Twitter board agrees to $44 billion sale to billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk

[Ralin]

ignoring how all the previous attempts have failed when customers go "we don't want to associate our brand with that".

It's not just that. The bigots also don't want to stick around if there aren't any libs/transgender people/feminists/blacks/etc to own.

[Solauren]

I recall reading somewhere that one of Musks on/off wives/girlfriends asked him to buy Twitter to destroy Wokism.

I personally get the feeling that Musk can easily be lead around by a conversation with someone. Sort of like a dumb dog chasing around lots of balls.

[Ralin]

Well it's pretty obvious he thought he could easily get out of going through with buying it.

I don't think Musk is Trump levels of repeats whatever the last person to talk to him said stupid, but he's a massive egotist surrounded by yes men, infused with billions upon billions of dollars, comes from literal apartheid levels of privilege that have insulated him from most negative consequences of his actions over the course of his life, very possibly has undiagnosed and unmedicated psychiatric issues and is Extremely Divorced. Also a female judge forced him to go through with the purchase.

What I'm saying is that I do not believe he is acting according to a coherent plan or ideology and that his actions are not aimed at achieving any sort of consistent goal. Honestly we're probably going to see this sort of thing more and more in the future.

[bilateralrope]

EU names 19 large tech platforms that must follow Europe’s new Internet rules

Rules apply to five Google sites, Facebook, Apple, Bing, Twitter, TikTok, etc.
JON BRODKIN - 4/26/2023, 6:49 AM

The European Commission will require 19 large online platforms and search engines to comply with new online content regulations starting on August 25, European officials said. The EC specified which companies must comply with the rules for the first time, announcing today that it "adopted the first designation decisions under the Digital Services Act."

Five of the 19 platforms are run by Google, specifically YouTube, Google Search, the Google Play app and digital media store, Google Maps, and Google Shopping. Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram are on the list, as are Amazon's online store, Apple's App Store, Microsoft's Bing search engine, TikTok, Twitter, and Wikipedia.

These platforms were designated because they each reported having over 45 million active users in the EU as of February 17. The other listed platforms are Alibaba AliExpress, Booking.com, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, and German online retailer Zalando.

Companies have four months to comply with the full set of new obligations and could face fines of up to 6 percent of a provider's annual revenue. One new rule is a ban on advertisements that target users based on sensitive data such as ethnic origin, political opinions, or sexual orientation.

There are new content moderation requirements, transparency rules, and protections for minors. For example, "targeted advertising based on profiling towards children is no longer permitted," the EC said.

Companies will have to provide their first annual risk assessment on August 25, and their risk mitigation plans will be subject to independent audits and oversight by the European Commission. "Platforms will have to identify, analyse and mitigate a wide array of systemic risks ranging from how illegal content and disinformation can be amplified on their services, to the impact on the freedom of expression and media freedom," the EC said. "Similarly, specific risks around gender-based violence online and the protection of minors online and their mental health must be assessed and mitigated."

New rules
New requirements for the 19 platforms include the following, today's EC announcement said:

• Users will get clear information on why they are recommended certain information and will have the right to opt-out from recommendation systems based on profiling;
• Users will be able to report illegal content easily and platforms have to process such reports diligently;
• Platforms need to label all ads and inform users on who is promoting them;
• Platforms need to provide an easily understandable, plain-language summary of their terms and conditions, in the languages of the Member States where they operate.

Another content-moderation rule requires platforms to "analyse their specific risks, and put in place mitigation measures—for instance, to address the spread of disinformation and inauthentic use of their service," the EC said.

In addition to banning targeted advertising based on profiling children, the EC said that "platforms will have to redesign their systems to ensure a high level of privacy, security, and safety of minors."

"Special risk assessments including for negative effects on [children's] mental health will have to be provided to the Commission four months after designation and made public at the latest a year later," the announcement said. "Platforms will have to redesign their services, including their interfaces, recommender systems, terms and conditions, to mitigate these risks."

Several requirements are designed to let outside auditors and researchers verify a company's compliance. Compliance with Digital Services Act obligations must be "externally and independently audited;" companies must provide researchers with access to data; companies must "publish repositories of all the ads served on their interface;" and companies must "publish transparency reports on content moderation decisions and risk management," the EC said.

