Elon Musk - the world's "greatest" spiv?

[RichJF]

I get the distinct impression he agreed to buy Twitter to avoid having to go to court for backtracking on the initial contract.

The son of a family friend works for Tesla in the US & every time I meet him there's another story about Musk degrading employee rights & him "being an absolute dick". Most of what Musk has done is to piggyback on someone else's idea then threaten them with legal action when he's not credited as the founder or original patent holder.

 

[bleeder4]

The 3 part documentary on iPlayer shows you what a dick he is to his employees. Innovative visionary no doubt, genius undoubtedly, but as a boss he's a nightmare. If anyone hasn't seen it, it's definitely worth watching if you have a passing interest in Elon Musk, SpaceX or Tesla.

The Elon Musk Show

Uncovering the story of how Elon Musk became the richest man who has ever lived.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced about "genius". He came up with a decent dot-com then invested in batteries. If he'd invented the batteries, maybe.

 

[jon0844]

I get the distinct impression he agreed to buy Twitter to avoid having to go to court for backtracking on the initial contract.

The son of a family friend works for Tesla in the US & every time I meet him there's another story about Musk degrading employee rights & him "being an absolute dick". Most of what Musk has done is to piggyback on someone else's idea then threaten them with legal action when he's not credited as the founder or original patent holder.

Have you seen some of the conversations Elon had with Twitter executives back in April time (the texts were part of the court case, so put on public record). He says things like him being the best engineer ever but not wanting to get involved in the daily work stuff... very much sounding like an arrogant young Donald Trump.

He absolutely claims credit from other people and is just one big grifter, with questionable mental stability.

 

[gingerheid]

His downfall definitely came closer today. His relationship with advertisers is just about to become worse than Liz Truss's relationship with the markets.

I do particularly like how he previously accused Twitter of trying to sabotage the company by firing a key employee, and now gets rid of all of them...

 

[jon0844]

I wonder how far away he is from saying something really career-ending, like Kanye West in recent weeks? He's come quite close at times.

Mind you, he has a loyal base that would support him no matter what. He is way worse than those who follow Trump or (years ago) Steve Jobs IMHO.

 

[brad465]

I wonder how far away he is from saying something really career-ending, like Kanye West in recent weeks? He's come quite close at times.

Mind you, he has a loyal base that would support him no matter what. He is way worse than those who follow Trump or (years ago) Steve Jobs IMHO.

“The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the Axe for the Axe was clever and convinced the Trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them.”

 

[Strathclyder]

I wonder how far away he is from saying something really career-ending, like Kanye West in recent weeks? He's come quite close at times.

If he does say something like West has recently, expect him to somehow coast through it and survive in some form, much like Trump did/continues to do. As we all know, wealth & connections insulates these dregs from the consequences of their actions. Given your mention of him, it's early days yet and I don't wanna get my hopes up, but West seems to be the exception to this rule thankfully.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder how far away he is from saying something really career-ending, like Kanye West in recent weeks? He's come quite close at times.

Mind you, he has a loyal base that would support him no matter what. He is way worse than those who follow Trump or (years ago) Steve Jobs IMHO.

Kanye West hasn’t ended his career. That sort of thinking is more common and more easily explained away than you’d think.

 

[jon0844]

Kanye West hasn’t ended his career. That sort of thinking is more common and more easily explained away than you’d think.

Well it has taken a mighty dip, but you're right - he's getting a lot of support from others who have recently been talking more about globalist elites, cabals etc. All the usual antisemitic tropes.

Even Nigel Farage has joined in this week.

But I'm not sure he's going to enjoy the same level of income by becoming a far-right darling. It's pretty competitive in this space!

 

[Strathclyder]

But I'm not sure he's going to enjoy the same level of income by becoming a far-right darling. It's pretty competitive in this space!

Thought he was one already, in all honesty. Guess it's just being solidified/codified going forward. Am still reeling somewhat from his visit - yes, that one - to the White House during Trump's term.

 

[MikeWM]

Well it has taken a mighty dip, but you're right - he's getting a lot of support from others who have recently been talking more about globalist elites, cabals etc. All the usual antisemitic tropes.

Even Nigel Farage has joined in this week.

The term 'Globalist' is not anti-semitic, even if it is occasionally used by people who are. Those people are the problem, not the term.

