858
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
858 points (94.2% liked)
Technology
58144 readers
4795 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
he owns Twitter
At that point, he could just deactivate the entire platform
I though Twitter is publicly traded and has stocks? That would mean that he definitely has a duty towards investors who bought the shares to lead the company in a responsible way, and if he claimed that he destroyed it on purpose, it should lead to a lawsuit from them. But I ain't no lawyer, only vaguely remember hearing something like that. Or does he own 100% of the shares himself and is the sole investor?
It used to be publicly traded, but it went private when he acquired it.
Which doesn't mean he doesn't answer to any investors anymore, of course. He got quite a lot of assistance with that acquisition.
Oh, I see. I guess that means there's basically no-one who can sue him, if there aren't any investors.
As long as he can repay any loans and stuff, then I suppose he can do whatever he wants with the company. If, however, he bancrupts it to the point of not being able to pay back anything the company owes, then he should be in trouble. I hope.
Fafaik he bought 100% of the shares.