"Thanks to the Digital Services Act, European citizens and businesses will benefit from a safer Internet," European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said in a video posted on Twitter. "As of the 25th of August, online platforms and search engines with more than 45 million active users in the EU will have stronger obligations, because with great scale comes great responsibility."

The Digital Services Act is complemented by the EU's Digital Markets Act, which imposes requirements on online "gatekeepers" to prevent them from stifling competition.

18 platforms that will comply because they know that compliance is cheaper. Then there is Twitter.

[Broomstick]

So.... Elon Musk is the Joker as played by Heath Ledger?

[Zaune]

Nah. He had vastly greater self-awareness, and could probably give you a coherent answer if you asked him what he was trying to accomplish. (He wouldn't, or at least not a truthful answer, but he could if he wanted to.)

Musk is basically a younger, more superficially charismatic version of the Pointy-Haired Boss.

[Ralin]

It should be pointed out that whatever else you can say about him Trump has proven that he's capable of running a successful grift. Musk, less so.

I'm thinking of Wong comparing Trump to the Pointy Haired Boss writ large

[Solauren]

The Pointed-Haired boss managed to perform reasonably well due to the people under him.

Musk is performing piss-pourly DESPITE the people under him.

[Straha]

Given the economic climate I'm curious how long it'll be before Musk buys his way out of his debt.

Given the Fed's interest rate hikes the banks must be taking an absolute battering from the deal they made, and Musk still can't be happy about the interest payments he has to make against declining ad revenue.

Buying his way out of the debt at a discount would make sense for both sides.

[Solauren]

Which would you sooner do as one of his debt holders?
Let him off cheap, or sell him out to a higher bidder?

[Elfdart]

Twitter verified fake Disney account, claims dead celebs subscribe to Twitter Blue

Living celebs want everyone to know they didn't pay Elon for those checkmarks.
JON BRODKIN - 4/25/2023, 7:00 AM

Twitter's big checkmark transition brought more of the chaos that has typified Elon Musk's run as owner and CEO of the social network. Over the weekend, Twitter applied checkmarks to the accounts of many well-known people who didn't pay for them—including some dead celebrities—along with a message that the accounts subscribed to the $8-per-month Twitter Blue service.

"This account is verified because they are subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone number," states the message attached to accounts with blue badges, including those of Kobe Bryant and Chadwick Boseman. Meanwhile, living celebrities who got the same checkmark made sure to tell followers that they hadn't actually paid for a Twitter Blue monthly subscription or verified their phone number. It would be more accurate to say that Twitter gave free subscriptions to people with a large number of followers, whether they wanted the checkmarks or not.

This is like how the Mormons used to retroactively baptize dead people.

[Ralin]

Used to? When did they stop?

[bilateralrope]

Given the economic climate I'm curious how long it'll be before Musk buys his way out of his debt.

Given the Fed's interest rate hikes the banks must be taking an absolute battering from the deal they made, and Musk still can't be happy about the interest payments he has to make against declining ad revenue.

Buying his way out of the debt at a discount would make sense for both sides.

Only if they doubt they can go after Musk personally. We have seen Tesla staff "volunteering" to work at Twitter, which has led to some speculation that there is enough mingling of resources between Musk's companies to pierce the corporate veil.

Then there is the matter of the EU. If it issues fines, it's not a matter of money. The EU will want compliance, even if that means bankruptcy destroying Twitter.

[Straha]

Which would you sooner do as one of his debt holders?
Let him off cheap, or sell him out to a higher bidder?

Okay, starting point. No one is going to bid on his debt because his debt is doubly worthless. The banks signed the term sheets when interest rates were historically low, and interest rates have gone up significantly since then. For the banks this means they're taking a huge loss in terms of opportunity cost and valuation when it comes to their money (this is the same thing that just killed Silicon Valley Bank and is beating the hell out of First Republic) and getting that money liquid again would be nice. On top of that if you believe that Elon is wrecking Twitter and that the underlying asset securing the debt may soon be worthless then no one is going to buy that debt because, y'know, it's a lemon.

In which case if you're the bank why not roll up to Elon and sell the debt to him for 60 cents on the dollar? It gets you your cash back, it gets him out of looming interest payments and probably gives him more runway, all the while maybe making one of the world's richest men somewhat happier with you which is worth something in the world of high finance.

[Lost Soal]

Which would you sooner do as one of his debt holders?
Let him off cheap, or sell him out to a higher bidder?

