In any case, I guess we can agree that Elon overpaid this shit.

 

That's twitter stock price history compared to what Elon paid per share. I don't know which advisors green-lighted this deal, but it's very very pricey.

Just now, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

This isn't really hard to understand.

Advertisers spend money and part of the equation is that they do not want to be associated with controversial things.

This isn't just limited to race.

Like when Mason Greenwood was accused by his girlfriend of serious domestic violence and abuse, it was the Man U advertisers who applied a lot of pressure on the football club to have him removed from the squad. Which makes sense. Because why would you want a guy that people now associate with domestic violence standing next to your brand name? That's not what you play millions of euros a year for.

 

We are not talking about the same thing.

 

I think free speech is key to a functioning democracy. If you have to brown-nose the advertisers (and the anti-democratic stakeholders behind them) to make your platform work, then I think it's a worthless platform, in terms of free speech.

 

But then again, the platform can be anti-free speech and good business (that's what it was until now), but it's still anti-democratic IMO.

 

I am at the end of Clash of Kings.  A terrific, genius story.

 

I rate Game of Thrones a 5 out of 5 and Clash of Kings, also a 5 out of 5.  Both books have a lot of 6 out of 5 moments and a lot of the content has become iconic through the show. 

 

I also like how a lot of content expands on scenes in the show, revealing new insights to the characters.

 

In particular, the Theon Greyjoy chapters were extremely good.  The Arya stuff was great as well, as for Jaime Lannister.  

 

In a way Tyrion often comes across as the author's voice.

21 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

In any case, I guess we can agree that Elon overpaid this shit.

 

That's twitter stock price history compared to what Elon paid per share. I don't know which advisors green-lighted this deal, but it's very very pricey.

 

Yeah there seem to be two camps among the analysts. Those who think 40 dollars would have been a fair valuation. And those who think that is still too much.

22 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

In the end, Elon is the one taxing the rich

 

You may think it's unrealistic, but it's true. Lots of blue checkmarks are smug and self-righteous bastards anyway...

 

We love Elon because he's not scared of the masters of the woke cult

(plus, he's witty and he's got balls)

7 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

Yeah there seem to be two camps among the analysts. Those who think 40 dollars would have been a fair valuation. And those who think that is still too much.

 

What's intriguing is that I can't see what additional value there is for Elon in the goodwill he paid. Maybe his fight for freedom or a personal beef with the platform... but that's not worth this much.

 

In contrast, the takeover of the Washington Post by Jeff Bezos is way clearer. He overpaid the newspaper, at face value, but, aboce all, he bought influence. And that's worth a lot. The readers are high profile and the WaPo is a help for many of his businesses (they protect Amazon Prime shows, like ROP, they can hide bad press or shady businesses he has).

 

But you can't do that with twitter.

For example, this WaPo owned journalist, Taylor Lorenz, will never investigate Bezos.

 

No. Her mission is to doxx and attack regular citizens (like libs of tiktok). Because the rule in the broken American democracy is: strong with the weak, and weak with the strong. I think they call it "progress"...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/19/libs-of-tiktok-right-wing-media/

Democracy dies in darkness...

 

It's funny because what most of their journalists do is turn off the light

 

31 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

What's intriguing is that I can't see what additional value there is for Elon in the goodwill he paid. Maybe his fight for freedom or a personal beef with the platform... but that's not worth this much

 

I think Twitter has a lot of intangible value as it is has a lot of political power in influencing people and spreading propaganda- which goes beyond advertising revenue and financial returns.  It has cultural power.

 

Maybe he will use it as a platform for Tesla propaganda.

3 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:

 

I think Twitter has a lot of intangible value as it is has a lot of political power in influencing people and spreading propaganda- which goes beyond advertising revenue and financial returns.  It has cultural power.

 

Maybe he will use it as a platform for Tesla propaganda.

 

You think he's playing the anti-woke card to get sympathy and influence? Hmm, maybe, but I can't see a lot of value in it.

 

Furthermore, he can't influence what people say on twitter. There are too many people. Whereas Jeff Bezos has a handful of employees, which is easier to manipulate (he can fire them, choose them, etc. which means they'll try to please him without him even asking).

He already has the mainstream media against him, but maybe he sees this more as an asset than a liability.

4 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

You think he's playing the anti-woke card to get sympathy and influence? Hmm, maybe, but I can't see a lot of value in it.

