• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Elon Musk and the Twitter acquisition saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toons

Toons

Member
DeepEnigma said:
You should check this one later, George seemed to be on to something...
Ignore the indoctrinated question, listen to his response about episodes 1-3... with comments like yours, we are living in that timeline.
[/URL]

Only thing that should be national about it, is recognizing it as a public square (utilities), thus 1A applies just as it does in those scenarios. "Like China" hell to the nah, bitch you crazy! That's what they want people to want.

On a side note, it was interesting that he said "I lost control of Star Wars..." rather than, "I gave up control." But that is for another topic.
Click to expand...

...nah he definitely gave it up for a 4 bill paycheck lol. Thats not even in question. Either that or the PT did worse than we thought and he was hurting for cash.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Toons said:
...nah he definitely gave it up for a 4 bill paycheck lol. Thats not even in question. Either that or the PT did worse than we thought and he was hurting for cash.
Click to expand...
Hollywood can be weird sometimes all the time.
 
Last edited:
ReBurn

ReBurn

Gold Member
Vestal said:
Regardless of what you think of Twitter, or content moderation as a whole... Arbitrarily saying you are going to cut 75% of the workforce is dumb. Now if Musk wants to tank the platform and lose all of his investment.. Well then, GO FOR IT MUSKY!

With over 200 billion tweets a year across the world, you need a workforce to maintain your service and moderate it..
Click to expand...
The thing about that...it's exactly what investors want. If you can make them believe that you can do the same work with 25% of the people then they're going to love you because the results will manifest as increased earnings per share. A lot of layoffs are driven by that very principle.

Those 200 billion tweets are likely already largely moderated through AI/ML robots with more automation coming online all the time. Content moderator as a profession is not likely going to be a thing in the near future.
 
Vestal

Vestal

Gold Member
ReBurn said:
The thing about that...it's exactly what investors want. If you can make them believe that you can do the same work with 25% of the people then they're going to love you because the results will manifest as increased earnings per share. A lot of layoffs are driven by that very principle.

Those 200 billion tweets are likely already largely moderated through AI/ML robots with more automation coming online all the time. Content moderator as a profession is not likely going to be a thing in the near future.
Click to expand...

Investors are not part of the equation, since Musk is buying the company outright.
 
V

Vicetrailia

Member
ReBurn said:
The thing about that...it's exactly what investors want. If you can make them believe that you can do the same work with 25% of the people then they're going to love you because the results will manifest as increased earnings per share. A lot of layoffs are driven by that very principle.

Those 200 billion tweets are likely already largely moderated through AI/ML robots with more automation coming online all the time. Content moderator as a profession is not likely going to be a thing in the near future.
Click to expand...

It’s not.

They will lose all of their best. The only ones left will be the weasels who think they can move up without having the talent to do so. But that’s written in stone at this point, people have been leaving twitter left and right.
 
Last edited:
ReBurn

ReBurn

Gold Member
Vicetrailia said:
It’s not.

They will lose all of their best. The only ones left will be the weasels who think they can move up without having the talent to do so. But that’s written in stone at this point, people have been leaving twitter left and right.
Click to expand...
I don't know. That's usually just what people who are laid off say. My experience over decades in technology companies, all of which have experienced layoffs, has shown me that it usually doesn't come down to weasels vs. talent in layoffs. The weasels are usually also talented. They're just not very likeable because they tend to be overtly ambitious and often aggressive. They're seen as suck ups because they conform to company culture in a world where you're supposed to hate your job. But rarely are the weasels who aren't let go incapable. They're just willing to give up work/life balance for "the good of the company."

The people who are let go typically just fall on the wrong side of whatever line management draws and it's different every time. Unless it's a function super critical to the company, if two people can fulfill the function then the less expensive one often gets to stay even if they don't do it quite as well. If the company can do without the function then both get cut. Sometimes they just drop whole teams or departments regardless of talent or ability to contribute in other parts of the company. In the end it's about money and not popularity.
 
V

Vicetrailia

Member
ReBurn said:
I don't know. That's usually just what people who are laid off say. My experience over decades in technology companies, all of which have experienced layoffs, has shown me that it usually doesn't come down to weasels vs. talent in layoffs. The weasels are usually also talented. They're just not very likeable because they tend to be overtly ambitious and often aggressive. They're seen as suck ups because they conform to company culture in a world where you're supposed to hate your job. But rarely are the weasels who aren't let go incapable. They're just willing to give up work/life balance for "the good of the company."

The people who are let go typically just fall on the wrong side of whatever line management draws and it's different every time. Unless it's a function super critical to the company, if two people can fulfill the function then the less expensive one often gets to stay even if they don't do it quite as well. If the company can do without the function then both get cut. Sometimes they just drop whole teams or departments regardless of talent or ability to contribute in other parts of the company. In the end it's about money and not popularity.
Click to expand...

The idea here is to get people to voluntarily leave. The ones who remain are the dedicated ones who would have more anxiety about competing for jobs if they were let go. The talent goes first, the ones who see opportunity with less competition are the ones who want to stay.

Of course there are talented corporate drones who want to stay, but they aren’t weasels, at least I don’t call them that. I’m talking about the people you really need to be keeping who are gonna go poof now.
 
Last edited:
ReBurn

ReBurn

Gold Member
Vicetrailia said:
The idea here is to get people to voluntarily leave. The ones who remain are the dedicated ones who would have more anxiety about competing for jobs if they were let go. The talent goes first, the ones who see opportunity with less competition are the ones who want to stay.