Okay, starting point. No one is going to bid on his debt because his debt is doubly worthless. The banks signed the term sheets when interest rates were historically low, and interest rates have gone up significantly since then. For the banks this means they're taking a huge loss in terms of opportunity cost and valuation when it comes to their money (this is the same thing that just killed Silicon Valley Bank and is beating the hell out of First Republic) and getting that money liquid again would be nice. On top of that if you believe that Elon is wrecking Twitter and that the underlying asset securing the debt may soon be worthless then no one is going to buy that debt because, y'know, it's a lemon.

In which case if you're the bank why not roll up to Elon and sell the debt to him for 60 cents on the dollar? It gets you your cash back, it gets him out of looming interest payments and probably gives him more runway, all the while maybe making one of the world's richest men somewhat happier with you which is worth something in the world of high finance.

Because even at 60 cents, Musk cannot pay the debt without selling more Tesla Stock which will cause it to crater even more so he could effectively end up paying the debt in full due to the value drop, something he could not/did not want to do in the first place which is why he get the loans and private backing in the first place.

[Ralin]

I imagine that making one of the world's richest men your bitch and turning him into just a meh billionaire would serve as a good deterrent to future welchers. And it would leave his creditors in possession of Twitter, which I can only assume would experience a spike in value based on Elon being gone. And as previously noted, big fish like Google and Microsoft are likely make plans to buy whatever manages to become a successful Twitter-killer. Might as well just buy actual Twitter if that doesn't pan out.

[Solauren]

Used to? When did they stop?

They didn't.

Now they're supposed to ask the dead persons family for permission.

[Solauren]

Which would you sooner do as one of his debt holders?
Let him off cheap, or sell him out to a higher bidder?

Okay, starting point. No one is going to bid on his debt because his debt is doubly worthless. The banks signed the term sheets when interest rates were historically low, and interest rates have gone up significantly since then. For the banks this means they're taking a huge loss in terms of opportunity cost and valuation when it comes to their money (this is the same thing that just killed Silicon Valley Bank and is beating the hell out of First Republic) and getting that money liquid again would be nice. On top of that if you believe that Elon is wrecking Twitter and that the underlying asset securing the debt may soon be worthless then no one is going to buy that debt because, y'know, it's a lemon.

In which case if you're the bank why not roll up to Elon and sell the debt to him for 60 cents on the dollar? It gets you your cash back, it gets him out of looming interest payments and probably gives him more runway, all the while maybe making one of the world's richest men somewhat happier with you which is worth something in the world of high finance.

Because even at 60 cents, Musk cannot pay the debt without selling more Tesla Stock which will cause it to crater even more so he could effectively end up paying the debt in full due to the value drop, something he could not/did not want to do in the first place which is why he get the loans and private backing in the first place.

Which is why I can see the banks figuring out how much Musk can do (say 20 cents on the dollar), and offering it to Microsoft for 30 cents on the dollar.

[LaCroix]

It was pretty obvious that Musk never indended to go through with the deal, he jsut wasnted to do a grift on the stock he owned, raising the value by announcing a takeover, then backing out and selling everything, just like he did with his crypto grifts.

Too bad for him that he made a bad decision onthe contract, or thought he could just bully twitter into letting him out of it.

I doubt the banks will let him go - the debt is toxic - no one would buy it. The best they can hope for is to get as much out of it via the interest payments and then sell off the remains of twitter to the highest bidder once he defaults.

And then they will sue to be allowed to claim against his private fortune, since he gross negligently or even maliciously ran the company into ground.

With his "help out" actions, and other deals, it might even allow them to reach into Tesla or SpaceX coffers, but that is harder to do.

[Straha]

Which would you sooner do as one of his debt holders?
Let him off cheap, or sell him out to a higher bidder?

Okay, starting point. No one is going to bid on his debt because his debt is doubly worthless. The banks signed the term sheets when interest rates were historically low, and interest rates have gone up significantly since then. For the banks this means they're taking a huge loss in terms of opportunity cost and valuation when it comes to their money (this is the same thing that just killed Silicon Valley Bank and is beating the hell out of First Republic) and getting that money liquid again would be nice. On top of that if you believe that Elon is wrecking Twitter and that the underlying asset securing the debt may soon be worthless then no one is going to buy that debt because, y'know, it's a lemon.

