In other hostile takeover Tweets...
-
@kazitor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
the debate over whether he's right or wrong is inherently political. And if it's political, it belongs in the Garage.
How funny that even the mere concept of this debate was entirely absent before you showed up
Huh?
-
Wait, was this supposed to be Jeffed into the Garage? Or just out of the News thread?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Wait, was this supposed to be Jeffed into the Garage? Or just out of the News thread?
I just moved it out of news and would appreciate if people who don't want to see garagey content would post that way. The hostile takeover of a major tech company seems like something that has legitimate general discussion aspects.
If it keeps going garagey, it will probably move. We'll see.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear If you know your post should be in the garage, make it in the garage.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@kazitor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
the debate over whether he's right or wrong is inherently political. And if it's political, it belongs in the Garage.
How funny that even the mere concept of this debate was entirely absent before you showed up
Huh?
Nobody was debating about Twitter's censorship policy or whether Musk's attitude towards it is right or wrong. @Arantor and was talking about his stock pump
and dumpschemes, I was talking about him having a history of breaking those rules.
Those things weren't political until it was unilaterally decided that what I wrote means something I neither wrote nor meant and that discussing his Tesla SEC violations is inherently political because he happens to have some opinion on Twitter moderation.
-
@topspin well, yeah, but he just mentioned the censorship angle without any details and ignoring that aspect of his motivation for this would seem pretty weird to me since it's an obvious concern of Musk's.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in
The subthread about Musk buying Twitter absolutely belongs in the Garage.
Then every thread about every news item belongs in the Garage because news is political, because it doesn't matter the subject, it's political by definition. Whether it's about politics, government idiocy (perceived or real), economics, science, religion, even sport is political.
Hell, last week there was a news story over here about a TV gameshow presenter quitting after 12 years of co-presenting the show because he'd somewhat-unexpectedly become a best-selling author and now doesn't have time to juggle both careers. And predictably it was made political by commentators. If some news like that can become political, anything can become political.
By extension, every single stupid in IT - the original point of the site - comes down to a lack of training or a lack of money on the part of the perpetrators of stupid. Lack of resources is the cornerstone of economic scarcity - which makes it political.
So I guess that really is the question, do the collective hivemind want to just make this whole site the Garage? For the long-time folks this would largely return it to how it was in the Community Server days, sans hacking around with Signature Guy etc.
For those not familiar, Community Server was what it was before Discourse - and there were a surprising influx of people in the newly-Discourse era precisely because the forum appeared to become less toxic. Me included in the 2014 intake.
I guarantee if the whole thing becomes the Garage, I will just ask to be banned, simple as that.
You deeply misunderstand my issue with the Garage, and with you personally. You personally exemplify everything I despise about the Garage, because everything I hate about the Garage you have done personally in the one time I tried to engage.
The one time I participated in the Garage was at moderator request, and I did so with cautious optimism in the hopes that a genuinely complicated issue that I admitted I didn't understand fully (and was aware that my views could be offensive, but I was trying to genuinely understand) could be discussed. And the first part of the thread did actually do that. It was a genuinely interesting and thought-provoking topic where I learned things - then you showed up, deciding that I had made personal attacks on you based on your religion (which I hadn't) based on my references to organisations (which, as I explained repeatedly, I didn't), because you had decided I was talking about something that I was, even as I explained it. Because I was referencing something in my country not in yours. But facts, of course, barrier to anything.
In this thread, let's look at what I actually said, shall we?
I present the link to some news - because god forbid I link to some news in a news thread. With a casual but broadly accurate one line summary of the situation, and this is fine, it's factual - and it's not politcal at this point.
Then you write multiple paragraphs about it being to change Twitter's censorship policy, and this is all factual so far. No problems here. But already the 'here we go' spidey senses are tingling.
I suggest that it doesn't have to be about censorship, it could be Elon just making money. In other words: suggesting Occam's Razor for 'either he's doing it for censorship reasons or doing it for money'. I don't offer anything beyond offering the possibilty.
I then politely suggested that if you want to make it about censorship, take it somewhere else. You even agreed. I assumed the discussion about censorship then began elsewhere.
Fast forward through the debate on legality of making money out of it - which I deliberately offered no opinion on, then I rejoin the conversation with vaguely agreeing, that Elon had said it was moderation-related (not offering an opinion of my own on the relative motivations)
I simply observe at this point that what I understood of Parler's demise could well happen again. I wasn't offering the suggestion that it was the only reason, but that 'moderation policy' was a factor in its booting from AWS. Then I realise the folly of my mistake and backtrack immediately.
And we see, again, that you're doing exactly what I despise the Garage for: reading things into it that aren't there and then beating me over the head with it - only with more civility because it's not the Garage.
Then we have:
Which is why Arantor should have posted about this in the Garage and not General to begin with.
