Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the US, there are a number of limits to what people would consider unfettered free speech, some of which have existed for over a century. This government website gives a few small examples:


This one is more comprehensive, but a little research shows the limits we've put on speech in this country over the centuries.

I looked at the comprehensive list you linked.
All those restrictions are laws by the government.
The nice thing about them is if the government says you violated a law you have due process and a day in court judged by other citizens.
Not by an algorithm or nameless clerks.
 
Has twitter historically helped or hindered democracy? Do you believe that free speech absolutism on twitter would improve their role in bolstering democracy?

This has probably been pointed out already but what content a non government entity decides to carry is not a matter of free speech. If we're of the opinion that twitter has such a monopoly on communications that any censorship is a threat to free speech then I would argue that having a single very rich person in control of what content is acceptable on that platform is not an improvement.

And let's not kid ourselves. We're not getting free speech on twitter out of this arrangement. We're getting Musk's version of free speech.
Please don't kid yourself... Twitter has never been about free speech, only politically correct speech. Musk aims to restore balance.
 
Last edited:
You really think he can push production any faster? Like he's on the assembly line building cars himself?
How dare he have his own priorities anyway. Who does he think he is?

As of right now twitter has a market cap of 35 billion. I'm unclear on what it takes to buy a controlling interest of a company but I think it's 51%. Could be wrong but let's go with that.

Around Thanksgiving there was a story going around. Musk was pushing his employees to work over the holidays at SpaceX. I believe he stated that the company would go out of business unless they really stepped on that gas.

Do you really think the best place to spend this money is on twitter?
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ElectricIAC
(moderator note: Post merged with existing "elon musk" discussion thread. It was originally a separate thread, which is why the first line reads as it does)

Today I would like to open a discussion, or be directed to a discussion here or elsewhere if you know of one, for Tesla core supporters regarding some recent concerns relating to Elon Musk.

First off, what do I mean by a core supporter?

I consider myself one. I core supporter is someone who has supported the Tesla mission and Elon Musk's efforts to advance that mission from the beginning, publicly, with financing, with time and effort. Personally, I have invested thousands into the company; hundreds of thousands if you include purchasing Tesla vehicles to support Tesla's mission. I have taken time off work to fight for Tesla to be able to sell and service cars. I've spent time at my state capital in person talking to legislators when bills were raised that threatened Tesla being able to do business. I have taken Tesla vehicles to car shows so people can look and learn about Tesla vehicles.

Why be a core supporter? Why support the mission?

I don't want to go too deeply into this, but I think most core supporters are core supporters in large part because they support the mission of advancing sustainable transport and sustainable energy, and Tesla has been instrumental in both with Tesla vehicles and Tesla energy products. But it can be much more than that. It can also be that Tesla, Elon Musk, and other companies by Elon Musk are inspiring. There is an eager spirit and excitement to not just build things that are good for humanity, but that are exciting, fun, and that advance us as a society. Finally, one perhaps less appreciated by many, but I happen to find of high importance, Tesla and other Elon Musk companies are well positioned to help bring people together and unify us as a people. These companies achieve objectives for all political sides and provides a common spirit that can help bring people together in highly divisive times.

So what's the deal with Elon Musk?

My concern, in particular over maybe the last year, is what seems like a change in the demeanor of Elon Musk that could have negative ramifications for companies he is associated with and for society as a whole. It is almost undeniable now that there is a global conflict between autocratic and democratic forces. We've seen it across the globe. We've seen it here at home in the United States where autocracy hides and deceives. It's insidious because it aligns itself and hides itself along political lines and gets people to support measures that hurt the very freedom they were intending to protect. The latest incident with Elon Musk is his attempt to influence or completely take over Twitter. He seems to be doing this out of support for free speech, a noble endeavor, but his demeanor while doing it is suspect, and this demeanor is beginning to endanger the once unifying spirit of his companies. Does he really support democracy and freedom? Or is he merely seeking power over others? My trust in him is shaken.

What is negative?

This new demeanor seems to exceed his former reputation of light hearted fun. It is petulant, and feels deceptive. It is beginning to draw a new class of rabid supporters where even long time supporters like myself are saying "cool it with the hero worship, guys". He's making overly dramatic gestures, attempting to take things over, while not providing sufficient explanation or reasoning for his actions. This all aligns him far too closely with the behavior of autocrats. Hopefully most of you are like me, a patriot of freedom and democracy, and I don't like a king, not even a benevolent one. Most seriously, it is beginning to fracture his support along political dividing lines when he should be attempting to remain apolitical as a figurehead of such important companies that could help bring people together. We need less division, not more. And, like myself, it is breaking people's trust in him.