In which case if you're the bank why not roll up to Elon and sell the debt to him for 60 cents on the dollar? It gets you your cash back, it gets him out of looming interest payments and probably gives him more runway, all the while maybe making one of the world's richest men somewhat happier with you which is worth something in the world of high finance.

Because even at 60 cents, Musk cannot pay the debt without selling more Tesla Stock which will cause it to crater even more so he could effectively end up paying the debt in full due to the value drop, something he could not/did not want to do in the first place which is why he get the loans and private backing in the first place.

Elon's total debt in the deal is ~12 Billion. Elon Musk's net assets are ~$175 Billion. He could negotiate a deal to buy out the debt for ~$6 Billion without a major hit to his Tesla holdings or bank account and come off economically better because he would owe less money in interest payments. (There's no need for him to even finance the entire deal himself, he could theoretically take out a new debt instrument to pay for half of this payment and end up owing, total, less than four or five years of the interest payments he's signed up to now.)

Which is why I can see the banks figuring out how much Musk can do (say 20 cents on the dollar), and offering it to Microsoft for 30 cents on the dollar.

This idea keeps coming up of selling the debt to someone else as a powerplay. But that's not how debt works. Debt is not stock where you get a controlling stake in the company. Debt is the idea that the company owes you money and you have the right to get that money. Now if the company doesn't pay up then, yes, you get the secured assets that the debt is held against, which may be the company itself. Except, in that case you're getting something that's bankrupt, so... good luck finding value.

Anyway, this makes Microsoft or whoever buying the debt make negative sense. In the first place, it's a bad financial move. They're buying bad debt. Their money is literally better spent anywhere else. In the second place, if Musk keeps paying his debts then all they get is money. Woo. And, again, they could invest that money in basically any other debt and be better off for it. Finally, if Musk doesn't pay his debts you're signing up for a major legal fight to get control of Twitter from him. Which is, almost literally, throwing buckets of money into a burning dumpster fire for the right to get ownership of the firey dumpster.


Honestly, as said some months back, the threat of being forced to take over Twitter should be a fucking deterrent to the banks. Not only is there a direct benefit to keeping one of the richest men in the world with a succesful car company and major federal and municipal contracts happy, but the threat of being stuck holding one of the biggest bags of odrous excrements should be enough to give Musk whatever he asks for.

[Ralin]

A firey dumpster, which is still one of the largest and most influential social media platforms in the world. It has value well beyond the amount of revenue it brings in, like shaping elections and being able to muzzle voices you don't like.

Anyway, this makes Microsoft or whoever buying the debt make negative sense. In the first place, it's a bad financial move. They're buying bad debt. Their money is literally better spent anywhere else. In the second place, if Musk keeps paying his debts then all they get is money. Woo

I think he's implying that they'd buy the debt as a way of acquiring the company

Finally, if Musk doesn't pay his debts you're signing up for a major legal fight to get control of Twitter from him.

A major legal fight like the one that forced him to buy it in the first place? Because that one was settled within months with surprisingly little drama. The courts have shown that they're willing to hold Musk's balls to the grindstone when he messes with the money of people a few notches less wealthy than himself. Not making agreed upon interest payments seems similarly straightforward.

Not only is there a direct benefit to keeping one of the richest men in the world with a succesful car company and major federal and municipal contracts happy

Assuming any of those things are going to remain true seems like a bad bet to me. Even if someone was willing to count on any sort of goodwill from Elon Musk.

It was pretty obvious that Musk never indended to go through with the deal, he jsut wasnted to do a grift on the stock he owned, raising the value by announcing a takeover, then backing out and selling everything, just like he did with his crypto grifts.

Reminder, strange as it may seem to think that Musk is dumber than Trump it should be pointed out that Trump has proven he can consistently run a successful grift.

[Straha]

A firey dumpster, which is still one of the largest and most influential social media platforms in the world. It has value well beyond the amount of revenue it brings in, like shaping elections and being able to muzzle voices you don't like.

Sure... But if you're Microsoft is that worth the hassle? And imagine selling this to your board and shareholders. "We engaged in manuevers to take over a broken platform that the second richest person in the world couldn't save for the intangible benefits that it brings (all of which are heavily legally scrutinized and come with immense PR blowback)!"

The person who proposes that idea at any reasonable company is fired before the day is done.