No, I offered zero context to begin with, and even with the later thoughts I added, they were 'I think x is similar to y' without citing why or anything else. You were the one who made it political and then accused me of doing so. That bullshit right there is why I hate the Garage, because this shit is endemic there, and not really present elsewhere.
Here's ultimately my problem: I stay the fuck out of your lane, but you won't do me the courtesy of staying out of my lane and then that's somehow my fault. Fuck off with that.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
until it was unilaterally decided that what I wrote means something I neither wrote nor meant
This is the problem I have with the Garage, just for GuyWhoKilledBear's benefit.
-
@PleegWat said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear If you know your post should be in the garage, make it in the garage.
You see that I did that, right?
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
of my mistake and backtrack immediately.
And we see, again, that you're doing exactly what I despise the Garage for: reading things into it that aren't there and then beating me over the head with it - only with more civility because it's not the Garage.And yet instead of dropping it and moving on you (and others who don't want to participate in the garage) keep coming back and making garagey comments.
You're protesting too much and not acting consistently with your stated preferences. You (and others) could have accepted that the alternative view, that censorship was an important aspect, was held and left it at that.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
You (and others) could have accepted that the alternative view, that censorship was an important aspect, was held and left it at that.
I did, though. I opined initially about the Occam's Razor angle, that it didn't have to be political and could just be about the money. Then I did say that Elon mentioned it was about moderation - noting carefully that I didn't either agree or disagree as to his motivations.
And I opined that it set it on course for a run-in with the hosting company as I understood happened previously. I then also immediately backtracked, realising the error of my ways.
This was not me offering an opinion beyond 'given these things, I think this will happen'. As far as I'm concerned I didn't make it political and I tried to stay out of it being political while defending as best I could against the people twisting my words.
Fucking hell, maybe blakeyrat was actually right.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in
Then we have:Which is why Arantor should have posted about this in the Garage and not General to begin with.
No, I offered zero context to begin with, and even with the later thoughts I added, they were 'I think x is similar to y' without citing why or anything else. You were the one who made it political and then accused me of doing so. That bullshit right there is why I hate the Garage, because this shit is endemic there, and not really present elsewhere.
Bullshit.
Some topics are inherently political, no matter how much you pretend that you're only talking about an apolitical explanation, which conveniently is self-serving to your side.
Two of those topics are
- Is Elon Musk going to buy Twitter and implement a better censorship regime?
- Why doesn't Amazon host Parler anymore?
You're a smart person. I know that you know why you bringing up Elon Musk buying Twitter causes people on both sides to discuss the political aspects of it. Regardless of whether you personally said anything about politics, you're the one who brought up the inherently political topic.
Here's ultimately my problem: I stay the fuck out of your lane, but you won't do me the courtesy of staying out of my lane and then that's somehow my fault. Fuck off with that.
Bullshit. You've told your fake story about The Time You Deigned To Go Into The Garage With The Peasants at least five or six times in non-Garage categories. Usually in conversations that don't even involve me.
I don't bring up "Oh, man, I fucking hate this guy whose name I'm not going to mention" once a month in the general categories.
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
until it was unilaterally decided that what I wrote means something I neither wrote nor meant
This is the problem I have with the Garage, just for GuyWhoKilledBear's benefit.
I don't believe you.
The actual argument we had was over whether the phrase "All Lives Matter" is racist.
It isn't. If you think it is, you're wrong. It's not racist in my country and I promise it's not racist in your country. "All Lives Matter is racist" is a smear that was invented so that the people who invented the smear could use it to pretend that the targets of the smear were bad people.
I thought it was relevant to point that out because we were in a topic where you were complaining, accurately, about lunatics smearing you as a racist.
I'm not pretending you said something you didn't say. Not then and not now.
-
I could reply but honestly, you're just going to continue arguing in bad faith.
@boomzilla please ban my account.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I could reply but honestly, you're just going to continue arguing in bad faith.
@boomzilla please ban my account.
-
-
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Wow. Does that mean that Musk is about to dump and kill the share price? Or does it mean we get to find out about his Plan B?
-
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Wow. Does that mean that Musk is about to dump and kill the share price? Or does it mean we get to find out about his Plan B?
All I know is that I'm gonna need more .
-
Not sure yet, there is a lot of other stuff going on as well. Vanguard jumped in to take the top investor spot and private equity firm Thoma Bravo is apparently looking at making a counter offer.
-
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Wow. Does that mean that Musk is about to dump and kill the share price? Or does it mean we get to find out about his Plan B?
I think it's more about defending against the takeover and what to do if he starts buying up more shares on the open market.
-
@PotatoEngineer
Pretty standardprotect the board’s golden eggcorporate poison pill. I’m a little surprised they don’t have a permanent provision to that effect, but maybe it just isn’t an everyday thing for IPOs these days or they figured most declarable investors would take the board seat and its covenants that amount to the same ownership restrictions.
