As is detailed by many smart people below, fiduciary duty lawsuits are difficult to win. They'd pretty much have to have board members emailing each other saying "This would be in the best interest of shareholders, but let's screw them over instead"
This was an epic debacle. Musk invested 4 BILLION dollars in an asset of questionable value, because "free speech". If he times it right he could come out ahead financially. But in general this was a pointless distraction and public fiasco that served no one.
I have no idea what he was doing or what his goals were. It looks like he was upset that people he liked were getting banned by twitter and was afraid that he'd run afoul of their rules himself, so he tried to buy the company. And despite being one of the richest humans to ever live, he failed at that.
This is just a head scratcher and a massive L. I don't see another way to view it.
from what i understand it's a matter of ideals combined with the technologist's desire to see the machines (all types, including sociopolitical) work correctly.
he wants to see the first amendment function with autistic precision. he wants to remove any messy personalization because it interferes with that purity. he wants fully transparent moderation and proof of fairness. he doesn't like the idea that one organization has such control and he likely wants to turn the company into a dao. he's searching for a problem to apply cryptocurrency technologies to.
what i think he doesn't get are the messy realities of the real world. we're already on the cusp of world war iii, can we chill for just a few minutes?
I have this recurring fantasy in which some Satoshi figure creates a decentralized global bulletin board, such that anybody can post and view anything anonymously and untraceably, and nobody - not the U.S. government, nor the CCP, nor the Mossad, nor the NSA - can stop it short of dismantling the whole Internet and starting over. Nobody can blame anybody, because nobody can stop it. Not because I think such a thing is technically possible. Certainly not because I have any fancy argument for why such a thing ought to exist morally! But simply to sit back and watch the world lose its fucking mind over it. To see the whole psyche of human kind projected into public view, and the accompanying apoplectic, impotent outrage.
I might also settle for a really quality sci-fi novel in which this takes place.
This already existed, it was called Freenet[0], and it was just as much of a trash dumpster as one might imagine. I have no idea if it still works.
The fact of the matter is that such a system absolutely would not scale. USENET crumbled under the weight of early 90s AOL subscribers; imagine even a fraction of today's Facebook or Twitter users moving to a similarly open system. It would be absolutely unusable chaos.
The thing is, these systems are not "the whole psyche of humankind projected into public view". That's far, far too generous for it. What usually happens is that the loudest extremists scream over everyone else, sock-puppet support for each other, create an echo chamber, and then proclaim that everyone who doesn't think like them isn't a real human being. The vast majority of people do not actually interact with the system.
[0] Technically speaking it was some extra overlay software on top of Freenet. I don't remember the name.
No, it isn't impossible at all. However, it would be very subjective- like that Freenet overlay software that eliminates SPAM and child pornography with ease, such a system would be more based on subjective webs of trust and optional lists people could subscribe to, used to determine what you see.
The sender anonymity part could just be having every node act as part of a mixnet- wait until you receive X messages and/or Y time has elapsed, shuffle messages, send them out to randomly chosen nodes, repeat this for 3 hops and then your message is propagated.
I've wanted to make something like this for ages since 4chan has gone so downhill. Perhaps it should happen then. It would probably be easier to adopt than something as complex as Freenet FMS for sure.
I would most of all hope it would solve the problem of people asking such questions, by making them perfectly moot. Folks would be forced to settle for wistful speculation about what the world might have been had the thing not been created.
Trolls would need to avoid being too overtly inflammatory, lest they get blocked by kneejerk reaction.
> What problem would it solve
Well, we could have a bunch of discussion boards again, ones that aren't at the permanent whims of profiteers or atrocious moderation. And strong anonymity even against global passive adversaries. Clearly there is a case for it, I know a lot of people who would find lots of joy in such a thing!
