[RahulNagaraj]

Tesla CEO, Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter for US$ 41 billion, as per a recent regulatory filing.



Musk's offer price stands at $54.20 per share - a 38% premium from the company's closing price on April 1, the day before Elon's 9% stake in Twitter was made public. Elon Musk even declined to join Twitter's board earlier this week. This move is said to have signalled his plans to take over the company, as a board seat would have limited Musk's stake to under 15%.

The Tesla CEO stated that the social media organisation needs to be transformed into a private company for it to "thrive" and grow. Elon Musk further stated that the offer made is his best and final. If declined, Musk will reconsider his position as a shareholder.

Source: Reuters

Link to Team-BHP news

[prajwalmr62]

It would be fun to watch where it would go. Not just from political point of view, but on technical side as well. Twitter isn't going much anywhere right now.

IF Elon takes over, what's next?

[pandey.jai]

Could this be a pump and dump scheme?

[COMMUTER]

This reeks of being a last ditch effort of twitter to save itself from the backlash from people for its heinous attacks on free speech, especially in curtailing discussion on the Hunter Biden's laptop , the efficacy of natural immunity against flu, basic biology and kicking the Ex-president of US out!

I somehow fail to take to the carefully fabricated image of Elon Musk who is the most successful sales boy of chinese batteries to the whole world. link
I feel that is is a drama to save twitter from the doom it would be facing if left on its path to be the mouthpiece of China.link

That this development comes at the juncture when Trump's TRUTH SOCIAL, which is expected to be focused on free speech which had been curtailed by twitter, is about to go online makes it more dubious.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

This reeks of being a last ditch effort of twitter to save itself from the backlash from people for its heinous attacks on free speech, especially in curtailing discussion on the Hunter Biden's laptop , the efficacy of natural immunity against flu, basic biology and kicking the Ex-president of US out!

I somehow fail to take to the carefully fabricated image of Elon Musk who is the most successful sales boy of chinese batteries to the whole world. link
I feel that is is a drama to save twitter from the doom it would be facing if left on its path to be the mouthpiece of China.link

That this development comes at the juncture when Trump's TRUTH SOCIAL, which is expected to be focused on free speech which had been curtailed by twitter, is about to go online makes it more dubious.

Didn't realise you were also on Joe Rogan's podcast.

[NiInJa]

To give some perspective, Sri Lanka's sovereign debt is around 51 Billion USD.

Not exactly an intelligent statement to make, but Elon Musk can literally 'buy' a country in crisis.

I think he is making such statements to manipulate the stock market, only he can do that.

[COMMUTER]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Didn't realise you were also on Joe Rogan's podcast.

I haven't been following Joe Rogan a lot because I felt he was stating the obvious most of the time.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by NiInJa

I think he is making such statements to manipulate the stock market, only he can do that.

So that he can get more rich?

No, you can attribute lots of motives to Elon Musk, you can't say he is motivated by money. This fellow always has some "noble" cause, however misguided. He is someone that never worries about financial impact when he thinks he is right. His tweets and public behavior (smoking weed on JRE) very often plunged his own net worth. He has moved beyond that long ago, and in a way you have to admire that. It is logical too, between power and money, the former is more useful and can generate the latter. Someone like Elon understands that and tends to focus on power.

There is somewhat of a "noble" cause here. A single company is controlling the most powerful megaphone in the world, and decides who can use and who cannot use that megaphone. Nations can have free speech laws, but it no has impact on the anonymous moderation team of Twitter. They shut off Trump when he was still the president of the most powerful nation, without any consequences. While I agree it was the right move, it is scary that a single company could do that. They are capable of doing this to head of any nation, again without consequences.

So Elon Musk wants to liberate twitter from such oversight by taking it private. Basically, Elon Musk wants to decide the extent of free speech on twitter. No one man has held this kind of power before. Even the current management of Twitter didn't vest this much power in one individual.

[WorkingGuru]

Vanguard ($7.5T in AUM) increased their stake on Twitter to ~10%, 2 weeks ago.

The situation looks to have played out as a well thought out "no loss" scinerio for Elon Musk. By making his intentions public now, the end results will be either -
A) end up owning/controlling one of the most influential media platforms in the world (and claim to be an innocent crusader for free speech) or,
B) force other investors to buy back control (which makes him money on the way).

Conclusion : Elon knows the PR game well enough to take off someone's pocket change.

