As Twitter, renamed X, faces increased scrutiny in the EU and usage falls, Elon Musk has floated drastic action.

  • @takeda
    link
    471 year ago

    Sorry but that’s dumb. You don’t spend $44B to ruin it, when you can use it for own benefit.

    EU doesn’t like the changes he did and started investigation. Melon hopes that by threatening to withdraw they might stop, or be easy on him.

    I mean if the goal was indeed so ridiculous as shutting Twitter down, it would be easy as shutting it down. He would save his image by just doing that instead of what he is doing right now.

    His goal is to turn Twitter around and use it for affecting next elections, he is running into pesky EU and their regulations.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      He didn’t plan on spending 44B. The plan was to manipulatie stock price with pretending to buy, but Twitter management saw that one coming and let him sign a document for 44B that the rich idiot didn’t read.

      So when the “I changed my mind” phase of his master plan started, Twitter pulled out the document and forced him to cough up the 44B. So yeah, now he pretends it was the plan all along.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      It’s trying to give him a little credit to justify messing up a purchase that large.

      If the intention wasn’t to shut it down or disrupt then everything that’s happened is literally just Elon being a complete dunce. Which is definitely more likely, but scary to think someone can be that reckless with 44 billion dollars

      • ALQ
        link
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Which is yet another reason to add to the list of reasons no one needs that much money. That $44b could have positively changed thousands of lives (at least). Instead, it just continued flushing things down the Xitter.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      I mean if the goal was indeed so ridiculous as shutting Twitter down, it would be easy as shutting it down.

      But that wouldn’t work. If the community was snuffed out in a day then it would move to some clone pretty easily. It dying slowly means the community is divided and diluted many ways.

    • @what_is_a_name
      link
      11 year ago

      EU is waking up to the danger to democracy that is unregulated social networks ruled by trolls and dysonformation. They would be glad for them to leave.

      • @takeda
        link
        21 year ago

        He owns it though, he doesn’t have to respond to shareholders anymore it is his company, so he can just shut it down if he wishes.

        He took some debt to purchase it, but in case of debt, when coolant goes down lenders don’t care if it was his fault or not.

        It is ridiculous to think that he is doing this purposefully.

        I think some people still have hangups, because how somebody who created Tesla and SpaceX could be this bad. The thing is that those companies are run by different people he is just their face.

      • Brokkr
        link
        11 year ago

        Immediately after purchasing the site state “during this time of transition for Twitter, we’re going to take the service offline for a period of time while the team evaluates the best way forward.” then never turn it on again and eventually say “after extensive deliberation, we cannot determine a viable method towards profitability and will not be resuming services.”

        No one looks bad and the service is totally destroyed from day one.

        That’s not what was done, actions were taken with some other non-obvious goal. Although, it may be charitable to suggest that he’s got a goal.

          • @takeda
            link
            -11 year ago

            When company is go longer public and you own it, what argument somebody would have to sue you for?

            1. first of all, as you said he did it already and Twitter got sued, second of all the point of corporation is to isolate owner of the liability. Sure they can sue Twitter, but if company doesn’t exist anymore too bad. They could go after remaining assets, but that’s it.
            2. they are not shareholders, they are giving him a loan. If you get a loan and lost the money, the bank (or a loan shark) doesn’t give damn if losing the money was your fault or not

            The theory that he is purposefully destroying his company is just dumb, there’s no upside for him to do that.