Anyway, this makes Microsoft or whoever buying the debt make negative sense. In the first place, it's a bad financial move. They're buying bad debt. Their money is literally better spent anywhere else. In the second place, if Musk keeps paying his debts then all they get is money. Woo

I think he's implying that they'd buy the debt as a way of acquiring the company

Yes, but that's my point. Unless Musk defaults acquiring the debt does not mean acquiring the company. It means you're acquiring the right to get paid some cash by Musk every so often. Musk has to be ready and willing to default for the possibility of acquiring twitter to even show up, and even then it's legally dicey.

Finally, if Musk doesn't pay his debts you're signing up for a major legal fight to get control of Twitter from him.

A major legal fight like the one that forced him to buy it in the first place? Because that one was settled within months with surprisingly little drama. The courts have shown that they're willing to hold Musk's balls to the grindstone when he messes with the money of people a few notches less wealthy than himself. Not making agreed upon interest payments seems similarly straightforward.

Right, because Twitter got him to sign one of the world's dumbest contracts. Look up to Coop and Loomer talking about this earlier for the actual lawyers weighing in on this, but also any of the legal commentariat. And, importantly, this wasn't the court holding him to anything, the trial would have gone on for a while and cost money, it was Musk accepting that he had no way out.

This same framework doesn't exist for bankruptcy declared over troubled assets, and if he wants to fight it out in court the bankruptcy courts are far far slower and less efficient than Delaware's chancery, and that fight would happen while Twitter was, presumably, a broken mess getting more broken by the day.

At that point in the hypothetical just go buy MySpace because it'll have the same value and effect.

Not only is there a direct benefit to keeping one of the richest men in the world with a succesful car company and major federal and municipal contracts happy

Assuming any of those things are going to remain true seems like a bad bet to me. Even if someone was willing to count on any sort of goodwill from Elon Musk.

Tesla is a successful and going concern. SpaceX has massive federal contracts that NASA has tied itself to that are not going away. Musk himself has more money than Creosote. If he lost half of his wealth he'd still be worth more than Mark Zuckerberg. No banker is going to bet against him out of sheer risk/reward.

[Jub]

Sure... But if you're Microsoft is that worth the hassle? And imagine selling this to your board and shareholders. "We engaged in manuevers to take over a broken platform that the second richest person in the world couldn't save for the intangible benefits that it brings (all of which are heavily legally scrutinized and come with immense PR blowback)!"

A large install base with low expectations could probably be converted into dollars by a large corporation with a modicum of savvy. Microsoft is presumably trustworthy to advertisers so they can say, "Starting at [insert date] we're bringing online a new and robust moderation system to protect your interests." That should get advertisers on board then they can rework a paid subscription model into a useful feature people actually want to have, maybe the ability to embed longer videos, curate easily searched collections, and apply meta tags to tweets to boost discoverability to make that angle work.

I don't think the idea of a healthy self-sustaining Twitter is an impossibility, the old team just didn't want to try it and Musk is an idiot.

[bilateralrope]

A firey dumpster, which is still one of the largest and most influential social media platforms in the world. It has value well beyond the amount of revenue it brings in, like shaping elections and being able to muzzle voices you don't like.

Question is, will Twitter remain that way after the EU starts enforcing its laws ?

So, if someone is considering buying Twitter off Musk, I don't expect them to make any move until we have some idea about what the EU will do. If Twitter survives that, The rest of their problems can be fixed by someone willing to spend a lot of money on them. But, if they go dark for any reason before then, one of the Twitter replacements will have the space needed to emerge as the replacement.

[Ralin]

A firey dumpster, which is still one of the largest and most influential social media platforms in the world. It has value well beyond the amount of revenue it brings in, like shaping elections and being able to muzzle voices you don't like.

Question is, will Twitter remain that way after the EU starts enforcing its laws ?

So, if someone is considering buying Twitter off Musk, I don't expect them to make any move until we have some idea about what the EU will do. If Twitter survives that, The rest of their problems can be fixed by someone willing to spend a lot of money on them. But, if they go dark for any reason before then, one of the Twitter replacements will have the space needed to emerge as the replacement.

Related to what Jub said, I tend to think that most of the regulatory agencies Twitter has issues with would be willing to extend some leeway to new owners in negotiating how to fix said issues in a timely way. Since they presumably read the news same as we do and know full well that much of Twitter's current lack of cooperation is due to the Boy King being in charge.