NFT- BBH now has a Mastodon Account

[AZGiantFan]

Bob,

Zuckerberg is hardly a saint, but he begins to look like one when you compare him to Musk. 

One guy's given us electric cars and space ships and the other guy's given us destructive, in my opinion, social media so I would have to disagree with your assessment.

[MightyGiants]

One guy's given us electric cars and space ships and the other guy's given us destructive, in my opinion, social media so I would have to disagree with your assessment.

Did you get a spaceship?   Where is my free electric car? 

If you want to talk destructive, Tesla's autopilot software has caused a total of 17 fatalities and 736 crashes since 2019. 

I guess where you and Bob differ from me is that I don't think Musk's buying Twitter and screwing over the employees, vendors, and users, along with making Twitter the social media platform of choice for disinformation and hate speech (with Musk contributing to the hate speech) are acts that make him a man to admire.

So yeah, we are going to disagree.

[Bob In PA]

... I don't think Musk's buying Twitter and screwing over the employees...

"screwing over" employees and failing to retain useless or redundant employees are not the same thing. Bob

[MightyGiants]

"screwing over" employees and failing to retain useless or redundant employees are not the same thing. Bob

How did you determine this?

In fairness, he is but a single example (there are plenty) of Musk screwing over his employees


https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/26/twitter-employees-sue-twitter-after-the-bonuses-they-were-promised-if-they-stuck-around-were-not-given/

[bighitterdalama]

This discussion has turned political. Something we are not about. And it is devolving into mud slinging which serves no purpose. Can we just let it go without having to lock the thread? I will let y'all decide on that.

[Philosophers]

Here is a factual statement.  Twitter is now worth only about $15 billion or a third of the $44 billion Musk paid for it. For a company with stabilized earnings that is horrible management to have done so in such a short period of time.

[Bob In PA]

Here is a factual statement.  Twitter is now worth only about $15 billion or a third of the $44 billion Musk paid for it. For a company with stabilized earnings that is horrible management to have done so in such a short period of time.

Phil: The obligations of a publicly-traded company versus a privately-owned company are completely different. There are duties (to make money) applicable to public companies that simply don't exist in private firms. Musk's point all along has been that Twitter was operating under the "pressure" of having to maximize profits that resulted in them operating the company in a manner Musk saw as "unfair" (whatever that might mean to him). As a private company, Musk is free to focus on his idealized (Utopian?) goal of a "worldwide communication facility" without regard to making a buck. Bob

[bighitterdalama]

Because this thread isn't remotely related to football (or any other sport), but does have underling political overtones, I think it best to move it over to The Front Porch. Civil discussion can continue on that venue.

[Philosophers]

Phil: The obligations of a publicly-traded company versus a privately-owned company are completely different. There are duties (to make money) applicable to public companies that simply don't exist in private firms. Musk's point all along has been that Twitter was operating under the "pressure" of having to maximize profits that resulted in them operating the company in a manner Musk saw as "unfair" (whatever that might mean to him). As a private company, Musk is free to focus on his idealized (Utopian?) goal of a "worldwide communication facility" without regard to making a buck. Bob

Bob - I understand that he is free to do what he wants now that it is a private company.  My point is that Twitter was doing very well as a company and had a particular niche within social media that allowed it to dominate.  Musk is free to do what he wants but to lose so much value by destroying the foundation of the company does not seem like a smart move by a business man.

It would have been cheaper for him to build his own utopian social media platform.  Musk is more of a builder than operator IMHO.

[Bob In PA]

It would have been cheaper for him to build his own utopian social media platform.

Phil: If I were certain of the correctness of that statement I'd readily agree. I don't know.

But consider the possibility he had other motives, one of which I'm certain I know. He sought to remedy what (to him) appeared to be an "unfair" (according to him) platform that was (in his view) unworthy of dominating the space it filled inasmuch as he is an unabashed "free speech" advocate and opposed to censorship. He noticed (as I did) that there was a problem with the way Twitter handled "great vaccine debate" we witnesses recently.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Musk is free to focus on his idealized (Utopian?) goal of a "worldwide communication facility" without regard to making a buck. Bob

I think the majority of people would describe what Musk has done and strived for as dystopian not Utopian.

It would have been cheaper for him to build his own utopian social media platform.  Musk is more of a builder than operator IMHO.

The problem would be that it would just be another version of the ironically named "Truth" social.   Like "Truth" Social, not many people would join.   Instead, he used his vast wealth to buy an extremely well-run (and fairly run) Twitter, ruining the experience for long-time users. (who, until Threads, had no alternative but to suffer under Musk draconian dictatorial rule).

[Philosophers]

What other previous wealthiest person in the world spends so much time offering up his opinion in the media?  Buffett, Gates, Arnault, Getty, etc never did.  People with a desire to seek a camera or microphone are IMHO flawed human beings.

[Bob In PA]

What other previous wealthiest person in the world spends so much time offering up his opinion in the media?  Buffett, Gates, Arnault, Getty, etc never did.  People with a desire to seek a camera or microphone are IMHO flawed human beings.

Phil: I don't think anyone here views Musk as flawless.  We've all been "around" too long for that. LOL

[DaveBrown74]

Musk gets kicked around for all of the reasons discussed, and fair enough, but the reality is that a lot of these guys are flawed. For example, people like to put Gates up on a pedestal but he's not some saint either. He cheated on his wife relentlessly and did god knows what in all his close personal associations and extensive dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted serial child rapist. If we are going after billionaires for less than savory behavior, he hardly deserves any sort of pass.

[Philosophers]

Musk gets kicked around for all of the reasons discussed, and fair enough, but the reality is that a lot of these guys are flawed. For example, people like to put Gates up on a pedestal but he's not some saint either. He cheated on his wife relentlessly and did god knows what in all his close personal associations and extensive dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted serial child rapist. If we are going after billionaires for less than savory behavior, he hardly deserves any sort of pass.

100% true.  Was only comparing based on love of media attention.

What anyone does privately is up to them.  I'm just dont want to see them always in the news.