Freenet was also slightly slower than molasses in Antarctica. You had to really want to post there. The product of a messageboard is roughly:
sum[user_i in users](opinion(user_i)•engagement(user_i))
It's the second factor that causes all of the problems. But much like fast-food companies get a large fraction of their revenue from a small fraction of their customers, social media companies have trouble disempowering highly engaged users when functioning as a profit-oriented business.
It's interesting to consider what would happen with a "less moderated" messageboard where an individual's daily engagement is capped (supposing you solve the multiple account problem). It doesn't seem likely that we'll see that any time soon, though.
Somebody writes a unlock euqivalent and maintains ban lists. Everyone subscribes, because otherwise it's full of ads, spam, and edgy 14 year olds repeating slurs like it's Xbox live.
That doesn’t break my vision. It’s not the whole Internet, it’s just one bulletin board. People can not go there at all if they don’t want to. If Twitter’s moderation was chosen by each user, for themselves, we wouldn’t have this conversation (though no doubt we’d be having a different one). People filtering for themselves doesn’t touch on what I’m getting at with this thought experiment.
There are plenty of unmoderated corners of the internet; always have been, always will be. They were fun when the internet started out and when the financial incentive to spam the everloving shit out of them was low, but that's not really the case anymore.
it's a false projection though. it wouldn't be a projection of humanity -- it would be a projection of humanity warped by the games that would emerge as generations learn to cope with anonymous hyperconnectedness.
it's not some mirror that reflects who we really are, it's the chaos that comes from navigating entirely new paradigms of attention games and connectedness at scales we haven't yet evolved for.
To see the whole psyche of human kind projected into public view, and the accompanying apoplectic, impotent outrage.
Brilliant!
Can’t help but wonder if over time – having the ability to peek into our collective psyche – this would trigger a significant divergence from the present evolutionary trajectory of our unexamined collective mind; maybe for the better, maybe for the worse.
So it was 4chan before they made enough trouble to get law enforcement attention. In the beginning it was just a bunch of pissed off nerds posting anime that no one took seriously
It wouldn't be any kind of transparent window into the human mind.
It would be like any other lightly-moderated or unmoderated spaces we've seen before: the wildest days of 4chan, etc.
It would quickly be dominated by niche individuals and clumps of people who are good at attracting attention because they yell the loudest, are the most outrageous, tell the most compelling lies, etc.
Preventing SPAM requires a lot of subjectivity, so particular people who download certain sets of posts are more like to be senders. Perhaps retrieval of messages could be routed over something like I2P.
> he wants to see the first amendment function with autistic precision
I really wish we'd stop defining social media broadly as a first amendment issue. Elon Musk has the right to speak his mind without fear of government reprisal, he doesn't have a constitutional right to broadcast his asinine opinions to millions of people.
I'm not getting the impression that his actions are the result of a highly polished corporate public personna, I think his actions make way more sense if you imagine that he's just some regular, kinda bright, really eccentric asshole with more money than god.
Like, you can probably imagine at least one person you know acting this way if they discovered a genie.
Holy moly - reading that article I never knew the British caver's lawyer was the same completely delusional Lin Wood from the idiotic "kraken" lawsuits. No wonder he lost the case.
You should do a google search before posting on HN. Dude's done tons of really mean, rude, or questionable things. At many levels. It's not on the OP to prove it to you with exhaustive sources or whatever when you can just look around you and get examples.
I find it pretty ironic that the Hacker News user calling someone a douchebag goes on to provide what amounts to a "Let Me Google That For You" (lmgtfy) link.
If I came off as calling someone a douchebag, that's my bad - I've reread my comment and don't see that there, but if it happened I'm sorry. Could I re-word it somehow?
My main point was that saying "nuh uh" isn't a substantive rebuttal to a claim, especially when there's a pretty solid wealth of evidence in both directions (Musk has been a real turd to some people, specifically unionizers or laborers in his domain as well as that one anti-submarine guy who he leveraged his wealth to slander as a paedophile, but has helmed pioneering work in battery tech, propulsion, and non-government viable (!) approaches to lots of technological hurdles).