There is something a bit interesting about seeing people on the right being unhappy at being called anti-semitic in an attempt to shut down debate, when they seemed to do nothing except cheer it on when the same thing was happening to people on the left a few years ago, and indeed many still call Jeremy Corbyn an anti-semite despite that not being remotely true.

But in the end we have to be able to talk about 'globalists' without being shut down as being anti-semitic, because it is an issue that needs to be discussed. The same as we had to be able to talk about 'neoconservatives' during the Bush administration. Or indeed to be able to talk about the conduct of the state of Israel towards the Palestinians. You can be concerned about all those things without it being anything to do with anti-semitism.

 

[yorksrob]

The term 'Globalist' is not anti-semitic, even if it is occasionally used by people who are. Those people are the problem, not the term.

There is something a bit interesting about seeing people on the right being unhappy at being called anti-semitic in an attempt to shut down debate, when they seemed to do nothing except cheer it on when the same thing was happening to people on the left a few years ago, and indeed many still call Jeremy Corbyn an anti-semite despite that not being remotely true.

But in the end we have to be able to talk about 'globalists' without being shut down as being anti-semitic, because it is an issue that needs to be discussed. The same as we had to be able to talk about 'neoconservatives' during the Bush administration. Or indeed to be able to talk about the conduct of the state of Israel towards the Palestinians. You can be concerned about all those things without it being anything to do with anti-semitism.

Absolutely. Like it or not, we have multi-national businesses/organisations who are big enough to influence the policy of nations, outside of democratic controls.

That absolutely needs to be discussed. Religion is neither here nor there.

 

[brad465]

The FT now reporting the implications of Musk buying at a time most Big Tech is in 'big trouble':

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Elon Musk has joined the elite club of social media barons after clinching a $44bn takeover of Twitter in the same week that investors wiped hundreds of billions of dollars from Big Tech valuations.

(Apologies article is behind a paywall unless you are one of the first few clicks)

 

[Cloud Strife]

He's probably going to destroy Twitter and by opening up the platform to all the worst people, he'll find himself in court in some countries (think EU) if he's not careful. Plus the chance of advertisers running away if Katie Hopkins, Donald Trump and others come back on - along with all the bots (which is one thing Elon moaned about before being forced to buy).

One thing is for sure, he's not going to make money on this.

Indeed, it's worth pointing out that any platform can only survive if it has a broad section of users. If Twitter becomes dominated by right wing mouthpieces spouting foul and offensive opinions constantly, then "the libs" will leave and with it, the advertisers. One primary reason why right wing social media sites fail is that they struggle with both advertising and user engagement.

Like it or hate it, the reality is that most hard right wing posters don't like echo chambers. They need conflict, and if "the libs" have left, they will leave as well.

IMO, Musk may unban a few high profile accounts, but the banks simply won't allow him to jeopardise advertising dollars.

 

[jon0844]

The term 'Globalist' is not anti-semitic, even if it is occasionally used by people who are. Those people are the problem, not the term.

There is something a bit interesting about seeing people on the right being unhappy at being called anti-semitic in an attempt to shut down debate, when they seemed to do nothing except cheer it on when the same thing was happening to people on the left a few years ago, and indeed many still call Jeremy Corbyn an anti-semite despite that not being remotely true.

But in the end we have to be able to talk about 'globalists' without being shut down as being anti-semitic, because it is an issue that needs to be discussed. The same as we had to be able to talk about 'neoconservatives' during the Bush administration. Or indeed to be able to talk about the conduct of the state of Israel towards the Palestinians. You can be concerned about all those things without it being anything to do with anti-semitism.

Globalist is not the same as globalist elite. The latter is the bit that has the problem, that everything is run or controlled by the Jews.

 

[Yew]

Absolutely. Like it or not, we have multi-national businesses/organisations who are big enough to influence the policy of nations, outside of democratic controls.

Indeed, this very thread is about a man with a space programme - something our entire nation apparently cannot afford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

IMO, Musk may unban a few high profile accounts, but the banks simply won't allow him to jeopardise advertising dollars.

If he has borrowed to buy it. Could he have paid "cash"?

 

[AlterEgo]

If he has borrowed to buy it. Could he have paid "cash"?

Who knows, the deal hasn’t exactly been transparent. Overall I suspect this is a big ol’ nothingburger and Musk memed himself into a bad deal. In six months we will wonder what all the fuss was about and Musk will have lost money.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If he has borrowed to buy it. Could he have paid "cash"?

