Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[viper37]

If a criminal doesn't introduce himself the police in the US cannot respond to a crime?

Of course, that is definitely what I just said.

OK.

It sure is nice to be on a platform that allows you to write more than one sentence. 

What happens if Musk buys Languish though?

We will become a haven of free speech where people are free to troll and insult each other at will without moderation intervention.

Basically, business as usual.

Pretty sure our active mod wouldn't let us descend into 4chan chaos currently.

well, ok we won't sink that low, that's for certain

[crazy canuck]

Let's put on an optimist hat for a moment.  Is there anything objectively good that can result from Musk owning Twitter?  We're mourning it as if it isn't a steaming pile of crap currently, but it already is.  Can he actually accomplish some objective good as the owner?

Absolutely.

A privately held company owned and controlled by Musk could enact some criticial changes that could improve the platform immensely.

More robust authentication of users to eliminate bots for example.

Requiring users to "prove" they are human.

One of things he mentioned was making the algorithms open source and transparent.

All of this could be very good, in fact.

Is there anything stopping a publicly traded company from doing all of those things?

The main difference between a company owned by one shareholder and a publicly held company is the one shareholder can completely screw the company's value without having to answer to the other shareholders. That may give him more flexibility to take risks that are not as palatable to a publicly traded company. But none of the things you listed appear to be in that category.

Nothing but the will to do so.

You are right, there isn't anything structural to stop any of that, other then the boards fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.

But the question was "Is there anything objectively good that can result from Musk owning Twitter". Yes, there are things that *could* be objectively good as a result.

Clearly the people who own the company can direct the companies strategy and tactics. Unless you presume that everything Twitter does now is as good as it possibly can be, then certainly changing who makes those decisions (and their priorities) CAN be good.

Will they be good? That seems pretty damn unlikely.

But to quibble with your use of the word "objective" - isn't what you are saying simply speculation that he will make things better than the current management of the company?  That isn't that just you saying you think he is going to do things you agree with?

[Berkut]

But to quibble with your use of the word "objective" - isn't what you are saying simply speculation that he will make things better than the current management of the company?  That isn't that just you saying you think he is going to do things you agree with?

I am not at all speculating that he will make things better, I am answering the question asked, which was is there some optimistic scenario under which this could be a good thing.

Obviously, to answer that I am going to define "good things" as being things I think are good, and hence I agree with. But you could also imagine his control allowing him to do bad things I don't agree with, or things that I think are bad and you think are good. 

By "objectively good" are you saying things that everyone in the world agree is good? Then I guess no, there is likely nothing he or anyone could ever do that are "objectively" good.

[Barrister]

I'm not actually convinced Twitter's baseline business model is viable, there are actually a number of current generation companies where I hold that opinion--the Food delivery apps for example all appear to operate genuinely non-viable businesses that are simply being propped up by investors lusting for growth, and all of those apps have the imprimatur of being "tech" companies (even though in many ways they are really not), because they're mostly based in tech hubs and center their business around a smartphone app.

I don't think there's any question that Twitter is viable.  It had revenue of $5 billion dollars in 2021, and has been in business for over a decade.  Twitter is not Pets.com, which sold pet food at a substantial loss and hoped to make up for it on volume.

The more important question though is whether it will support the $44 billion valuation.  Musk is borrowing a lot of money to finance the purchase, and it's doubtful that Twitter can make enough money to finance that debt.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not actually convinced Twitter's baseline business model is viable, there are actually a number of current generation companies where I hold that opinion--the Food delivery apps for example all appear to operate genuinely non-viable businesses that are simply being propped up by investors lusting for growth, and all of those apps have the imprimatur of being "tech" companies (even though in many ways they are really not), because they're mostly based in tech hubs and center their business around a smartphone app.

I don't think there's any question that Twitter is viable.  It had revenue of $5 billion dollars in 2021, and has been in business for over a decade.  Twitter is not Pets.com, which sold pet food at a substantial loss and hoped to make up for it on volume.

The more important question though is whether it will support the $44 billion valuation.  Musk is borrowing a lot of money to finance the purchase, and it's doubtful that Twitter can make enough money to finance that debt.

Longterm viability is not just a question of revenue Padawan, but profits. Twitter has had trouble demonstrating it can operate profitably, which means much of its valuation is a future bet that at some point Twitter is going to figure that out and be worth its lofty valuation. That is a thesis that can make speculators in shares wealthy, but is not guaranteed to make the business viable.

[Jacob]

After a bit of sleep and reflection, this is my take:

On the balance, I remain a non-fan of Elon Musk and I expect he'll magnify the negative impact that Twitter has on society without doing much to improve the positive impact. I also expect he'll wield the influence he has to advance billionaire interests, undermine protections for those in weaker positions in society, and put a bit of a thumb on the scale in favour of the GOP.