So, given the context of him being a known polarizing figure, "what has he done to deserve 'asshole':(" is not a substantive comment. LMGTFY is appropriate here, if anywhere?
There are very few things you can do that are a bigger asshole move than calling the person who bravely rescued a bunch of children a pedophile because you didn't get to be the hero.
Not to defend childish Twitter name-calling, but the reason he did it was that the dude picked a pointless fight with him first. Let he who has not escalated an insult battle throw the first stone.
No, they are addressing two different things. The second half addresses the parent assertion that he did it simply out of spite over whose cave rescue solution worked out first.
You may not be personally deafening him, but you are certainly offering a possible defense. So while you say "Not to defend childish Twitter name-calling" , you are also offering a possible defense for someone calling another person a pedophile without cause.
I might be misremembering the sequence of events, but I thought he called him names because the said hero publicly told Elon to shove the microsubmarine he was trying to build into his ass. Which kinda changes the picture entirely, at least for me.
Not really when the "microsubmarine" solution was never going to work and every minute was vital to get the kids out alive. So more of a "piss off and let people who actually know what they're doing focus on the job"
And regardless of that, it is still a massive asshole move to call someone a pedophile because they told you to shut up. Those two insults couldn't be more different in severity and social implications.
The pedo thing makes you an asshole. You can still have virtues while also being an asshole. I'm not really sure what there is to discuss on that point.
Every billionaire is supposedly an "asshole" and the only reason is because they have the money to do all of the things that regular people would also do but pretend they don't because they don't have the power to do anything.
The fact that nature places constraints on ordinary humans’ worst instincts is probably a good thing. We’re all fundamentally egomaniacal idiots who would do stupid things if granted absolute power. The fact that our society has granted a few PayPal co-founders something akin to such power is not a strong argument that such power is a good idea.
Yes, I don't have a reddit account either, because both here and reddit are very pro-censorship. I do understand though that your comment adds no value and should supposedly be downvoted according to the community standards of this site. My point is not a troll, it is always the case that people who have no power pretend that <if you just give me the power> I will be the <really good person>. They just want power like everybody else.
Well, you're technically right in that pointing out obvious trolls is discouraged here; instead, let's be charitable and take your comment at face value then.
> Every billionaire is supposedly an "asshole"
I don't know if this is true; I think some have a pretty strong image in the public eye. Gates for a long time hit that mark, though the COVID vaccine era allegations work against him now. Musk himself - case in point - is polarizing, but beloved by many. Buffet AFAICT is seen as a kindly, humble market guru with a penchant for helping those who need it. The Kardashians' (specifically Kylie Jenner's) wealth is admired and lauded by many. Tony Khan is ranked highly in sentiment across billionaires, and even the polarizing Vince McMahon is well beloved by an adoring group. Donald Trump, who is maybe a billionaire?, is the actual locus of much attention, merchandise, and adoration, of a large portion of the USA. Mukesh Ambani is a respected and admired figure in India. I don't know what the burden of proof to countermand this is.
> the only reason is because they have the money to do all of the things that regular people would also do but pretend they don't because they don't have the power to do anything.
This seems wildly, unsupportably reductive. Could you back this up with anything? I've engaged with the thought for a bit and am now more genuinely curious that I was before, so - W there for the HN zeitgeist, probably.
> I do understand though that your comment adds no value and should supposedly be downvoted according to the community standards of this site.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd rather call out a troll and help others see it if it'd otherwise fly under the radar and scum up conversation.
> My point is not a troll, it is always the case that people who have no power pretend that <if you just give me the power> I will be the <really good person>. They just want power like everybody else.
This is completely unfounded, and - to me, very subjectively - sounds like projection. I vehemently do not want unilateral power, but I also don't want others to have it. Where do I fall on your political compass graph?