What is positive?

A classic autocrat is frequently awash in corruption and fraud. Elon's companies are entirely legitimate, and have valuable missions. There are isolated occurrences of discrimination and the like that his companies have been accused of, but I still believe these are isolated incidents and do not reflect any larger direction of the companies. A classic autocrat also pushes lies and self serving propaganda. I haven't seen Elon do this either. Most of his work is still well grounded in real science. I don't see him promoting any wild conspiracies. And while his attempt to take over Twitter feels autocratic, it may in fact just be an attempt to maximize free speech and improve the platform for everyone. It's a fair argument that certain banned individuals were rightly banned for violating terms of service of a company platform, but I can also understand the counter arguments. Intense lies and propaganda are the tools of autocrats, and as a people, we haven't figured out how to effectively fight propaganda without stepping on free speech in the process.

What is reality? Where do we go from here?

Two big questions. What are Elon's intentions; can we trust him to uphold democracy, or can we only trust him to advance scientific endeavors? And how do we protect the missions of his companies and promote a unifying spirit without it becoming some kind of political and ideological war?

I'd like to keep supporting Elon, Tesla, and SpaceX, but I have to admit I'm deeply worried at the moment. I've lost my trust. I've started withholding support. I'm concerned about politicization to the point where I'm not sure I want to take Tesla's to car shows anymore. I need some consultation with other long term Tesla supporters. Do we have reason to be concerned? Are there ways to help improve the situation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Twitter has been cen

Please don't kid yourself... Twitter has never been about free speech, only politically correct speech. Musk aims to restore balance.
Twitter is a garbage way to communicate. Always has been. Always will. My hope is that Elon Musk annihilates it and loses 17 billion in the process.

That would be the best way to protect democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectricIAC
Musk is another Steve Jobs. He's brilliant, and unfortunately that brilliance comes with a side helping of borderline personality disorder.

You won't change him. You can accept him for who he is, and and either embrace the trade off as worth-it, or decide that the toxic aspects are just not forgivable and walk away.

I fall on the side of knowing what he is, embracing that he poses a constant risk of doing inappropriate things, and it's simply worth it for Tesla and Mankind's success. But I don't pretend he's all-good or not often a total a-hole. It's simply worth it.
 
In fact, it has been strengthened over time, if you read up on it. It was much more restrictive early in the country's history.

Latest on the Twitter hostile takeover is word that Twitter is weighing the poison pill to prevent him.
Poison pill is a good tactic to avoid a hostile takeover. Of course they will be giving Elon Musk shares at a discount too. So while they may prevent his takeover of the company they will be making him even richer in theory
 
As of right now twitter has a market cap of 35 billion. I'm unclear on what it takes to buy a controlling interest of a company but I think it's 51%. Could be wrong but let's go with that.

Around Thanksgiving there was a story going around. Musk was pushing his employees to work over the holidays at SpaceX. I believe he stated that the company would go out of business unless they really stepped on that gas.

Do you really think the best place to spend this money is on twitter?
Maybe it is. It gets more free advertising for Tesla. But it doesn't really matter what you or I think.
He can do with his time and money what he wants to.
Musk certainly has a reputation for working hard and long hours. We have all heard the stories of him sleeping on the factory floor while getting the Model 3 production going.
 
I looked at the comprehensive list you linked.
All those restrictions are laws by the government.
The right to free speech (in the US) is only guaranteed from the government, not private entities. So that's why those restrictions are laws by the government. Private entities aren't included in the First Amendment.
So while they may prevent his takeover of the company they will be making him even richer in theory
They'll be diluting everyone's shares, so in this case nobody wins, not even Musk.
 
The right to free speech (in the US) is only guaranteed from the government, not private entities. So that's why those restrictions are laws by the government.
....and we completely miss the point. But yes, it is really nice when the government starts coming up with reasons to restrict a right when it is not convenient for the government, I guess.

Re: the market, it is going to be very interesting to see how it all plays out. I really need popcorn for this one!
 
