Elon buys Twitter

[Sparagmos]

I have said things, here on CF, that were my opinion and got reprimanded for doing so. However, others, stating their views can also be reprimanded for similar contravention of the rules here.

. But if the standard is "freedom of speech" and private platforms fell under the first amendment, then CF would not be able to do that. CF prohibits a certain "side"’s speech on certain subjects. And they have the right to do that.

Answering your point about other platforms... Many right based channels must flee YouTube and Twitter in order to state well know facts without being gagged and muzzled.

Thing is.. when Gab, Rumble, Parler.. started coming out.. the left lost their minds, took them off of the Apple Store and android Play store. Gab even had the banks refuse to allow them on line monetary support...

. And? You’re avoiding the question of whether or not they are violating the first amendment like you say Twitter is.

When you are as big as Twitter.. you must understand the very real ability that you have to totally control what the world hears, believes or accepts as truth.

. So we should break Twitter up if they have a monopoly. That’s a separate issue from whether or not they fall under the first amendment.

With this power comes the responsibility to allow anyone to speak their mind.

. Says who? Says what law? That’s your opinion, but the constitution says nothing of the sort and no court has ruled such.

You can do that at the kitchen table in your house.. but not at a public park or street.

. Twitter isn’t a public park. Public means something very specific, owned by the public (the government) not a private entity. It’s not grey.

Care to address why, if Twitter is violating the first amendment, no one is making that case in a court of law? Couldn’t Trump or Musk sue?

 

[Thomas White]

I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall. The stock market is evil.

What?

 

[Thomas White]

Why is that?
They are not editors. There is a statute that they live under that states that they are not responsible for what people say and cannot be held accountable for lies, falsehoods and such... For this reason, they do not have the right to censor or judge what they want to be heard and not want to be heard.

If they want to begin such actions, then, they must give up their protection. Then, be held accountable for anything that is slanderous.. just like a news media that has editors for this purpose.

I believe that due to this position, also, they do not get taxed the same. If they become editors then their taxes would drastically increase. Anyone know if this is the case?

Twitter is a private business. You want more regulation on a private business? That's a terrible idea.

 

[JosephZ]

This is great news. Elon, a true believer in the 1st Amendment, has controling shares in Twitter. He has been appointed to the board.

Looks like Musk will not be joining the board of directors after all.

Elon Musk is not joining Twitter's board, the social network's chief executive Parag Agrawal said, in a surprising reversal following last week's announcement that the Tesla and SpaceX chief executive had been appointed to the panel.

"We announced on Tuesday that Elon would be appointed to the Board contingent on a background check and formal acceptance. Elon's appointment to the board was to become officially effective 4/9, but Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the board," Agrawal said in a tweet.

"We have and will always value input from our shareholders whether they are on our Board or not. Elon is out biggest shareholder and we will remain open to his input."

Elon Musk is not joining Twitter board, CEO Parag Agrawal says

 

[bekkilyn]

Wonder if that means he's planning on buying more than the allowed 14 or 15% of shares that was a condition for him being on the board.

 

[Arcangl86]

Wonder if that means he's planning on buying more than the allowed 14 or 15% of shares that was a condition for him being on the board.

I also wonder if there is some kind of restriction to how much he can actually use Twitter if he is on the board.

 

[bekkilyn]

I also wonder if there is some kind of restriction to how much he can actually use Twitter if he is on the board.

Looks like he's decided not to be on the board after all, which frees him back up to buy more than 14% shares of Twitter stock.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Twitter is a private business. You want more regulation on a private business? That's a terrible idea.

No - it is a publicly held corporation.

Musk just made a 43 billion dollar to purchase and he will bring it private if the sale goes through.

 

[JosephZ]

Elon Musk Is No Longer Twitter’s Largest Shareholder Vanguard, just upped their shares to 10.3 %

While Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter Inc., he’s no longer the company’s largest shareholder.

Funds held by Vanguard Group recently upped their stake in the social-media platform, making the asset manager Twitter’s largest shareholder and bumping Mr. Musk out of the top spot.

Vanguard disclosed on April 8 that it now owns 82.4 million shares of Twitter, or 10.3% of the company, according to the most recent publicly available filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The asset-manager increased its stake in the company at some point during the first quarter, according to the filings. Vanguard’s holdings are now worth $3.78 billion, based on Twitter stock’s closing price on Wednesday.

That’s enough to knock Mr. Must off the perch as Twitter’s largest shareholder, according to FactSet.

 

[Thomas White]

No - it is a publicly held corporation.

Musk just made a 43 billion dollar to purchase and he will bring it private if the sale goes through.

A publically traded corporation is still a private business.

 

[JacksBratt]

Sorry, I've been away for a bit.

Looks like someone was correct here. If on the board, percentage of ownership would be limited.

Looks like he wants to own the whole package and restore "freedom of speech" .

Grab some popcorn... this should be interesting. The board has thrown profit to the side in order to maintain a a handle on what the world can and cannot hear or say.

They are absolutely afraid of having two sides of any story stated and discussed.