An L for Twitter inc, perhaps. OP did not say shareholders would win their lawsuits. Elon obviously has zero interest in a financial return. It's clear he genuinely believes Twitter could be better, especially around free speech.
I haven't seen anyone convinced one way or another based on these recent events that wasn't already; in other words, this offer changed no one's opinion. If pointing out that you think there's an issue to other people who already believe that issue exists is a win, then sure, he's already won.
Just look at the conditions in any society without free speech and you'll find your answer.
More abstractly, free speech is required for free thought. Without free thought, we're all thought prisoners to whomever controls the information we received. Musk's contention with Twitter is that they have been positioning themselves as that entity.
I'm not aware of that term being propogandist. Maybe I heard it somewhere, definitely possible. Do you object to the image? It seems perfectly fitting which is why I used the word.
In the recent Ted talk Musk talked about needing AI-complete solutions for projects like full self-driving and Optimus (tesla bot) to succeed. He also wryly mentioned that there was a plan b if his Twitter bid wasn't accepted.
He's heavily invested in AI and machine learning, could he be interested in twitter's data?
He could just give them money for it. I'm sure they'd love having a multibillion dollar customer.
It's very possible that his AI investments have yielded developments that we can't imagine. But it's hard to see the value of twitter's data over that of, say, the internet cache that gpt-3 uses.
Sure he could pay for it, but buying the company (and taking it private) is potentially a way to get paid for access. Web archives - like common crawl - are snap shots of the past, but twitter users react and discuss events in real time.
Reliably parsing and interpreting new, potentially unreliable data is part of that whole AI-complete thing.
I think he's more interested in the power of twitter as the public square. There's no doubt Trump won his presidency through that social media presence (and his non-stop rallying of course). That kind of power is more useful than say buying the Washington Post.
I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retractions, mistakes, and outright lies. Surely a score like that might put certain fake news propagators in line.
This is something he pitched before although as a standalone website. Integrating into twitter seems more useful.
> I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retractions, mistakes, and outright lies. Surely a score like that might put certain fake news propagators in line.
Which then raises the issue of who scores the scorer. You already have people throwing fits because the garbage they post gets labeled as misleading or not true. So how would this be any different besides you liking the person in charge of the scoring?
Could be done with ML perhaps, or via consensus. I did list retractions for that reason, as there is a point where even an outlet needs to admit they got something wrong, but burying it at the bottom of a year old article no one will ever see is a dirty move. Either way it's not my problem to solve, just something I would like to see.
After considering it for a bit, my opinion is that it's mostly a political ploy; if he buys it, he'll bring back Trump et. all, expecting that once the GOP is back in power, they'll make any trouble he may be expecting with the SEC and the National Labor Relations Board go away
I think there are probably other factors at play too. His ego, of course. And also the general desire, also evident among VCs like Andreesen, to discipline the Silicon Valley workforce and remind the uppity code-monkeys who's really in charge.
It's really fascinating seeing all the conspiracy theorizing going on with this offer. You have a number of really creative threads going on here.
To step through this... So we have someone with a net worth near 300 billion dollars that is going to go through all this trouble to:
-Unblock one user
-Which will then trigger an American political party to like him
-This political party will then make it less likely the SEC will bother him, potentially saving him tens of millions of dollars (or 0.01% of his current net worth) in some hypothetical scenario
What a theory! This same political party and twitter user was in power when the SEC fined him+Tesla $40 million in 2018. How do you make sense of that with your theory?
If politics was his main driver, why wouldn't he just use his wealth to directly incentivize politicians?
I don't think it's a straight quid pro quo or that he's on a secret Signal chat with Trump or anything. Just part of a broad alignment of the tech oligarchy with the Republican Party on anti-labor and anti-regulation lines.
Again, why would Elon Musk, with net worth near 300 billion dollars, go through all this trouble to maybe save 0.01% of his net worth in fines in some hypothetical scenario? The ROI seems absolutely terrible for that theory.