-
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Is this intentionally written to be obtuse? I didn’t understand a word of it.
-
@topspin almost certainly written by a lawyer.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin almost certainly written by a lawyer.
Certainly. But what does that shit mean?
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin almost certainly written by a lawyer.
Certainly. But what does that shit mean?
Under the new structure, if any person or group acquires beneficial ownership of at least 15% of Twitter’s outstanding common stock without the board’s approval, other shareholders will be allowed to purchase additional shares at a discount.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin almost certainly written by a lawyer.
Certainly. But what does that shit mean?
Under the new structure, if any person or group acquires beneficial ownership of at least 15% of Twitter’s outstanding common stock without the board’s approval, other shareholders will be allowed to purchase additional shares at a discount.
Since people actually owning shares surely won’t sell them to other shareholders at that discount, I assume this means “stock printer goes brrr” and they just make new stock that’s distributed at a discount? To anyone except the one triggering it?
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
-
@topspin yes, they'll issue new stock to intentionally dilute the ownership.
I mean...companies can issue stock whenever they want to. It's just that owners generally don't like that since it dilutes their ownership, though it depends on the financial structure of the company and what they expect to do with the new capital.
But yeah, that's all part of why it's called a poison pill.
-
@boomzilla then why doesn’t the board just decide that everyone on the board gets to buy 1000% additional shares at $1?
That’d make everyone else’s shares worthless.
-
@topspin they're trying to dissuade Musk without overly pissing off existing shareholders. Even if they fight off Musk, they could still be fired by shareholders after the fact.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin they're trying to dissuade Musk without overly pissing off existing shareholders. Even if they fight off Musk, they could still be fired by shareholders after the fact.
With my plan, there’d be no other (relevant) shareholders left. They’d just own a large majority of it themselves, for cheap.
(I realize that’s not possible, but I don’t see the obvious difference to this poison pill thing.)
-
@Gribnit said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@JBert said in In other news today...:
EDIT: Almost tempted to include the Fawlty Towers "Don't Mention The War" sketch from "The Germans" episode in my post, but I think I can get away without it.
So close!
Get the bucket, then
Lord Buckethead?
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin they're trying to dissuade Musk without overly pissing off existing shareholders. Even if they fight off Musk, they could still be fired by shareholders after the fact.
With my plan, there’d be no other (relevant) shareholders left. They’d just own a large majority of it themselves, for cheap.
(I realize that’s not possible, but I don’t see the obvious difference to this poison pill thing.)The way that The Board got to be The Board in the first place is that they were elected by the shareholders.
And to protect themselves, the shareholders put a rule into place that says that no individual member of the board is allowed to own more than 15% of the shares. (Musk didn't accept the board seat because he planned to own more than 15% of Twitter.)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I find your notion that any moderation of content is automatically censorship to be highly dubious.
You do realize that by your own definition this very forum engages in similar censorship then - as evidenced by @boomzilla recently deleting some of my posts among others?
No? Thought as much. Don't bother replying, this thread is now on mute.
-
@djls45 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Gribnit said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@JBert said in In other news today...:
EDIT: Almost tempted to include the Fawlty Towers "Don't Mention The War" sketch from "The Germans" episode in my post, but I think I can get away without it.
So close!
Get the bucket, then
Lord Buckethead?
When the Major has these spells, iirc everyone needs to stand with one foot in a bucket and sing... something. Can't remember what.
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I find your notion that any moderation of content is automatically censorship to be highly dubious.
You do realize that by your own definition this very forum engages in similar censorship then - as evidenced by @boomzilla recently deleting some of my posts among others?
No? Thought as much. Don't bother replying, this thread is now on mute due to all the straw I have piled up around me.
Sheesh.
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I find your notion that any moderation of content is automatically censorship to be highly dubious.
Not any moderation of content. But what Twitter is doing is absolutely censorship.
You do realize that by your own definition this very forum engages in similar censorship then - as evidenced by @boomzilla recently deleting some of my posts among others?
No? Thought as much.
Wait, @boomzilla deleted some of your posts? That doesn't sound like him. If that's true, he shouldn't have done that.
Are you sure your posts weren't Jeffed to the Garage or something?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I find your notion that any moderation of content is automatically censorship to be highly dubious.
Not any moderation of content. But what Twitter is doing is absolutely censorship.
You do realize that by your own definition this very forum engages in similar censorship then - as evidenced by @boomzilla recently deleting some of my posts among others?
No? Thought as much.
Wait, @boomzilla deleted some of your posts? That doesn't sound like him. If that's true, he shouldn't have done that.
Are you sure your posts weren't Jeffed to the Garage or something?
He's been upset about his posts getting jeffed, so he's gotten a few deleted instead.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear it was one post. I guarantee you remember Lounge flare up it caused.
