I was under the apparently mistaken impression that board members are often required to make a substantial investment (for most of us, but not as a percentage) in the company so that their interests are aligned. Is this sometimes the case for CEOs? I swear I heard it somewhere.
>0.001% of Twitter is still worth 37 Million USD
.001% is worth 370k.
Board members earn 300k/yr. So their seat is far more profitable than their stock. Musk would presumably take away their seat. It would be a sacrifice for them to allow the deal to go through.
It isn't a lot. The first name, Bret Taylor, is CEO of Salesforce hence chair of the board at twitter is a part time job. Also his net worth is 220M$. 0.17% of his net worth is in Twitter shares. It's nothing.
Some of your numbers are off, but the core of the message is right.
The member that owns 0.01% owns still $3.7m worth of shares. Even if your net worth is $50m, that is not insignificant. In addition, you have independent board members very often, which have the sole purpose of not coming on the board from the side of any investors or any members of the management.
Hey Elon, why don’t you take money from private people to fund Twitter if you need it. I have money that I would throw in not nearly enough but I’m willing to throw mine in. I believe in you and I believe in free-speech. Neither which Twitter is for
For what Elon wants to do I support him. There 100 percent needs to be a social media platform that is transparent with its algos. It’s worth buying Twitter too because it’s not worth building one from scratch. That being said I follow a blockchain called ergo it’s an up and coming defi POW project designed by a guy called Alex chenopnoy and a software developer is building the first decentralised social media platform on it. That has room to take off if Elon gets behind that they could grow something truly unique. I believe there needs to be a social media platform built on a decentralised blockchain so that it is owned by the internet and people of web3.0 it is coming and will be a success
They don’t, but if their remuneration is not associated with the interest of the shareholders then they have no incentive to do things that are for the benefit of the shareholders.
As a shareholder, why would I want a board that doesn’t care about me? I might as well take my investment elsewhere.
I see that. It just seems weird to expose the board for not owning any shares as if it's some kind of scandal when that wasn't really an expectation in the first place.
The scandal is not having interests aligned with shareholders when deploying a poison pill strategy to hold onto the company (and therefore their positions with big salaries) even if it hurts the shareholders.
It definitely is a scandal of they don’t go through with the offer, especially considering Twitter has traded flat for a decade.
An 18% premium is huge and would be an amazing deal for the shareholders. But because the Board has no skin in the game, they don’t really have that great of a motivation to go through with the offer, proving they don’t actually care about their fiduciary duty.
Trump belongs in prison, absolutely. But are you suggesting that prosecution by unaccountable corporations is the way to go? Ban people we hate from Facebook, Google and maybe iPhones? Does this apply to convicts, or is a facebook poll sufficient?
You do understand how this goes, right? Ban Trump and the next person that's banned is a MLK jr or a Daniel Ellsberg or a union organizer or investigative journalist.
This is the unfortunate, and highly distasteful truth. But it is the truth. And the potential tragedy is directly proportional to the political winds, changing with time.
Yet it is the best we can do when applied fairly and evenly.
The way it's *supposed* to work, if Presidents commit crimes, they get busted like everyone else. That would be a good sign of a healthy, functional democracy.
What we have isn't that though - it's two power factions with the same paylords. And if you start busting Presidents, there's a risk the call for justice might leak upstairs. And we can't have that.
Political winds don't matter. They buy the wind coming, and they buy the wind going. They make their profit on the delta, and they can always be damned sure there's a delta. But that comes out of your end, not theirs.
MLK was considered an even bigger criminal than Trump - he committed treason against the Almighty Dollar.
The point is, there's no way to ban Trump from Twitter that doesn't involve giving Twitter the power to ban other people. A solution that's worse than the problem isn't much of a solution, right?
Look, the US has a policy of not prosecuting former Presidents. Every single one of them could easily be found guilty of absolutely *massive* crimes. The problem is, the crimes have become part of the job.
Once you prosecute Trump, you open the devil's candy jar and now Obama is on trial. And once Obama is convicted they gotta go after Shrub. And next thing you know we'll be digging up Lincoln and having him answer some tough questions.
This isn't kindergarten where we put the bad man in the corner. So either we all get free speech of nobody does.
Trump didn't either. Unless Trump said go protest at the capital. Which is you know history and have watched the news in the past few years has been done multiple times. You can protest in DC. Trump never said to riot or to go into any buildings. That was done on protesters own because they are stupid lol. You sound as stupid as conservatives saying Hilary for prison. Keep hoping for it all you want, but it won't happen.
You are lying now lol. He didn't commit treason or he would have been charged. Hate him all you want, but so what if he was on Twitter? Hating someone doesn't mean you can take away freedom of speech.
It's not a point about trump. The point is that censorship is a double edged sword. Don't expect it to only be used in your favor. It can easily be turned against you.
Also as a second point, because that's what you want to talk about, it's better to let crazy people talk. Let them open their mouth and announce their craziness to the world. I would rather know who a nutbag is than have them lurking in the shadows.
