The great part about it when it becomes public then he can do whatever he wants. Allow free speech or censor the left like they have been doing the right. Either way it is making the left roll and get ready I am sure they are gathering bricks to riot about it soon.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And all without him owning it. Besides, do you think if Twitter disappeared tomorrow information about Elon's companies would stop flowing?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You seem to have a mistaken idea that only people on the right have been removed from the platform. This is false.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Yes, they can own derivatives (shorts, puts, etc.) as long as the bylaws of the pension allow for such. Bylaws are different for each pension fund.
More ironically, some don't even know they are doing it, LoL:
Your State Pension Is Unknowingly Shorting Stocks Like GameStop All The Time
The nation has been captivated by revelations of millions of amateur traders collectively through social media and online trading platforms taking on Wall Street’s highest cost, highest risk, most secretive money managers and winning—at least in the short term.
www.forbes.com
I'm told just like hedge funds, pensions make a LOT of their money through derivatives now a days, much more so than owning the underlying stock.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Read the article, but it's FAR more nuanced than this. They are trying to make the argument that, essentially, because Musk has spoken with all these people and they like his plan, that he "owns" or has "controlling interest" in more than 15% of the company. It's a stretch because the easy counterargument to this is that his position is a very logical one, and he is just an activist investor trying to push forward an agenda that betters the company.
In the end, it all comes down to if the court agrees that an "agreement" by Delaware state law in this case reaches the level of proxy voting power (i.e. was Musk given essentially voting power by these groups/individuals). This is going to be a HARD SELL to a judge/jury. Unlike most civil lawsuit, corporate law is usually very narrowly interpreted, because these laws are so well-defined.
Legal experts are already weighing in, and don't think the Fund's chances are good:
Musk’s Twitter Buyout Challenged by Florida Pension Fund
Elon Musk’s $44 billion buyout of Twitter Inc. was challenged in a lawsuit by a Florida pension fund that argues the deal can’t close before 2025 because Musk was an “interested shareholder” in the social-networking platform.
www.bloomberg.com
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Yes, they can own derivatives (shorts, puts, etc.) as long as the bylaws of the pension allow for such. Bylaws are different for each pension fund.
More ironically, some don't even know they are doing it, LoL:
Your State Pension Is Unknowingly Shorting Stocks Like GameStop All The Time
The nation has been captivated by revelations of millions of amateur traders collectively through social media and online trading platforms taking on Wall Street’s highest cost, highest risk, most secretive money managers and winning—at least in the short term.
I'm told just like hedge funds, pensions make a LOT of their money through derivatives now a days, much more so than owning the underlying stock.
The article in the link is that the pension funds often engage a 3rd party manager, and that manager might hold short positions.
In which case the idea the pension fund sued to help out a short position someone else opened and they didn't even know they had does not stand up very well.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Ok.
Still doesn't answer how a fund, unaware their 3rd party manager has a short, decides to file a lawsuit to benefit a short they didn't initiate and are unware of.
Also waiting for the explanation around the claim they "did it for publicity"
How does a pension fund benefit from publicity? It's not like they're recruiting new customers or investors this way.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
First - the 3rd party manager was one of two examples of how these can work. Doesn't matter.
Second - the "publicity" part is a bit of a conspiracy theory - notice the date that they want the merger pushed back to? 2025. Conveniently after not just the mid-terms, but the next presidential election. So, they benefit because someone politically affiliated is using them as a front to push that lawsuit, since this group can't do it directly themselves (they aren't TWTR shareholders). Do I ascribe to that tinfoil-hat theory? Not really, it's more than a stretch, but if you go look at bulletin boards / forums / social media sites besides this one, that is one of the prevailing theories being pushed. The right wingers seem to think that this is something that the far left would do, because the far left is in fear of an "equal voice" by the right. There is some circumspect evidence that the far left really doesn't like Elon's recent moves. I'm not personally addressing that conspiracy theory, it's a bag of grenades for this forum, but that's what's being said.
And you seem to be ok with an elected president of the free world being censored and not allowed on it but a terrorist organization and a communist dictator among others is cool. I actually think that is a disgrace and disgusting .
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This illustrates the problem with "free speech absolutism".
One person's "free speech" is another's "censorship"
Elon has bought himself an endless source of conflict... a big time sink.
He (naively) thinks that he can solve this with AI and "transparent" algorithms. Get the popcorn out!
Might be better to just stick to "moving the world to sustainable energy" which is something he is doing well and understands.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
None of those has any "right" to use someone elses platform to speak though.
They have every right to refuse service to virtually anyone they wish in line with their terms of service.
Same as any store can kick you out for not wearing a shirt or shoes.
People keep confusing "I have a right to say things" with "Everyone else has an obligation to let me use their platform to say it"
(and that's beyond the fact even your basic right to say things is not unlimited even in the US, and never has been- see the debate around the Sedition act from the 1790s for a lot more on this)
Never said that once that they couldn't. So let's get back to the question. You are ok with them kicking off an elected President but it is ok with them leaving on terrorists and communist leaders?
Typical shake down suit. Want to fight it and drag out the close of the deal, have at it. (Or just pay the plaintiff's lawyers some bucks to go away.)Read the article, but it's FAR more nuanced than this. They are trying to make the argument that, essentially, because Musk has spoken with all these people and they like his plan, that he "owns" or has "controlling interest" in more than 15% of the company. It's a stretch because the easy counterargument to this is that his position is a very logical one, and he is just an activist investor trying to push forward an agenda that betters the company.
In the end, it all comes down to if the court agrees that an "agreement" by Delaware state law in this case reaches the level of proxy voting power (i.e. was Musk given essentially voting power by these groups/individuals). This is going to be a HARD SELL to a judge/jury. Unlike most civil lawsuit, corporate law is usually very narrowly interpreted, because these laws are so well-defined.
Legal experts are already weighing in, and don't think the Fund's chances are good:
Musk’s Twitter Buyout Challenged by Florida Pension Fund
Elon Musk’s $44 billion buyout of Twitter Inc. was challenged in a lawsuit by a Florida pension fund that argues the deal can’t close before 2025 because Musk was an “interested shareholder” in the social-networking platform.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
Is that really the question? Surely we can all agree that a platform that provides a service can deny service to anybody who doesn't follow their rules. Seems obvious. Do you think some people should not have to follow the rules because they're too special?
It's also obvious that I think that terrorists, dictators, pedophiles, and various scum of the earth should be allowed to stay if they do follow the rules. If I were in charge, I'd even let people like you stay. But only so long as you follow the rules.
Wow sad for you and to actually call you a fellow countrymen.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure the argument is that the rules are not applied evenly/fairly. Someone I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the argument - that Twitter hasn't evenly applied "their rules".
You do realize that the current Twitter doesn’t let people that follow the rules stay right? The fact that they pick and choose based on political ideology despite the rules is the issue. Forget everything else.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
This is not true of course- Twitter has banned tons of folks on BOTH sides of politics.
A few years ago they banned dozens and dozens of left-wing "leaders" in the Occupy movement for example.
Though even if it were, why is that an issue?
They're a business. They reserve the right to refuse service to anybody they choose.
If you disagree with those choices, take your business elsewhere.
- Status
