this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
415 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37699 readers
228 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On purpose.
Only clearer by the day that this was all an exercise to intentionally kill Twitter to the benefit of billionaires, fascists and other extremists.
Twitter existed as a relatively free and open public space to communicate, organize and assemble to take actions for and against things at scale before musk (e.g. The Arab Spring, a terrifying moment for the Saudis especially - the second largest shareholder behind musk).
When people collectively laughed at elon and his cringe, inbred, emerald boy antics or his humiliating divorce and other routine failures, Twitter was the bullhorn.
Now elon and his desperate far right Toadies will work to try to rewrite reality so they can eventually have this conversation:
"Twitter? What's a Twitter? Wait, are you talking about blork? A bird? No, blork's logo is a dinosaur with chainsaw arms... and everyone wants to be his best friend... and it's against the law to divorce him... and he's cool... and..."
What an everlasting tool history will remember you as, elon. If they remember you at all, it will be to laugh at you - you'll never outrun that.
I'm inclined to agree with others here in the thread. I honestly don't think this was an intentional action designed to tank Twitter. It may well be doing just that, but frankly, Elon has proven time and again that he's a world-class idiot.
Musk did not pay $44 billion to buy Twitter. He paid $26 billion, underwritten by stock in Tesla, which subsequently lost significant value. $5 billion was from other investors including the Saudi Prince.
The remaining $13 billion was a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on Musk's behalf. Even before Musk started tanking the revenue, Twitter could not afford that debt - the interest alone was comparible to its revenue. That debt is probably about what Twitter is worth right now after the name change, making it pretty much unviable as a business.
You don't have to look at Musk's antics to conclude that the intention was to kill the company. You only have to look at the financials.
Leveraged buyouts almost always lead to the business closing. It's how Toys R Us, and many other staple brands, were brought down.
What does it mean for Twitter to take out a loan to buy itself?
It means Musk & co only paid $31 billion, and only paid tax on $31 billion, while Twitter gets saddled with $13 billion in debt.
$44 billion was required to buy Twitter and pay off existing shareholders. The argument is that under the new ownership the new owners would be able to direct Twitter to take out a loan to further the business, however in practice they avoid tax and saddle the business with debt that it can't afford.
It's the same thing that happened to Toy's R Us, a group of investors bought the company using the same sort of deal, then they couldn't pay it back and poof, no more Toy's R Us.
Tesla stock is worth more now than when Twitter went private.
And if Musk intended to kill Twitter, he would have simply shut down the servers last year.
What you are seeing is the result of mistakes, not a conspiracy.
I might not have all the details right, it isn't 100% clear if Musk sold his Tesla shares or underwrote the purchase with them. There is a Reuters article that breaks it down, however I have seen some conflicting reports. The article claims he raised $20bn by selling stocks, then had to raise $2-3bn elsewhere (his existing Twitter stock was worth $4bn).