From what I gather, he seems to have paid around 10% in cash while using his existing 9% shareholding as collateral. The whole deal is quite odd, because the banks seem to have really lent him a ridiculous amount of cash for an asset that doesn't seem to be worth anywhere near that amount.

Who knows, the deal hasn’t exactly been transparent. Overall I suspect this is a big ol’ nothingburger and Musk memed himself into a bad deal. In six months we will wonder what all the fuss was about and Musk will have lost money.

I fully expect him to get into a real mess over content moderation. The usual types on twitter are screaming F**K THE LIBS, but these people are really not desirable from an advertiser point of view.

 

[jon0844]

Didn't the buyer of Asda do a similarly weird deal in that they paid almost nothing and will buy the company from the profits of the business.

Why can't I just go in and buy Shell Oil on that basis? I'll pay £50 now and then the rest from the obscene profits.

 

[takno]

Didn't the buyer of Asda do a similarly weird deal in that they paid almost nothing and will buy the company from the profits of the business.

Why can't I just go in and buy Shell Oil on that basis? I'll pay £50 now and then the rest from the obscene profits.

It's a weird setup but not an unusual one, and it's been happening in one way or another for at least 40 years. Arguably all the banks are fundamentally doing is participating in the buyout, but taking preference in the company rather than voting stock. They trust Elon to make the smart decisions that they wouldn't, and in return they have first recourse to the assets if things don't work out. In fact what they have in that respect is better than preference shares, because they'll often get priority over other creditors like staff and suppliers in the event of a collapse.

You probably couldn't do it with shell because Shell already has a fair amount of debt on its books, and the valuation of the company is rather higher than the amount banks would find it prudent to lend based on the book value and expectations of how you will improve that. You need a combination of low current debt, a share valuation which is below or close to book value, and usually a credible story for why your takeover is going to generate significant new value for the company.

 

[brad465]

If he has borrowed to buy it. Could he have paid "cash"?

From what I gather, he seems to have paid around 10% in cash while using his existing 9% shareholding as collateral. The whole deal is quite odd, because the banks seem to have really lent him a ridiculous amount of cash for an asset that doesn't seem to be worth anywhere near that amount.

My understanding is that he's borrowed in order to retain his shareholding that would otherwise cause him to lose influence through them. I do expect him to go into negative equity regarding this, with both a depreciating asset price and increased debt servicing costs as interest rates rise (and have risen since the price was agreed).

 

[Purple Train]

Apparently Musk has dissolved Twitter's board of directors, meaning he is in sole charge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63458380 (link to BBC article entitled, "Elon Musk dissolves Twitter's board of directors.")

Elon Musk has dissolved Twitter's board of directors - cementing his control over the company.
The move was revealed in US Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
On 27 October, following the "consummation" of Mr Musk's takeover deal, he became the sole director of Twitter, it says.
The nine ousted directors include former chairman of the board Bret Taylor and former chief executive Parag Agrawal.

Thoughts? Personally this doesn't give me much greater concern than I had previously, though, given the concern I felt previously at his takeover, it would be quite difficult for it to give me much greater concern than I had, if that makes any sense at all

 

[brad465]

Not even surrounding himself with "Yes Men", but with no men, which is sure to lead to more reckless decisions he's known for making.

 

[jon0844]

Given the way he's treated the management, I can't wait to see what he does with the other workers.

 

[birchesgreen]

Anyone who is any good won't bother to wait. Just the kind of people he needs to keep for his ambitious plans won't stay if he treats them like smeg.

 

[Cdd89]

The rumours of monetising blue checks are certainly interesting. I do think there is a lot of cash that can be squeezed out of Twitter, considering that people pay for other entertainment services, and I remain convinced that Musk sees value there. Whether he’s able to thread that needle is harder to say, but keeping the focus on popular distractions like content moderation is certainly what I’d be doing if I wanted to start squeezing users.

 

[takno]

I'd certainly rather he monetized the blue ticks rather than further hammering advertising. The website and official apps are basically unusable at this point for following people - it's all discovery, ads and promoted content

 

[GusB]

I'd certainly rather he monetized the blue ticks rather than further hammering advertising. The website and official apps are basically unusable at this point for following people - it's all discovery, ads and promoted content

I find the Twitter app and website are almost unusable these days because of the promoted content. I've been using Tweetdeck on desktop for years now, and I've recently installed Hootsuite on my tablet.