Curious about your read on that. The stock is trading (slightly) higher on a down day and is within the parameters I’d consider reasonable risk arbitrage for the offer price. I don’t personally interpret it the same as you, but maybe you could let me know what I might not be seeing.
Because the stock is trading at $45 instead of $53 for a $54 offer price. Normally in these tender offers, the stock price has like a 1% to 2% discount to the tender price, not 20%.

So place your bets. If you think the Board will accept the offer, buy for a 20% gain (or more if you buy options). Personally I am sitting this one out since I too believe the Board will reject it. Right now the Board is desperately looking for a white knight to submit a competing offer. Good luck.
 
For those who are whining about “ Elons version of free speech” be aware that his Ted talk today had the audience applauding his free speech sentiments. Ted audiences tend to skew left wing as well. Elon’s version of free speech will be better that what Twitter has now.

And for those others that don’t get it … Elon thinks that Twitter is a de facto public square. This is a saving civilization thing for him (as per the Ted talk, look it up). He thinks that increasing freedom of speech on Twitter will help democracies, the US and the world. Many people won’t agree with him, but then many people aren’t as smart as him either 😄
 
The right to free speech (in the US) is only guaranteed from the government, not private entities. So that's why those restrictions are laws by the government. Private entities aren't included in the First Amendment.

They'll be diluting everyone's shares, so in this case nobody wins, not even Musk.
Yes. It depends on the type of "pill".
A Flip in poison pill can make the existing shareholders money while simultaneously diluting the shares the acquiring company has, making it harder to acquire shares.
If this was the chosen poison Musk would make $ on his shares while making it possibly too expensive to accumulate enough to control the company.
I'm really not up on the mechanism of this but I know that's the theory. It really could go either way.

We'd have to see what the Board is suggesting to figure it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohmman
Ironically, the day I posted my concerns (just hours ago), a Ted talk was posted with an interview of Elon Musk where he discusses current events, including his activities related to Twitter, and I found that interview to be very reassuring. There's a pre-recorded 8 minute interview followed by a live interview, and it's probably all worth watching. He comes across far more convincing in person than in the small tidbits you get from other sources. I don't think he has all the answers, but I'm far more convinced he has good intentions following seeing this interview.

I'm still very concerned about public perceptions here, though, and how if not handled better, it could be bad for the companies.

 
Because the stock is trading at $45 instead of $53 for a $54 offer price. Normally in these tender offers, the stock price has like a 1% to 2% discount to the tender price, not 20%.
I retired from the finance industry and this hasn't been my experience with risk arbitrage. 1-2% would be for a "sure thing" and even then that seems tight. I traded merger arbitrage on two publicly traded companies that had approval and we still ran up to 5% out.

We'll see what happens, just curious what your take was.
 
As of right now twitter has a market cap of 35 billion. I'm unclear on what it takes to buy a controlling interest of a company but I think it's 51%. Could be wrong but let's go with that.

Around Thanksgiving there was a story going around. Musk was pushing his employees to work over the holidays at SpaceX. I believe he stated that the company would go out of business unless they really stepped on that gas.

Do you really think the best place to spend this money is on twitter?
It was really that they needed to fix the Raptor line and then that they would go bankrupt if available capital dried up due to a global recession while losing money on Starship and Starlink, so geeing up the employees to get Starship done.
 
Ironically, the day I posted my concerns (just hours ago), a Ted talk was posted with an interview of Elon Musk where he discusses current events, including his activities related to Twitter, and I found that interview to be very reassuring. There's a pre-recorded 8 minute interview followed by a live interview, and it's probably all worth watching. He comes across far more convincing in person than in the small tidbits you get from other sources. I don't think he has all the answers, but I'm far more convinced he has good intentions following seeing this interview.

I'm still very concerned about public perceptions here, though, and how if not handled better, it could be bad for the companies.

To skip the monk and lots of others skip ahead: Musk starts at 1:17 and Twitter at 1:26

I believe that Musk has good intentions but "free speech" is a quagmire. Everyone is in favor of free speech (applause) but everyone has their own idea of free speech and whatever Musk does, he will receive criticism. The interviewer points out some of the real issues. Musk seems to think that having an "open algorithm" will solve problems. The interviewer points out that at some point humans will have to make decisions (at least about the algorithm) and humans may disagree.
It looks like Musk is starting to consider some of the dilemmas of implementing free speech. He wants to ban scambots, for instance, and things that are "illegal".
It's a long way from "free speech absolutism".
It's nice that he wants to improve things but it really looks like a large distraction without any clear benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skotty
Status
Not open for further replies.