Of course there are talented corporate drones who want to stay, but they aren’t weasels, at least I don’t call them that. I’m talking about the people you really need to be keeping who are gonna go poof now.
Click to expand...
Most large companies don't make things suck on purpose so people will quit before they're fired. Small companies may do that to avoid having to make hard decisions. Large companies want to try to control who stays and goes and usually don't care about people either way. But to your point, once layoffs start anyone who is smart should immediately start to look for a job. In my experience it's always best to be one of the first to leave.
 
MastaKiiLA

MastaKiiLA

Member
I love how shambolic this whole thing has been. I initially hated the idea of Musk buying Twitter, but warmed to it once I realized that he'll just inherit the same unwinnable situation he scapegoated Twitter for. I like how even before the deal is even finalized, the whole thing looks so precarious. I don't expect the product to change much at all. I do expect Musk to have a newfound respect for the liability social platforms carry around. With now 2 prominent public figures exhibiting super-sketchy behavior let's really take a proper look at how the "champion of free speech" acts when the chips are down. So far, he looks desperate to get out of the deal.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Maiden Voyage said:
He went back to wanting to buy it but now the govt is reviewing national security concerns as Musk has been tweeting Russian talking points.

The circus continues unabated.
Click to expand...
the joker applause GIF
 
N

NickFire

Member
Maiden Voyage said:
He went back to wanting to buy it but now the govt is reviewing national security concerns as Musk has been tweeting Russian talking points.
Click to expand...
Is that "concern" really slow walking this? And if it is, my oh my they couldn't be more transparent if they tried looking at the calendar.
 
Last edited:
Maiden Voyage

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
NickFire said:
Is that "concern" really slow walking this? And if it is, my oh my they couldn't be more transparent if they tried looking at the calendar.
Click to expand...
Musk has until Friday. The ball is with him at the moment from what I’ve read. The security thing affects more than just Twitter.
 
BadBurger

BadBurger

Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Maiden Voyage said:
Musk has until Friday. The ball is with him at the moment from what I’ve read. The security thing affects more than just Twitter.
Click to expand...

Correct. It's related to an executive order from last year, one that defines criteria for government examination of risks of any apps owned, controlled or managed by people supporting foreign adversary military or intelligence service or when the apps collect sensitive personal data. So, Musk's tweets and conversation(s) with Putin basically sparked this investigation. This executive order was issued because previous attempts to ban WeChat and TikTok were either blocked by court injunction (WeChat) or got stuck in the gears of justice with a lawsuit (TikTok) because those executive orders basically didn't provide enough evidence-based justification.

Seeing as it took the government a little over a year to muster the confidence to attempt to block TikTok again, I doubt the Justice Department will be trying to stop this sale in the courts given the short timeline and fact that Musk is obviously no foreign agent, but who knows.
 
jufonuk

jufonuk

not tag worthy
If I had 44 billion I would not buy twitter. Wtf?

Maybe something more sensible and less glamorous but needed such as hospitals or food banks/schools or cheap housing ?

Maybe that’s why I’m not a billionaire

I wonder what he will do with it once it is his?
 
Last edited:
E-Cat

E-Cat

Gold Member
jufonuk said:
If I had 44 billion I would not buy twitter. Wtf?

Maybe something more sensible and less glamorous but needed such as hospitals or food banks/schools or cheap housing ?

Maybe that’s why I’m not a billionaire

I wonder what he will do with it once it is his?
Click to expand...
It will complete his original vision of X.com, or what PayPal was supposed to become

Also there will be a video service to rival YT
 
funkygunther

funkygunther

Banned
E-Cat said:
It will complete his original vision of X.com, or what PayPal was supposed to become

Also there will be a video service to rival YT
Click to expand...

We've all post hoc justified our stupid extravagant purchases. Is there any evidence of this intent before he (finally) decided to (maybe) buy it?
 
E-Cat

E-Cat

Gold Member
funkygunther said:
We've all post hoc justified our stupid extravagant purchases. Is there any evidence of this intent before he (finally) decided to (maybe) buy it?
Click to expand...
Dunno, I'm sure there are many angles to why he wants to buy it. Another might be gathering massive data for AGI
 
BadBurger

BadBurger

Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
After all of the drama since April, I'll wait for the SEC filing.

As for Musk's supposed plans, I doubt the banks backing $13bn of that financing and the investors he's borrowing billions more from would enjoy him coming in and immediately wrecking their investment by wiping out 75% of the workforce. I don't think even he's foolish enough to attempt to follow through on those bold claims, but hey, if he burns down his own company I'll be observing the failure in raptured curiosity and schadenfreude like everyone else.
 
Clear

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
BadBurger said:
After all of the drama since April, I'll wait for the SEC filing.

As for Musk's supposed plans, I doubt the banks backing $13bn of that financing and the investors he's borrowing billions more from would enjoy him coming in and immediately wrecking their investment by wiping out 75% of the workforce. I don't think even he's foolish enough to attempt to follow through on those bold claims, but hey, if he burns down his own company I'll be observing the failure in raptured curiosity and schadenfreude like everyone else.
Click to expand...

If sacking 99% of the workforce made for a more profitable Twitter, they'd encourage him to go for the last 0.9%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Elon Musk plans to charge new X users to enable posting
News
47
3K
Men_in_Boxes replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
2K
AJUMP23 replied
Twitter has lost 90% of its value and could be worth just $4 billion, according to Elon Musk
Business 2
80
6K
Brian Fellows replied
  • Locked
Crow thread: Elon Musk has owned Twitter for one year now
6 7 8 9 10
464
31K
Sonik replied
Twitter is Officially Dying: Elon Musk sets new daily Twitter limits for users
Social News Drama 2 3
139
10K
Vicetrailia replied
Top Bottom