Basically, after a mod said to stop making political comments, @Rhywden made a political comment. It's true, I probably shouldn't have deleted the comment because it could have been a good opportunity to publicly shame him for deliberate bad behavior that he claims to dislike but just can't find it in himself to actually give up.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear it was one post. I guarantee you remember Lounge flare up it caused.
Basically, after a mod said to stop making political comments, @Rhywden made a political comment. It's true, I probably shouldn't have deleted the comment because it could have been a good opportunity to publicly shame him for deliberate bad behavior that he claims to dislike but just can't find it in himself to actually give up.
Ok, well then like I said, I don't think you should have deleted the post and should have Jeffed it instead.
Sounds like you agree.
I'm not sure why Rhwyden thinks he and I should be arguing about a censorship policy on WTDWTF.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I'm not sure why Rhwyden thinks he and I should be arguing about a censorship policy on WTDWTF.
He doesn't. Drive by trolling is more his style.
-
Smells to me like they went and fed the troll.
TWITTER GOES HOSTILE | Elon Musk and Understanding the "Poison Pill" (VL660) – 26:46
— Hoeg Law
-
@PleegWat should be a good show!
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin yes, they'll issue new stock to intentionally dilute the ownership.
I mean...companies can issue stock whenever they want to. It's just that owners generally don't like that since it dilutes their ownership, though it depends on the financial structure of the company and what they expect to do with the new capital.
But yeah, that's all part of why it's called a poison pill.
If I'm remembering my history right, poison pills got popular during the days of the corporate raiders in the 80's or so: some "raiders" would talk a bank into giving them a giant loan, with which they'd buy a company whose assets were bigger than its market cap, and then they'd break the company into whatever the most valuable pieces were and sell them off. Usually caused a lot of job loss, among other chaos.
So companies started adopting poison pills to defend themselves against raiders. The practice dwindled over time as the raiders became less common -- something about how poison pills were actively bad for shareholders (since the corporate raiders were giving excellent returns to the shareholders, even if the final result was a crater in the ground). I guess Twitter decided that Musk was some kind of existential threat, or they wanted to keep milking the cow for years to come, or they just liked their spots on the board.
-
@PotatoEngineer I think that the reasons for both Musk's attempt and the board's response can only properly be discussed in the Garage.
But we can still discuss financial maneuvering out here.
-
@boomzilla Yeah, I'd say ing the is fine out here, but existential threats are not.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin almost certainly written by a lawyer.
Certainly. But what does that shit mean?
Under the new structure, if any person or group acquires beneficial ownership of at least 15% of Twitter’s outstanding common stock without the board’s approval, other shareholders will be allowed to purchase additional shares at a discount.
Since people actually owning shares surely won’t sell them to other shareholders at that discount, I assume this means “stock printer goes brrr” and they just make new stock that’s distributed at a discount? To anyone except the one triggering it?
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
It's in The Rules that the company passed, which are publicly available for anyone to read before they buy any shares. (And that's not a silly technicality; if you're going to buy enough shares for that to matter, you (or a lawyer working for you) are definitely going to read The Rules first just to make sure there aren't weird provisions in there that will screw you over. That's just basic due dilligence.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
It's in The Rules that the company passed, which are publicly available for anyone to read
Except, as per the Hoeg Law video posted above, those rules aren't available, so the only info on it was their press release.
But I'm sure they'll be made available Soon.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
It might not be. IANAL, but it is my understanding that for this to stand in court they have to prove that this action will cause less harm to ALL twitter investors than Musks buyout option.
-
@Arantor I agree and as a long time lurker with no access to the garage, I am a bit pissed, I actually liked these discussions
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla then why doesn’t the board just decide that everyone on the board gets to buy 1000% additional shares at $1?
That’d make everyone else’s shares worthless.The board has a fiduciary (legal, financial) duty to preserve shareholder value, or they can be personally liable for financial damages. A poison pill targeted at one single corporate raider is less likely to get them sued in a class action and is thus not a risk that outweighs the benefit of keeping their posh board position.
Stealing the company for themselves would certainly get them sued and possibly sent to pound them in the ass federal prison.
-
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
It might not be. IANAL, but it is my understanding that for this to stand in court they have to prove that this action will cause less harm to ALL twitter investors than Musks buyout option.
I do not see how this could ever be argued to be less damage than he could cause. ISTR that the poison pill strategy from the 80's was to sell retained stock owned by the company and that it was done so on the open market. Part of the value that corporate raiders looked for was large amounts of retained (therefore restricted) stock. Not all stock has voting rights and I'm doubting that Twitter has enough retained stock on their balance sheet to do this. So I'm going to assume that they are proposing pure stock dilution.
This strategy they propose of summoning stock from thin air and refusing to sell it to Musk would cause massive damage to all of their stockholders and not selling to all existing shareholders equally seems illegal.