And why when Trump and the Republican party was in power in 2018, did they allow Musk+Tesla to be fined if there is such a tight relationship along 'anti-regulation' lines between the SEC and the President/political party in power?
And again, if he cares about political influence, why go through all this trouble and why not just directly incentivize politicians?
I think 2018 is exactly the kind of thing he is trying to avoid; I think you are underestimating the impact vigorous enforcement of labor and securities laws would have on his business prospects. Elon and his companies of course also spend quite a lot of money on campaign donations, lobbying, and political activity.
I think this is probably only one factor at play here, and who really knows to what degree, but it's certainly more of a factor than marketing pablum about Elon being a futurist deeply concerned with the optimal future of humanity or whatever.
None of my questions have been addressed, so I'm guessing you are pretty deep into your theory. I do wonder whether there is any piece of evidence or logical thinking through probabilities/incentives that would alter your theory of "Elon Musk buys Twitter to curry favor from Trump & the Republican party"?
Would the fact that Tesla mostly just donates to Democrats alter anything [1]?
Or that Elon Musk makes more personal donations to Democratic politicians [2]?
I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you'll ignore this and see that he and his companies donated some money to Republicans (even though he gives more to Democrats) and that therefore means he's a diehard Republican who is driven to look out for the party.
That he also donates to Democrats does not seem at all fatal to my speculation, as many avowedly right-wing (in the economic sense), anti-labor, anti-regulation businessmen donate freely to both parties. You seem to have some very confused notions about U.S. politics and political economy more generally.
-Is CEO of an electric car company and produces solar panels to help mitigate climate change
-Donates mostly to Democrats personally and through his companies
-Did not donate to Donald Trump, and said "I feel a bit stronger that he is probably not the right guy. He doesn't seem to have the sort of character that reflects well on the United States."
-Was fined by the SEC when Trump & the Republican party were in power in 2018
-In June 2017, announced that he would be leaving Trump's business advisory council in protest of the president's pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. "Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world,"
-Has a net worth of nearly 300 billion dollars
-------------------------------------------------
Wants to buy Twitter for $43 billion, because:
-It'll curry favor from Trump and the Republican party
-And if elected, Trump/the Republican party will make it so the SEC is easier on him (even though they were in power when he did get fined before)
-In a hypothetical scenario where he would get fined, this preferential treatment could save him 0.01% of his net worth
You are right, I am very confused, and this has to be the end of the thread for me. I do like probing conspiratorial thinking, but I think we've reached a dead-end. I bid you adieu.
Yes, I think he likely regrets his previous public positioning and is adjusting. I think, as I said, this is part of a broader shift in the tech-ocracy towards more explicit anti-labor and anti-regulatory positioning, and I think the potential risks of vigorous securities & labor law enforcement to Elon's wealth and personal freedom are likely substantially higher than the slap on the wrist he received from Trump's SEC (which, you'll remember, also imposed some mild restrictions on his ability to Tweet, which clearly irked him far more than the fine). I also don't think a billionaire with a California-based business donating to Democrats is at all fatal to my little theory here, as plenty of right-wing anti-labor, anti-regulation plutocrats donate to Democrats if they think it is in their material interest to do so.
Given that this is your second attempt at quitting the thread with a pre-emptory sign off, I would like to apologize for agitating you so much with my idle speculation here, and I sincerely hope you're able to make this attempt stick.
This was an epic debacle. Musk invested 4 BILLION dollars in an asset of questionable value, because "free speech". If he times it right he could come out ahead financially. But in general this was a pointless distraction and public fiasco that served no one.
I have no idea what he was doing or what his goals were. It looks like he was upset that people he liked were getting banned by twitter and was afraid that he'd run afoul of their rules himself, so he tried to buy the company. And despite being one of the richest humans to ever live, he failed at that.
This is just a head scratcher and a massive L. I don't see another way to view it.