this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
770 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

59472 readers
2620 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Most of the world's biggest advertisers have stopped buying ads on Elon Musk's X, exclusive new data shows::Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino have recently stated that most of the company's top-spending advertisers from last year have returned.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Does anyone else consider it plausible that flushing $44 billion is worth the cost if it removes that meddlesome social media platform that activists rely on to syndicate human rights abuses and document all the other terrible stuff that happens around the world?

There's something way sketch about this entire narrative

[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or, Elon Musk is just an idiot doing the same idiot things he's always done.

[–] Sarcastik@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bingo.

That dick bag tried to rinse and repeat the same BS management strategy he used at a car company on a tech company and wouldn't you know, it's cratering right before or eyes.

Shocking.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why can't it be both? Maybe he's a tool of someone, hell, he's already a tool so 1/2 the work's been done

[–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

This absolutely feels like a Hanlon's razor type situation especially given what we have learned about Elon musk over the last 5 or so years. The whole evil genius shtick just doesn't fly anymore. He's an idiot who just happens to have made enough good or lucky business decisions in the past to get him where he is now.

[–] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's impossible to say what anything is worth to a person who can lose 44 billion dollars and still have so much money left that the next 10 generations of their lineage won't ever have to work again.

It's insane to think of that as a trivial amount of money, but musk could literally lose 99% of his money and it wouldn't impact his life at all, except for his hobby of bankrupting corporations.

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As obscenely wealthy as he is, that wealth comes from bis assets not cash in hand. $20B of the $44B paid was cash, some of which was from selling some of his Tesla shares. Further to that, Tesla stock dropped so significantly it caused his net worth to drop by a further $30B.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So as a result he’s no longer so rich he could do it all again and still have more money than he could possibly spend in hundreds of lifetimes? No? Still super rich? Then it’s not really a meaningful distinction.

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. It's impossible to say for sure either way but it's plausible his personal wealth could be wiped out, could be forced to divest his stakes in his own companies, etc.

[–] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which would still leave him insanely rich, so the answer you are looking for is "no, elon musk is not taking any actual personal risk here at all."

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how being forced to divest in your own companies to meet debt obligations would leave you insanely rich so we'll just agree to disagree here.

[–] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because divesting means selling, which means.that you get money in exchange for property. How do you not understand this?

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Because divesting in order to meet debt obligations means that with that money you have to immediately use it to pay debts that you owe to others, therefore you no longer have the money nor the assets. Is it really that hard to understand? If a bank foreclosures on your house it means that your property is sold and the money from the sale goes to the bank to pay off the loan.

Again, none of that impacts him in any way apart from losing the ability to literally just do it again.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't think so because another platform will pop up eventually. It's too much money for a short term thing

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

It's probably a combination. He considered buying it for reasons including the above. He didn't intend to pay $44 billion or actually buy the company. He didn't intend to ruin it.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That sounds like a "tomorrow" problem for short-term thinking autocratic assholes

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Eventually could be a while, and during that time they don't have to worry. Also, without it fully tanking and limping along, many will stay and have stayed. This removes the need for an immediate replacement and hurts the possible success of one as celebrities, companies, artists, etc can and do just stay on Twitter.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't consider that plausible. I think must didn't really want to buy Twitter but fucked up and was forced to.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think sabotage was his intent all along

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except that seems exceptionally stupid, why in the world would he waste that much money to take down a platform that can and is already being replaced by competitors?

I think y'all are conspiracy crazy

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm far from conspiracy land lol, just speculating

[–] driving_crooner 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Did he actually paid 44B of his own money? How much of the money came from saudi investors and twitter leverage debt?

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think the exact amount is known, but he got money from a lot of sources and the bulk of it was Elon's own money (or at least, his own assets). He also sourced a lot of money from other American billionaires (Larry Ellison for example).

It's likely the Saudis invested very little... although they did invest enough that Elon has to have given them something in return.

Nobody involved in that purchase expected to make money on it. The price was far too high.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ya I want some clarification on what he actually fucking paid and what came out of what accounts or if this is all on-paper whoreshit

[–] arc@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are other social media platforms so I don't really see it. I just think Musk is a narcissist, egotist and utter hypocrite whose big mouth and lack of due diligence compelled him to buy the platform. And it turns out he's really terrible at running a social media platform.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

For a lot of activists and oppressive governments, though, its all about like the short-term. If you get killed because of Twitters current bullshit or you can't be as affective by using it as a digital-bullhorn to maybe effect change in a more peaceful way, its not as relevant to you personally and your persecutor de jour if Mastodon blows up and becomes the actual Next-Twitter

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://m.piped.video/watch?v=dgznMPA9iYY&pp=ygUYbWFqb3JpdHkgcmVwb3J0IFR3aXR0ZXIg

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.