Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter.

Elon Musk swoops on Twitter with $41 billion cash offer | Reuters

April 14 (Reuters) - Elon Musk took aim at Twitter (TWTR.N) with a $41 billion cash offer on Thursday, prompting a spike in shares of the social media giant, which the Tesla CEO said needs to be taken private to grow and become a platform for free speech.

"Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it," Musk said in a letter to Twitter's board on Wednesday, which was made public in a regulatory filing on Thursday.


Good luck, Mr. musk. We are sick and tired of losing our First Amendment.

 

Is it really a good idea for the richest man in the world to own a powerful social media platform? IMO, no. BTW, these platforms are right to monitor posts so Trumpian lies can't be spewed.

 

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make one of his own? Not against the idea of a free speech platform, but once it does go free speech guaranteed they lose more then half their advertising revenue. Anyone buying shares once they go up from something like that will only be buying at the peak with everything to lose.

 

1st Amendment has nothing to do with it, and Musk is obviously doing this to pump up the price before cashing out. Wake up!

Of course they have the right to monitor their own platform.

 

Did the Founders contemplate, when writing the 1st A, a ubiquitous social media platform capable of spreading dangerous propaganda that's harmful to the country? Obviously not.

 

There was no need, because the 1st Amendment is written specifically to limit what the CONGRESS can and cannot do in regards to religion, and freedom of speech. It says nothing about what people can and cannot say while on their private property, like a family dinner table, or privately owned social media.

 

It’s weird how y’all recognize that word CONGRESS in the first amendment when we are talking about freedom of speech but not freedom of religion. How does that work?

 

First amendment does not (nor ever has) apply to privately owned companies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

LOL... You were just fine with Svengali and his billions when it was actively attacking your opponents. Are you a skeert that suddenly it might be used against your team? LMAO.

 

Read again. Actually never mind, because I know you saw it the 1st time, but you wanted to play your game anyway.

 

But you don’t actually believe that?

Should a public school be allowed to put pictures of Jesus and the 10 commandments and bibles in every classroom?

Should states be allowed to have a state sponsored religion? Should states be allowed to promote a religion through legislation?

Should a church be allowed to engage in politics and donate to campaigns?

 

Translation please.

 

Your game got exposed. It was dishonest. Get over it.

 

My, my, my.... look how the view of Twitter has changed....

 

Come again?

 

Nothing about what I said was dishonest or a game.

When you read the 1st amendment and see CONGRESS in regards to freedom of speech you’re clear it’s only CONGRESS who can’t limit it.

But when you read the EXACT same text in regards to religious freedom you claim CONGRESS actually means any entity which receives taxpayer funding.

 

No clue what you are talking about.

Look, you made a claim which turned out to be less than honest, and now you just need to own it as opposed to trying to change the topic. What you are saying has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

His ascension to Twitter’s board is/was contingent on a background check which he’d fail. So he’s playing the same gambit as when he was forced down from Tesla’s board, e.g. throwing a temper tantrum to cover his inadequacies.

It’s smoke—a distraction—and doesn’t have anything to do with the First Amendment.

 

Of course you know what I’m talking about. That’s why you didn’t answer my questions earlier about what actions can states and localities take in regards to religion.

 

That's true. Only liberal lies should be allowed. When will they learn?

 

They have 300 million users because people like it the way it is. If you turn it into something that focuses only on RW political conspiracies, then it becomes another GAB, which has very narrow audience (100K active users), or GETTR, with about 400K active users. It would be a good way to kill Twitter, but obviously the market would still be there for someone else to take over. Musk is not an idiot who'd spend 50 billion on killing Twitter. No one is that stupid.

 

I think he wants to level the playing field and then manage the company to a level of value that will repay his investment. I doubt he wants a one party bias. It already has that.

 

LOL. Don't be naive. He wants to make money. Period.

If he buys it, which I seriously doubt, then he can do whatever he wants with it, but if you think he'll remove moderation, then you'll probably be disappointed, because that would be a fast and quick way to reduce the number of users. Contrary to what you might think, but people actually find trolls pretty annoying.

 

unfortunately they only monitor "lies" that come from the right (I guess that works well for you though)

 

So Zuckerberg shouldn’t own Facebook?