It'll be interesting to see how effective he is, and whether he can make his money back in any real way.

[crazy canuck]

But to quibble with your use of the word "objective" - isn't what you are saying simply speculation that he will make things better than the current management of the company?  That isn't that just you saying you think he is going to do things you agree with?

I am not at all speculating that he will make things better, I am answering the question asked, which was is there some optimistic scenario under which this could be a good thing.

Obviously, to answer that I am going to define "good things" as being things I think are good, and hence I agree with. But you could also imagine his control allowing him to do bad things I don't agree with, or things that I think are bad and you think are good.

By "objectively good" are you saying things that everyone in the world agree is good? Then I guess no, there is likely nothing he or anyone could ever do that are "objectively" good.

Ok another quibble - the question your were answering, as you phrased it was, "But the question was "Is there anything objectively good that can result from Musk owning Twitter"."  and your answer, Yes, there are things that *could* be objectively good as a result."

Putting aside the trickier question of whether such a thing even exists - by definition an objective good is something independent of what you personally think is good. 

[Berkut]

OK. So you problem is with DG's question asked, not with my answer. Perhaps bring it up with him?

[crazy canuck]

OK. So you problem is with DG's question asked, not with my answer. Perhaps bring it up with him?

I am not sure how you got that understanding from me pointing out that your answer used the word "objective" improperly.

[Barrister]

I'm not actually convinced Twitter's baseline business model is viable, there are actually a number of current generation companies where I hold that opinion--the Food delivery apps for example all appear to operate genuinely non-viable businesses that are simply being propped up by investors lusting for growth, and all of those apps have the imprimatur of being "tech" companies (even though in many ways they are really not), because they're mostly based in tech hubs and center their business around a smartphone app.

I don't think there's any question that Twitter is viable.  It had revenue of $5 billion dollars in 2021, and has been in business for over a decade.  Twitter is not Pets.com, which sold pet food at a substantial loss and hoped to make up for it on volume.

The more important question though is whether it will support the $44 billion valuation.  Musk is borrowing a lot of money to finance the purchase, and it's doubtful that Twitter can make enough money to finance that debt.

Longterm viability is not just a question of revenue Padawan, but profits. Twitter has had trouble demonstrating it can operate profitably, which means much of its valuation is a future bet that at some point Twitter is going to figure that out and be worth its lofty valuation. That is a thesis that can make speculators in shares wealthy, but is not guaranteed to make the business viable.

Well aware of the distinction between revenue and profits.

Twitter has operated profitably in the past.  Twitter has run a positive EBITDA since 2016.  Quickly looking at their balance sheet they do appear to be in growth mode - attempting to grow the business at the expense of profitability today - all pretty standard Silicon Valley stuff.

I'm not saying Musk is making a wise investment.  I'm not saying Twitter is going to become massively more valuable.  But nothing to me indicates that Twitter is not a viable business going forward as long as Musk or other management doesn't drive it into the ditch.

[Berkut]

OK. So you problem is with DG's question asked, not with my answer. Perhaps bring it up with him?

I am not sure how you got that understanding from me pointing out that your answer used the word "objective" improperly.

I was answering a question - can there be an optimistic scenario where there is an objective good from Musk taking over Twitter.

If you define "objective good" as a good that nobody disagrees with, then either your example of good is very vague, like "increase in human knowledge" or "greater justice" in which case it cannot really be answered specifically, or it means something more like "a good that can be measured and most people would agree is a benefit in net evaluation". In that case, it can be answered by reasonable people who are willing to accept that their definition of those things might not always align perfectly, but even so there is a discussion to be had.

Why you find this argument about the "improper" use of the term objective is interesting at all is beyond me. I am confident that everyone, including you, knew exactly what was being discussed. Have a nice day.

[The Minsky Moment]

Twitter has operated profitably in the past.  Twitter has run a positive EBITDA since 2016.

Not the same thing.

[Barrister]

Twitter has operated profitably in the past.  Twitter has run a positive EBITDA since 2016.

Not the same thing.

Which is why I put them in two separate sentences. Twitter ran a profit in 2018 and 2019.

[The Minsky Moment]

Last three years was: 1.4B, -1.1B, -0.2B.  They haven't run one since 2019.
That year they got the benefit of a $1 billion tax credit.

[Barrister]

Last three years was: 1.4B, -1.1B, -0.2B.  They haven't run one since 2019.
That year they got the benefit of a $1 billion tax credit.

You're not normally so obtuse Minsky.

When I said "Twitter ran a profit in 2018 and 2019." I think it was pretty clear they hadn't run one since.