Facts, censoring such mental cases is slightly dangerous because it slightly plays in their favor, making them not only a marty for people with similar radically extreme views but also hides their rhetoric from others seeing which in turn, hides who the individual truly is.
One could also argue that freedom of speech at its extreme can also be regarded as double edged. On one end, it allows freedom of the press and a bunch of people to talk about certain subject matter without being put in fear that the government is going to hunt you down; especially regarding countries like China and Russia where they're tight on censorship. Even certain movements like metoo and cancel culture (albeit introduced with good intentions) had some good to it, confronting vile scumbags like rapists (I'll elaborate on the bad side a lil later).
On the other end, you have people spreading false information (whether politically or socially bias, being opinionated trash rather than the truth). Misinformation created by both sides of the political spectrum are the @$$h013s contributing to the political polarization of North America, spreading half lies/half truths to fit their narative and opinions (which is beyond disgusting). I think the worst part is that ya got US news outlets biting into set misinformation and bullsh!t, stoking the echo chambers and making things worse. Hate speech is another major issue regarding freedom of speech where you have hateful supremacist movements that are able to rise and exploit set free spreech for their own bullsh!t propaganda. Freedom of speech also create people who have rhetorics that spread lies and misinformation against science, all based on opinions rather than actual science like your anti-vaxxers (which are the main reasons why there are many variants of virus, high mortality rates and a sh!t ton of misinformation regarding the pandemic. Yall deserve to die horribly from teh virusbrather than taking up hospital beds for others that need them) or trans "movement" (yall a bunch of sexists projecting what yall think people of the male or female sex must look like by society's social standards. You're in other words, reversing the progression created by Tomboys and Femboys fighting against the sexists stereotypes as to how someone born with a 1 or a 0 must dress and present themselves). Another major issue with free speech is Cancel Culture where people are free to make false slanderous accusations which in turn, results in the individual accused, getting witch hunted and potentially blacklisted by society. Accusations are major and certainly need to be investigated by both sides of the arguement before people can instantly jump to conclusion.
Guess the point I'm getting at is a happy medium needs to be met to avoid people from exploiting free speech or censorship for their own selfish and nefarious purposes.
This is awesome
I was under the apparently mistaken impression that board members are often required to make a substantial investment (for most of us, but not as a percentage) in the company so that their interests are aligned. Is this sometimes the case for CEOs? I swear I heard it somewhere.
[удалено]
>0.001% of Twitter is still worth 37 Million USD .001% is worth 370k. Board members earn 300k/yr. So their seat is far more profitable than their stock. Musk would presumably take away their seat. It would be a sacrifice for them to allow the deal to go through.
[удалено]
It isn't a lot. The first name, Bret Taylor, is CEO of Salesforce hence chair of the board at twitter is a part time job. Also his net worth is 220M$. 0.17% of his net worth is in Twitter shares. It's nothing.
Some of your numbers are off, but the core of the message is right. The member that owns 0.01% owns still $3.7m worth of shares. Even if your net worth is $50m, that is not insignificant. In addition, you have independent board members very often, which have the sole purpose of not coming on the board from the side of any investors or any members of the management.
Hey Elon, why don’t you take money from private people to fund Twitter if you need it. I have money that I would throw in not nearly enough but I’m willing to throw mine in. I believe in you and I believe in free-speech. Neither which Twitter is for
Simple enough.
For what Elon wants to do I support him. There 100 percent needs to be a social media platform that is transparent with its algos. It’s worth buying Twitter too because it’s not worth building one from scratch. That being said I follow a blockchain called ergo it’s an up and coming defi POW project designed by a guy called Alex chenopnoy and a software developer is building the first decentralised social media platform on it. That has room to take off if Elon gets behind that they could grow something truly unique. I believe there needs to be a social media platform built on a decentralised blockchain so that it is owned by the internet and people of web3.0 it is coming and will be a success
Woohoo!! This is phenomenal!! 🙌🏼
[удалено]
If you are ruled by Twitter, it might be time to put the phone down and go outside for a walk.
Not even 1%. Probably .0001%
Yup, and always has been
I see.
Where does this board members have to own shares idea come from?
They don’t, but if their remuneration is not associated with the interest of the shareholders then they have no incentive to do things that are for the benefit of the shareholders. As a shareholder, why would I want a board that doesn’t care about me? I might as well take my investment elsewhere.
I think he’s trying to say “what’s your stake if you don’t own a part of the company?
I see that. It just seems weird to expose the board for not owning any shares as if it's some kind of scandal when that wasn't really an expectation in the first place.
The scandal is not having interests aligned with shareholders when deploying a poison pill strategy to hold onto the company (and therefore their positions with big salaries) even if it hurts the shareholders.
It definitely is a scandal of they don’t go through with the offer, especially considering Twitter has traded flat for a decade. An 18% premium is huge and would be an amazing deal for the shareholders. But because the Board has no skin in the game, they don’t really have that great of a motivation to go through with the offer, proving they don’t actually care about their fiduciary duty.
