite pleased when Trump was banned, at the time, because it was like someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater what Trump did. I think they should have probably reinstated him at some point, or, at the very least, also banned the Iranian Mullahs, etc. as well.

My issue with Agrawal on free speech is not with what happened before he became CEO, but interviews he gave after he became CEO, which are consistent with his longtime public stance, which clearly shows he doesn't understand the concept of free speech, at all, or at least doesn't care about it, at all.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/twitter-ceo-parag-agrawal-bad-news-free-speech

(...)Agrawal will be far worse than Dorsey. In a 2010 tweet, Agrawal had said, “I am not sure what is more troubling: death of free speech or that ‘peace in society’ is threatened if a book is not banned.” This is a typical stance of India’s politicians and their toadies when they demand a ban on a book, movie, song, etc., that they don’t like; almost invariably it is the concern about “peace in society” that triumphs over freedom of expression.
He is ignorant of the fact that books don’t threaten peace; unscrupulous politicians and their henchmen do.
It is a well-known fact that Twitter has been exercising censorship, especially against Western conservatives. In September last year, the social media platform banned the Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan’s account for the unpardonable crime of claiming that China had “manufactured” the novel coronavirus in a Wuhan lab.(...)

 

I understand disagreeing with Twitter on content moderation but it makes no sense to single out Agrawal. Much of Twitter's content moderation policy predates his tenure as CEO yet you are still only targeting Agrawal. Jack Dorsey was CEO during most of this. For example, the reference to moderating content around Wuhan laboratory happened when Dorsey was still CEO. Agrawal has been CEO for less than a year. All of this started before him. Yet you haven't leveled a single critique of Jack Dorsey.

 

Frankly, I don't see Twitter's policies any different than FB or Google/Youtube's. It wasn't a dramatic or noticable shift under Agrawal and more of the same evolution for big multinational techs to be weak-kneed under global regulatory scrutiny. On comparably, his approval rating isn't awful.

Social media is becoming increasingly under the spotlight on its effects of starting social unrest. I think it's fair for them to do something about it, even if I disagree or agree with their actions.

It's also fair to acknowledge the flipside, governments are becoming more inept at keeping balanced budgets, investing for the long term, and weakening the income inequality gap. It's genuinely debatable which is causing which when it comes to social unrest, likely both.

I don't want to see cruel and obscene images marketed as political speech as one guy alluded in your Post article. That was never a thing on broadcast tv. Network channels still bleep out swear words and ban nudity, so why should the internet be even bolder when it allows an even larger audience to consume that material?

Speech should be preserved at the commons, but the digital commons is not a real proxy for a face to face forum. Impassioned debates can come and go ostensibly without a riot directly caused by it weeks later. There are more expectations of decency or rule/ethics keeping when you say things in front of another person. You can't easily orchestrate faceless mobs to tip the scales at a moment's notice. You know the other person has a life attached to them, and you can give them a bigger benefit of the doubt on how genuine their positions are. Much harder to get catfished in person, but I guess the times are changing on that front too...

So people will argue why Twitter has that power in the first place. That's probably a better question than taking a position on how Twitter should be run. There Is No Alternative.

I think that's really a societal challenge rather than a technical or ownership problem. Bit of a dodge for the matter at hand, but social challenges can't be resolved by decree or magic pill.

 

Im beginning to think these MUSKLORDs may not be acting entirely in good faith

 

Take that @SamFisher and @Major !!!

 

Matt Levine still solid on the post-game analysis.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-10-05/elon-s-back

And then there is the financing. Musk’s banks, led by Morgan Stanley, have committed to lend Twitter $13 billon to help pay the purchase price. They made that commitment — and fixed the terms of that debt — in April, when social-media stocks were higher, Musk was richer, credit spreads were tighter, interest rates were lower, and Musk was saying nice things about Twitter instead of calling it a massive fraud. Now it is October and that commitment looks awful. Bloomberg reports:

If terms of the original $12.5 billion financing package 5 remain the same, bankers may struggle to sell the risky Twitter buyout debt just as credit markets begin to crack. With yields at multiyear highs, they’re potentially on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars of losses on the unsecured portion alone should they try to unload it to investors. That’s because they would almost certainly have to offer the debt at a steep discount.​

And:

“It’s similar to a vegetarian going to a steakhouse: Very limited appetite,” said John McClain, a high-yield portfolio manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management, referring to investor demand for buyout debt. “Given the incremental company specific news flow since the deal was agreed to -- combined with the meaningful deterioration in the economy -- lenders will be very hesitant to provide financing.”​

For comparison, the private equity buyout of Citrix Systems Inc. was signed in January, and last month banks sold most of the $15 billion of debt for the deal at prices of 83.5 to 91 cents on the dollar. Similar levels here would leave Musk’s banks with more than a billion dollars of losses.

