Elon Musk now owns the largest stake in twitter...

I think you have confused my position or confused yourself. Regardless, re-read my posts for clarification as Musk is just one single individual not some savior of free speech which it would appear the far RW is hoping for or is confused about.

 

It only makes sense that making an impact on how they limit speech was his intent of the purchase. Even liberal media acknowledges this as the logic behind his purchase.

 

That's your opine, I take the stand that one individual should never be able to impact my free speech but a social media corporation has different terms of use if you break their agreement. If you think Musk can direct Twitter with 10% ownership, then let see how far he can get, I doubt it (he'll need more than 10% and he will have to pay a bundle). As I said, I don't seek a savior(non religious) nor do most people I know.
Here are my posts in this thread for reference:

^^At the time I posted that, I did not know he only acquired approx. 10% of the public interest.

 

He doesn’t just own 10% of Twitter. He owns the larger percentage than anyone. The other great power he has over Twitter is that he now sits on the board. Yes he will have the power to change Twitter and I hope his absolutist free speech stance is allowed.

 

It's not a controlling interest unless those shares he owns have specific 'options/qualities'. Currently, the far RW wish is a 'hope and prayer' thing while 'they' cancel culture other issues and mix religion with governance. IOW, Musk just currently 9%....he'll need alot more and he will have to part with a bundle more as well.

 

It’s not just about his shares.

https://investor.twitterinc.com/corporate-governance/board-of-directors/default.aspx


What percentage of share holders get to be on that list I just provided? That list alone has power. Sure your share allows you a vote, being on that board allows you the power to make the company policy being voted on. He has much more power than just 9.2% vote

 

Look up controlling interest and good luck with that dream at his current ownership percentage. Musk is all about money don't let the drama cover fool you.

 

I know what controlling interest is. I’m not saying that’s his angle. I’m saying he is literally sitting on the board, as the largest share holder, the same board that makes the rules. If you can make the rules, who cares how the rest of the shareholders vote?

 

Musk is not and never be a champion for anything other than his self and his ego. He's will never be the champion you think he is; I don't get why people actually think he's going to 'champion' anything but ego and attention.

 

This website uses rules that restrict free speech and you agree to it when you join, just like Twitter does.

 

I suggest you start your own website like Twitter and not stop anything being posted and you will see how wild and unruly it becomes.

 

It's like Musk is the Gov DeSantis of $Billionaires or something.

​

 

They apply it unfairly and with section 230, so far, they enjoy blanket immunity for their rights violating behavior, but, that's likely coming to an end soon.

Beware rich geeks bearing media outlets, warns the Washington Amazon-Post



Watch the Fake News Liars fall all over themselves over who can take the stupidest take:

That's going to be hard to top on the dumb pile.

Does this mouthbreaking clown "Pao know who owns the Washington Post? None other than Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and now a multilateral uber-billionaire competing in the private-sector space race … against Musk. Oddly enough, Pao never mentions Bezos and his ownership of the “democracy dies in darkness” Post, even though Bezos’ net worth is now estimated around $180 billion. That’s not as much as Musk’s estimated net worth of $300 billion, but in practical terms, what’s the difference? Carlos Slim isn’t quite up to that level, having a personal net worth estimated at only $70.4 billion, but his ownership of 17.4% of the New York Times’ Class A shares makes Musk’s 9.2% of Twitter look paltry in comparison."

But it's ok when they do it. Clearly they seem Musk as a "them" rather than an "us".

"For that matter, Michael Bloomberg still owns a controlling interest in Bloomberg LP and its news and stock-ticker empires, but he founded the company rather than buying into it. That, clearly, has not made him any less of a “rich person” that is “controlling our channels of communication.” Did Pao raise this issue in 2020, when Bloomberg attempted to buy his way to the Democratic Party presidential nomination?"

Not a peep.

"Billionaire ownership of the Washington Post, NYT, Bloomberg, and their control of reportorial functions matters a whole lot more than social-media platforms to democracy. However, if we want to focus on social media platforms and other forms of communication, who owned and controlled Twitter and Facebook before last month? Billionaires like Jack Dorsey ($7.4 billion net worth), Mark Zuckerberg ($79.4 billion), and their associates. The same is true with internet providers, Hollywood studios, cell-phone manufacturers and service companies, and on and on and on. Corporate boards are comprised of the heaviest investors and/or their allies; very few if any people of modest means sit on them."

One rule for the politically connected, another for everyone else. But you now what? These clowns, despite their pretension, are not nobility. In this Great Nation, we are One People, with One Law, applied with favor.

 

So what?
Sour Grapes, Much?
NEXT Time the RW should Invent Twitter and take over all of the Media "Outlets"...
^Problem Solved...
Until then?

 

~ Hopefully Musk purchased enough of Twatter so he can delete the entire thing in one fell swoop !

——
​

 

In bold, an opinion that's not currently backed by any court ruling. So, I'll reiterate what I originally posted:
"It's a corporately owned, platform that people have to agree to the terms of use, etc. before they are allowed on it. Use some logic, free speech does not allow people, no matter who they are, to violate those terms of use. If a person feels that the they did not violate the terms, they could go to court. Did Trump go to court? Answer, no, because he simply could not win. Musk is just playing and ultimately will be in just for the money. Secondly, there are no longer conservatives in the Trump Party and they only view 'truth' as a mere convenience."

 

Elon Musk Is Officially Trolling Twitter

"But if you look closely, Musk's "trolling" also appears to be moving the ball for positive change forward at the social media company..."

"Musk posted a Twitter poll that asked whether or not he should convert Twitter's San Francisco headquarters into a homeless shelter since "no one shows up anyway":

Keep it up!

 

Twitter is a corporately owned, platform that people have to agree to the terms of use, etc. before they are allowed on it. With the use of any logic, free speech does not allow people, no matter who they are, to violate those terms of use. If a person feels that the they did not violate the terms, they could go to court. Did Trump go to court? Answer, no, because he simply could not win. Musk is just playing and ultimately will be in just for the money. Secondly, there are no longer conservatives in the Trump Party and they only view 'truth' as a mere convenience.

So the new position is that Musk is a mere troll? Personally, I think he's about the money and attention.

 

I've heard that Elon Musk is buying shares of Twitter. Why Twitter? Is he trying to gain a majority of the stock shares of Twitter and perform a hostile takeover of that company?

 

~ Many hope so ...

 

WRONG!

He NEVER Actually Sat on the Board...
Why post BS?

And, he is NOT Going to...
Why the BS?
Musk NEVER Sat on the Board...
And, he WON'T...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/11/tech/elon-musk-twitter-board/index.html

 

Musk was NEVER On The Board at Twitter...
And, he WON'T Be...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/11/tech/elon-musk-twitter-board/index.html

Jumping the Gun, Much?

Counting Chickens, Much?

 

Musk was going to join and decided against it. He changed his mind.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-no-longer-join-062049703.html

 

https://nypressnews.com/news/financ...to-twitters-board-he-cant-own-more-than-14-9/

If he sits on the board, he cannot own more than 14.9% of the twitter stock. Pragal was trying to 4d chess trap him by inviting him to sit on the board.

 

That was by his choice, but he still holds majority control. And he was appointed, but didn't accept it. His choice! Not Twitter.