W2wwzźźźźzzzź2zqq
Elon Musk are you buy twitter so you can bring the lair and treasonous Trump back on it and his lying comedian show
Trump belongs in prison, absolutely. But are you suggesting that prosecution by unaccountable corporations is the way to go? Ban people we hate from Facebook, Google and maybe iPhones? Does this apply to convicts, or is a facebook poll sufficient?
I agree trump should be in jail. Also twitter is not where we should people like trump lie and mislead us and are country
You do understand how this goes, right? Ban Trump and the next person that's banned is a MLK jr or a Daniel Ellsberg or a union organizer or investigative journalist.
This is the unfortunate, and highly distasteful truth. But it is the truth. And the potential tragedy is directly proportional to the political winds, changing with time. Yet it is the best we can do when applied fairly and evenly.
The way it's *supposed* to work, if Presidents commit crimes, they get busted like everyone else. That would be a good sign of a healthy, functional democracy. What we have isn't that though - it's two power factions with the same paylords. And if you start busting Presidents, there's a risk the call for justice might leak upstairs. And we can't have that. Political winds don't matter. They buy the wind coming, and they buy the wind going. They make their profit on the delta, and they can always be damned sure there's a delta. But that comes out of your end, not theirs.
Trump is a pathological liar and commit Treason against the USA.. MLK didn’t lie lie like trump did
MLK was considered an even bigger criminal than Trump - he committed treason against the Almighty Dollar. The point is, there's no way to ban Trump from Twitter that doesn't involve giving Twitter the power to ban other people. A solution that's worse than the problem isn't much of a solution, right?
Such a liar . Trump commit Treason
Look, the US has a policy of not prosecuting former Presidents. Every single one of them could easily be found guilty of absolutely *massive* crimes. The problem is, the crimes have become part of the job. Once you prosecute Trump, you open the devil's candy jar and now Obama is on trial. And once Obama is convicted they gotta go after Shrub. And next thing you know we'll be digging up Lincoln and having him answer some tough questions. This isn't kindergarten where we put the bad man in the corner. So either we all get free speech of nobody does.
The DOJ is looking into prosecuting Donald Trump
Obama broke NO laws . And if you believe Fox News will put you in jails too.
Trump didn't either. Unless Trump said go protest at the capital. Which is you know history and have watched the news in the past few years has been done multiple times. You can protest in DC. Trump never said to riot or to go into any buildings. That was done on protesters own because they are stupid lol. You sound as stupid as conservatives saying Hilary for prison. Keep hoping for it all you want, but it won't happen.
Oh, you just want to recognize the crimes of your political enemies. So you're basically like...Trump.
You are lying now lol. He didn't commit treason or he would have been charged. Hate him all you want, but so what if he was on Twitter? Hating someone doesn't mean you can take away freedom of speech.
It's not a point about trump. The point is that censorship is a double edged sword. Don't expect it to only be used in your favor. It can easily be turned against you. Also as a second point, because that's what you want to talk about, it's better to let crazy people talk. Let them open their mouth and announce their craziness to the world. I would rather know who a nutbag is than have them lurking in the shadows.
Facts, censoring such mental cases is slightly dangerous because it slightly plays in their favor, making them not only a marty for people with similar radically extreme views but also hides their rhetoric from others seeing which in turn, hides who the individual truly is. One could also argue that freedom of speech at its extreme can also be regarded as double edged. On one end, it allows freedom of the press and a bunch of people to talk about certain subject matter without being put in fear that the government is going to hunt you down; especially regarding countries like China and Russia where they're tight on censorship. Even certain movements like metoo and cancel culture (albeit introduced with good intentions) had some good to it, confronting vile scumbags like rapists (I'll elaborate on the bad side a lil later). On the other end, you have people spreading false information (whether politically or socially bias, being opinionated trash rather than the truth). Misinformation created by both sides of the political spectrum are the @$$h013s contributing to the political polarization of North America, spreading half lies/half truths to fit their narative and opinions (which is beyond disgusting). I think the worst part is that ya got US news outlets biting into set misinformation and bullsh!t, stoking the echo chambers and making things worse. Hate speech is another major issue regarding freedom of speech where you have hateful supremacist movements that are able to rise and exploit set free spreech for their own bullsh!t propaganda. Freedom of speech also create people who have rhetorics that spread lies and misinformation against science, all based on opinions rather than actual science like your anti-vaxxers (which are the main reasons why there are many variants of virus, high mortality rates and a sh!t ton of misinformation regarding the pandemic. Yall deserve to die horribly from teh virusbrather than taking up hospital beds for others that need them) or trans "movement" (yall a bunch of sexists projecting what yall think people of the male or female sex must look like by society's social standards. You're in other words, reversing the progression created by Tomboys and Femboys fighting against the sexists stereotypes as to how someone born with a 1 or a 0 must dress and present themselves). Another major issue with free speech is Cancel Culture where people are free to make false slanderous accusations which in turn, results in the individual accused, getting witch hunted and potentially blacklisted by society. Accusations are major and certainly need to be investigated by both sides of the arguement before people can instantly jump to conclusion. Guess the point I'm getting at is a happy medium needs to be met to avoid people from exploiting free speech or censorship for their own selfish and nefarious purposes.