Ordinarily when banks provide debt financing for a leveraged buyout, there is an orderly process for marketing the debt. Between signing and closing of the deal everyone — the banks, the target, the buyer — gets together and writes disclosure and marketing documents for the debt. The buyer and the target have a business plan and financial projections that they can pitch to potential investors, and they have meetings with those investors to drum up enthusiasm. And then the debt is sold before the deal closes, so that the banks have the money (from selling the debt) to give to the buyer to pay the purchase price at closing.

You can read Musk’s debt commitment letter for the deal here. On pages 3 and 4 there is a section titled “Syndication” that says that the banks “intend to commence syndication efforts promptly” and sell the debt “prior to the Closing Date,” and that requires Musk to do things like “ensure that any syndication efforts benefit materially from your existing lending and investment banking relationships,” “cause the Company to assist in the preparation of customary confidential information memoranda” and “other marketing materials,” try to get the debt rated by ratings agencies, and attend at least one meeting for prospective investors, “which meeting shall not exceed two (2) hours in duration and may be virtual.”

But the letter also says that “the Initial Lenders’ commitments hereunder are not conditioned upon the syndication,” and it goes on:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Commitment Letter or the Fee Letter or any other letter agreement or undertaking concerning the financing of the Transactions to the contrary, neither the obtaining of the ratings referenced above nor the compliance with any of the other provisions set forth in clauses (a) through (f) above or any other provision of this paragraph shall constitute a condition to the commitments hereunder or the funding of the Facilities on the Closing Date or at any time thereafter.​

Musk agreed to help the banks sell this debt, but even if he doesn’t help they still have to put up the $13 billion themselves. He didn’t help — he hindered! — and here they are. If Musk and Twitter really are trying to close this deal within a few days, then the banks will have to provide bridge financing: They’ll just lend Twitter the $13 billion of their own money, and “take out” the bridge financing later by doing a bond offering to investors. Hopefully with some investor meetings and marketing materials — hopefully with Musk at least saying nice things about Twitter again — but who knows.

Also, what about the equity financing? Right now Musk’s...​

 

You might want to take a Constitutional Law 101 class and familiarize yourself with why neither Twitter nor it's CEO would be concerned about free speech.

The funniest part of all this is that the Supreme Court just took up some Section 230 cases. If conservatives get their way and social media companies lose their liability protections, they will have to censor speech far more. Musk will either have to censor speech or be liable for the things random people say on Twitter. Conservatives like to b*tch about these things, but their complaints aren't even coherent and don't fit together at all. "Kill section 230" and "stop censoring people" are polar opposites.

 

This is why it's not a done deal and Twitter's hasn't accepted Musk's proposal as-is. They are going to accept nothing less than the court guaranteeing the deal goes through - which is the outcome they were suing for all along. Tomorrow is a big day - Musk is to be deposed, and if he wants to avoid that (which appears to be his primary motivation), he's likely going to have to cave to all of Twitter's demands in the next 12-16 hours. With the lawsuit, because Musk f-ed up his own financing, if the court rules in Twitter's favor (which it will), Musk would be forced to pony up the money if the financiers back out. Twitter's not going to give him an out on that.

 

Most likely in contrast to you I have indeed taken plenty of constitutional law classes, matter of fact studying the constitutions of several countries, got admitted to the bar in New York and Germany and have probably forgotten more about constitutional law than you ever googled.

But thanks for playing.

 

1st amendment wasn’t covered in conlaw 101 stupid. Can’t take @Major seriously.

 

Agreed. But that's something the more intelligent posters on this board have known for 20+ years.

 

There are some posters here who have been doing that since 99

 

Meh, misleading tweet, it's just 1b of pulled equity. Since Elon texted his bros he's"oversubscribed," and had to tell them that randos like @tinman were not welcome to invest - the banks and Elon are still on the hook to come up with the $$$.

I'm sure Marc Andreesen or Larry Ellison will make up the difference - "no extra work"

 

Lol don't forget the claimed MBA from Chicago-Booth* - seems very relevant to this thread!

*Global Executive MBA program

 

Selling that debt below 80c to the dollar...Elon bros must be generous.

Since the difference is in the billions, I guess that'd be considered philanthropic.

Ofc, with this crazy market, maybe Elon can flip Twitter like a McMansion.

I mean Dell legit pulled off a comeback. ::shrugs::

 

I understand to be a MUSKLORD is to vicariously own but, Twitter employs like what, 7000 people? Lets say Then Elon gets mad and fires 3500, who cares? Walmart employs 2.3 million people by way of comparison

I mean how does that make your life any better in even the tiniest sense? I don't get how random Twitter engineers are now the anti-avatar for your hopes and dreams.

I just don't understand alt right wacko psychology i guess