"Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion"

I found this funny.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 269 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Honestly terrifying that they still think it is worth that much.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 116 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    they still own the twitter trademark, that might be their biggest asset

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 171 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

    And yet, he's still one of the what, 5 richest people on the planet?

    He doesn't give a shit, and neither should you (as nice as the schadenfreude might feel). He got something worth more to him than plain old money - an established propaganda platform, which he is using as he intended - to war monger and otherwise interfere in politics to ensure fascism progresses as fast as he can help it. The "dent" (more like a surface scratch) it put in his finances is completely invisible and irrelevant to him.

    And it should be to you, too.

    He is NEVER going to end up without means or power, not even fucking close, unless we take them from him, and abolish the system that encouraged and enabled him to amass them in the first place.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    What is completely wild to me is that there are only 4 main apps: Reddit, twitter, instagram, and Facebook. Almost every public conversation happens on one of those platforms. And of those four platforms, one of them was bought by one singular person. Some people just don’t get the absolute scale of how much one person can just buy of our communities.

    Like it or not, there are businesses on Twitter. Celebrities are easy to reach and talk to. Even companies use Twitter for support. News outlets post there. It’s a whole community. Was it a bit toxic? Yeah. But it wouldn’t have mattered. One guy bought it.

    Similar to what you said, if you were to run the numbers on this I’m pretty sure owning twitter to Elon is not much different than owning a cable subscription to your average family. A whole community of tens of millions of people bought by one person and its success doesn’t matter. Capitalism is broken. And if you think that’s bad, imagine how he can affect your government when a Supreme Court justice goes for a small small fraction of the price..

    Edit: I did the math and it turns out that twitter has lost so much money that this is no longer a cable subscription. It’s about a 6% yearly loss to Elons net worth, dependent on his current stock values. Which means it’s not cable, but about the cost the average person spends on food in a year ($10,000 yearly cost to a 200k net worth). Still insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 141 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Musk did not buy this as an investment. He bought it to flip elections and manipulate public opinion.

    Tesla is writing him a check that will cover the entire purchase price, and Saudi Arabia and Russia will pay the operating costs.

    Active users are what matters; if they lost 75% of their users then I'm paying attention.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    I think you're giving the guy too much credit. Sometimes things are as they seen. He just didn't like the moderation scheme on Twitter, made a gesture buying it, fumbled a little bit and overbid, then after having been forced to acquire it tried to turn it into something closer to what he wanted it to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 72 points 2 years ago

    Elon Musk's greatest personal achievement has been his tireless work and incredible effort toward disproving the myth of Billionaire Exceptionalism.

  • source
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Couldn't have happened to a douchier bag.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    We knew this was going to happen before he made the purchase.

    Everyone said, the best way for Elon to keep his money was to change very little, or even take a hands-off approach.

    Masnick suggested this would happen

    It was that and so much worse. Moral of the story: Running a huge social media service is hard. Maybe don't assume that because you're a billionaire you're the best at doing stuff.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Meanwhile he is on track to become the world's first trillionaire

    I think the purchase was more about welding power than any financial gain

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 44 points 2 years ago (5 children)
    load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 40 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    If they influence the election to their desired outcome, then the value won't matter. The damage will have been done.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 37 points 2 years ago

    I just checked and it's worth nothing to anyone important.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    its worth comes from being able to influence world politics. Does he seem like someone who cares or needs money?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    Elon is a genius at losing money.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (20 replies)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Musk is and always has been an incompetent yet lucky scammer.

    Twitter will be bankrupt within two years.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago

    How to become a billionaire: Start with 54 billion

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And may it continue to crash and burn. It’s just 4 chan at this point.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Didn't he pay too much for it in the first place?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago

    Posts about value are ads. Stop give exposure to this guy or his companies

  • source
  • [+] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
    [–] 23 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Let’s everyone point and laugh. It humbles people like him, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My first thought is 'I can't wait for it to turn zero' but then I realize that 79% decline from 44 billion still means it is worth 9.24 billion.

    And that is still a shitload of money.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I doubt anybody would buy it for a tenth, tbh.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    A quarter is cute and all but...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Something tells me its value is not monetary for Musk.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    I remember thinking twitter was bad before he took over

    It's now a complete shadow of what it was even just a couple of years ago. Just a quarter of its value seems generous

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    Twitter was useful.

    X is just useful idiots at this point.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I wish, I wish... I wish I was a fish.

    I wish there was an instrument other than the stock market whereby private individuals could combine their funds to perform hostile take-overs, and then manage them by pre-agreed conditions.

    Like: we're going to buy Twitter, build an AP interface on it, federate it, and operate it like a non-profit. We're going to have a set of these S core values, with yearly votes on changes proportional to investment. No single investor can own more than T percent of shares Investors can sell their shares, or buy shares. Stock will never spilt. Management salaries, combined, can never exceed more than M% of non-management combined salaries, and run it as a Holocracy. Or, maybe, shares can only be sold to employees, who have to sell to other employees when they leave.

    You know; try to design a good operating model that avoids the pitfalls of other companies, and can adapt when the model demonstrates perverse incentives. Put more thought into it than my ramblings above.

    But ten billion dollars is a lot of money to put together, and the rules I'd like to see necessarily exclude the sort of profit-only driven capitalists who'd be able to contribute heavy loads, and would limit the amount that could contribute.

    I may as well wish I were a fish.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›