 

Furthermore, he can't influence what people say on twitter. There are too many people. Whereas Jeff Bezos has a handful of employees, which is easier to manipulate (he can fire them, choose them, etc. which means they'll try to please him without him even asking).

 

The thing is he will become the owner and the puppet-master of the platform.  This means that they get to control culture and politics, and way people think through their moderation and management policies.  

 

Twitter is one of those psychologically influential platforms, it makes people think in certain ways.   So Musk will likely bring back banned opinion leaders or prevent the banning of opinion leaders that would have been banned under the old regime.  So there is a totally different influence.

 

As I am following the Ukraine war a lot this is more obvious than ever that twitter is being used by Ukrainian/NATO as a propaganda engine.  In Eastern europe, Telegram is being used by Russia.  Russia is banned on Twitter so people in the West only see one (biased) side of the story.  

On 9/21/2022 at 12:39 AM, Enrico_sw said:

I've done it at home so far, but I wonder if I might go to a gym that's close to my house (but it's expensive...)

@Matt! I've bought a subscription to the gym last week (I found another one that's less expensive)

 

It's good though it's a bit "populated"

 

I've tried machines for the adductors, it's great cause it's more efficient than what I could do at home... but now I have a lot of soreness in the adductors

4 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:

 

The thing is he will become the owner and the puppet-master of the platform.  This means that they get to control culture and politics, and way people think through their moderation and management policies.  

 

Twitter is one of those psychologically influential platforms, it makes people think in certain ways.   So Musk will likely bring back banned opinion leaders or prevent the banning of opinion leaders that would have been banned under the old regime.  So there is a totally different influence.

 

As I am following the Ukraine war a lot this is more obvious than ever that twitter is being used by Ukrainian/NATO as a propaganda engine.  In Eastern europe, Telegram is being used by Russia.  Russia is banned on Twitter so people in the West only see one (biased) side of the story.  

 

Hmm, I see what you mean.

 

Do you think there can be real competition against twitter one day?

2 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

Hmm, I see what you mean.

 

Do you think there can be real competition against twitter one day?

 

I don't know.  I would hope that something much better than twitter appears someday and turns it into a fossil, like myspace.

1 hour ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

What's intriguing is that I can't see what additional value there is for Elon in the goodwill he paid. Maybe his fight for freedom or a personal beef with the platform... but that's not worth this much.

 

In contrast, the takeover of the Washington Post by Jeff Bezos is way clearer. He overpaid the newspaper, at face value, but, aboce all, he bought influence. And that's worth a lot. The readers are high profile and the WaPo is a help for many of his businesses (they protect Amazon Prime shows, like ROP, they can hide bad press or shady businesses he has).

 

But you can't do that with twitter.

 

There is also the difference in price. I believe Bezos paid just 250 million for the WaPo? That's a tiny fraction of what Musk had to pay for Twitter.

22 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

There is also the difference in price. I believe Bezos paid just 250 million for the WaPo? That's a tiny fraction of what Musk had to pay for Twitter.

 

Yes, it's definitely part of the reason it's a better deal for him. Analysts thought he paid a huge goodwill (probably $50-100+ million), but this amount is nothing compared to the value for Bezos.

 

The fair value of the WaPo (based on the sum of its discounted future cash flows minus its debts at the time) when he bought it was probably pretty low (let's say $150 million). That's an estimation of what the company will generate at "face value".

 

But Bezos, as its shareholder, enters the "small club" of media owners. He can uses this influence to protect its business and he can trade influence with the other members of the club. This has huge value. He probably paid $100 million for it, but this is nothing compared to the real intangible value of influence. I think he could've paid $200 or even $500 million for that.

Just now, Enrico_sw said:

But Bezos, as its shareholder, enters the "small club" of media owners. He can uses this influence to protect its business and he can trade influence with the other members of the club. This has huge value.

 

BTW, I'm not talking about explicit demands of Bezos to his employees or explict demands/trades with other companies (Disney, etc.)

 

All of this can be very implicit through tacit demands, peer pressure or even innocent talks in business dinners or events.

 

For example, when you're a WaPo employee, you don't have to be told that it's "verboten" to investigate Amazon's business... you just know it without it ever been written or even told.

^ it's soft power. The Americans understood it very well in the 20th century. It was one of their expertise.