[amol4184]

Musk now comes across as a professional troll with extremely deep pockets.
I won't be surprised if he buys it, raises a storm on Twitter itself like he always does and sells it in few months to make a quick buck.

On the other hand I hope he buys and shuts it down. Twitter is a cancer that spreads misinformation quicker than any other platform. Musk will make up the lost $42 billion in a few months anyway. No big deal. Do it Musk for the giggles.

[RaghuVis]

Oh, the hypocrisy of the world knows no bounds!

Musk trying to buy Twitter is dangerous but Bezos owning Washington Post is a beacon of democratic values!

Currently, Twitter is biased toward the left-liberal ecosystem and they fear that Musk will try to bring equality either way - either stop all regulations targeting one side or have those regulations for everyone.

I do hope there is more drama even if Musk doesn't end up owning Twitter.

[norhog]

I do not understand one point. Please enlighten me.

Why TWITTER has to stand for free speech and all.

It is a platform to express opinion done form the purpose of generating wealth for its owners some how. Its business. What ever helps business, they will lean that way. They are no way the legal guardians of free speech and all and we should not expect a company to be.

It is not like a elected representative who is made to uphold the constitution, freedom. It is a business entity.

Hell, the elected representatives of the populace don't do their job spectacularly.

As long as TWITTER does not hurt someone or violate any laws, it should be ok. If they are seen violating, book them under appropriate LAW of the LAND.

These are business houses and should be regulated according as per the law of the land. Rest they are free to do anything, lean left right center anything...

[fordday]

Originally Posted by norhog

Hell, the elected representatives of the populace don't do their job spectacularly.


These are business houses and should be regulated according as per the law of the land. Rest they are free to do anything, lean left right center anything...

Exactly.

Our elected representatives are worst examples of representation.

And leaning any side is their choice. Surprising that someone considers leaning towards Left-liberal ecosystem as sort of crime and perhaps comfortable if it is right wing fascism.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by norhog

I do not understand one point. Please enlighten me. Why TWITTER has to stand for free speech and all. It is a platform to express opinion done form the purpose of generating wealth for its owners some how. Its business. What ever helps business, they will lean that way. They are no way the legal guardians of free speech and all and we should not expect a company to be. It is not like a elected representative who is made to uphold the constitution, freedom. It is a business entity.

Permit me to respond to your point of view. I'm sure many citizens might think alike and it is a perspective that deserves debate. Though I'll admit at the start there are no clear cut answers and while my perspective differs from yours I respect your point of view which has its merits.

Twitter, Instagram, Facebook et al are examples of technology racing ahead of the law, the constitution and society's accepted norms. These are pieces of technology that could not even have been envisaged a mere 20 years ago where the capability to broadcast anything (good, bad, right, wrong, truth, lies, lucid, crap) to the whole world has been put into the hands of every individual with zero fetters on responsibility other than that persons conscience & values. Here ability to communicate i.e. express freedom of self expression is being significantly controlled and influenced by one private sector profit driven, and often unscrupulous, corporation. Owning and controlling such power brings with it enormous responsibilities which frankly humankind as a whole is grappling with and does not know either how to do or what to do. Therefore we have Twitter and its close cousins becoming in many quarters paragons of hate and consciously tweaking algorithms towards negativity, prejudice, communalism, hate and now, with Ukraine, political motivation. Everything cannot be reduced to "this is a business and laissez faire should prevail". For example if tomorrow a technology came where the entire judiciary system of a nation got subsumed by technology that then decided judgements using AI instead of human judges should that power be given to a corporation to be run on a profit basis?

With the unfathomable power Twitter has acquired, in my opinion, it needs global regulation & not national. It certainly cannot be left to a corporation or to the likes of Mark Z or Elon M, both in my opinion unscrupulous prodigies.

Social media is an unregulated virus that humankind has not figured out how to control or how much to control or if to control at all. The last time such potentially destructive power was put into the hands of mankind was July 1945 with the advent of the atomic bomb. It took three decades for various global regulation measures like NPT, SALT I and II, MTCR etc to come in place. I suspect over the next decade we will see Indian, European & Chinese versions of Twitter, Instagram, FaceBook etc spawn with Govt regulation around them. I'm not getting into a right or wrong discussion just stating what I see coming.

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by norhog

I do not understand one point. Please enlighten me.

Why TWITTER has to stand for free speech and all.

Because they claim it in their mission statement.

https://investor.twitterinc.com/cont...q/default.aspx