This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Death warrant? Maybe, but I expect companies (maybe not the EU, but - let's be frank - probably the EU too) to go back into X as soon as they feel they are done cashing in this virtue signaling.
There were plenty of reasons to leave twitter before this idiotic tweet from Musk (reasons due to twitter's action as a company, and not just Musk's drunken posts) and they were all happily tweeting and advertising.
Is this drop that breaks the camel's back? Maybe, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.
My chips are also on them coming back, but at the same time it feels like Musk wants to make Twitter's business harder than it needs to be.
This reaction doesn't come from the last tweet itself, instead it comes from him not stopping with hot takes and not showing any signs of slowing down.
If he keeps going, I could see companies just accepting "it is what it is" and coming back, but at the same time it also feels like he's one tweet away from going too far for most companies. And it's not like Twitter is a strong social media anyway, they are not even in the top 10 social medias in terms of active users count: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
Maybe these companies may also decide that dealing with Twitter is more trouble than it's worth. But we'll see
Well, that was certainly decisive.
I don’t think x’s value is from the number of users. It’s the type of powerful people on it and the headline style format the multiplies it’s impact across the information space. It still sucks though
"cashing in this virtue signaling"
Not wanting to be associated with the Great Replacement theory is "virtue signaling"
Tell me you're a right wing shill without telling me you're a right wing shill
He's right. They don't care about what's on X as long as there isn't negative publicity. It has nothing to do with being right-wing. If anything, it's quite left-wing to believe that companies only care about the baseline.
I have very little faith in businesses to do the right thing for the right reasons. Publicly traded companies in the US literally can't do that legally if they think it will hurt their bottom line.
X is a shit company that doesn’t need to exist anymore but I’m equally tired of companies virtue signaling behind causes. Like, fuck off, I don’t need you to tell me that you’re “invested” in “human rights” or “causes” when you treat your workers like shit and fail to provide your retail workers a minimum wage for example.
X and these other companies virtue signaling behind causes for profit/marketing goodwill can all go to hell.
So the radical free speech guy is going to sue someone for what they said? Sounds spot on for Musk.
Wait, I don't see that in the article. Who's he suing now?
How cheap does X have to get before it can be bought by a non-profit, turned into a co-op and renamed twitter?
It's no longer a public company. So it can be bought when Musk chooses to sell. Or if he defaults on his loan then it may go to banks but they really don't want it and have already written off their loan to him.
Why exactly do normal people with small defaults have 'collection agents' sent after them, while billion dollar defaults are written off? Isn't that supposed to be the other way around?
It's all to do with the terms of the contract and collateral.
Bonds are guaranteed by the collateral of the ownership of the company. If the company defaults on their loan, then ownership transfers to the bond holders, so the bond holders now own all the equity in the company (and previous equity holders get nothing.)
There are no collections agents for companies because once they default, all of that is essentially triggered automatically contractually. There's a bit of wiggle room with negotiating changing terms on the loans and such before a default happens, but that's the broad strokes.
because it's easier to come after real people, since we don't know all loopholes, can't jerk them around indefinitely, have no individual power, can't afford lawyers, and are all around an easier mark.
and then federate with Mastodon?
I've heard this said for months now
Yeah, it's only a death warrant for conventionally run companies. He can run it into the ground as deep as his pockets will let him. And according to Forbes that's still relatively deep, deeper than they should be anyway.
I kind of suspect he's up to something. Maybe he's grooming it for a political ad platform. Although it's equally possible he just loves watching everybody flip the hell out, One hell of an expensive hobby if so.
We can only hope
did people stop deadnaming twitter
Right? Twitter hasn't stopped dead naming Twitter, for fuck's sake
We've yet to see any regulatory actions with real consequences, so yeah I doubt it.
A $50 fine or something
Musk only buys things that he thinks will keep his name in the news, and he's always looking for that next bong-hit of attention.
Nobody likes him. Nobody cares about him. And he makes it so obvious WHY with his racist, apartheid bullsh*t.
Haven't people been saying that since before he even bought it?
Knew he was good for something
the guy don’t give a single fuck, people don’t get that he don’t care about loosing money.
Can we please stop posting business news here
Someone of such resource certainly likes to carry and bang an empty pail.