"That could turn out to be a genuine money maker for Twitter, if it can get away with it, even if it is unlikely ever to repay the initial investments."
Of the $44 billion purchase, the consortium of banks that provided Musk funding are in it for $13 billion; they actively write down the value of those loans. (If I recall correctly, the most recent write down is now 35 cents on the dollar.) They believed if they did this financing package Musk would bring them more business. So far they have huge losses and no new banking fees.
The same banks lent Musk another $6 billion, but that amount is secured by his Tesla shares; the waterline value is ~$100/share. (Tesla shares are comfortably above that threshold.)
Another $7 billion is investments by 15 or 20 of his "finance bros" - a group of people with a lot of money but scant sense. Perhaps Musk makes them whole but I would not bet on it.
The balance of the purchase is Musk's cash he had from selling Tesla shares. He has a huge hard dollar loss. He would have been FAR better off just buying 3 month T-Bills like Warren Buffett but then he would be no master of the (Twitter) universe.
Musk and his sycophants now portray the purchase as a huge sacrifice he made to protect free speech. Indeed, he probably would be making more money if he didn't kick the Pandora's Box of Nazi accounts back open, or if he didn't fall for every fake post someone puts in front of him.
But I imagine that the bankers who loaned him the money wanted to actually make some.
What Dave says - and the modifier is the "even if it is unlikely ever to repay the initial investments." I was very probably wrong over whether there was an actually viable business model at current scale (I was guessing that the whole thing would shrink more quickly than it has), but there is a there there that is, in some revolting and very loose sense, keeping itself going. Haven't read the new book that just came out today - I'm guessing that there is a lot of juicy stuff.
The Brazilian ban on Twitter for promoting insurrectionist accounts is an indication of the future. Outside the US, invocations of free speech aren't going to protect Musk from the consequences of his actions. Now that it is just one platform among many, Musk can't rely on the threat of cutting off service when, for example, the EU imposes massive fines on thim
Whether the US can approach the lack of deference that the EU and Brazil show to billionaires and Presidents is an open question. In Musk's case, he would spin being shut out of Europe as a badge of honor, and he did back down in Brazil. At his level, fines are an accounting problem for staff.
Shouldn't that have been "It is a truth universally acknowledged that any social medium is in want of a little bit of shitposting."? Or maybe there is a better variation? Sorry, could not resist.
"That could turn out to be a genuine money maker for Twitter, if it can get away with it, even if it is unlikely ever to repay the initial investments."
Of the $44 billion purchase, the consortium of banks that provided Musk funding are in it for $13 billion; they actively write down the value of those loans. (If I recall correctly, the most recent write down is now 35 cents on the dollar.) They believed if they did this financing package Musk would bring them more business. So far they have huge losses and no new banking fees.
The same banks lent Musk another $6 billion, but that amount is secured by his Tesla shares; the waterline value is ~$100/share. (Tesla shares are comfortably above that threshold.)
Another $7 billion is investments by 15 or 20 of his "finance bros" - a group of people with a lot of money but scant sense. Perhaps Musk makes them whole but I would not bet on it.
The balance of the purchase is Musk's cash he had from selling Tesla shares. He has a huge hard dollar loss. He would have been FAR better off just buying 3 month T-Bills like Warren Buffett but then he would be no master of the (Twitter) universe.
Musk and his sycophants now portray the purchase as a huge sacrifice he made to protect free speech. Indeed, he probably would be making more money if he didn't kick the Pandora's Box of Nazi accounts back open, or if he didn't fall for every fake post someone puts in front of him.
But I imagine that the bankers who loaned him the money wanted to actually make some.
What Dave says - and the modifier is the "even if it is unlikely ever to repay the initial investments." I was very probably wrong over whether there was an actually viable business model at current scale (I was guessing that the whole thing would shrink more quickly than it has), but there is a there there that is, in some revolting and very loose sense, keeping itself going. Haven't read the new book that just came out today - I'm guessing that there is a lot of juicy stuff.
So if shit-mining is twitter future model, what does make it difference from good old porn sites?
The Brazilian ban on Twitter for promoting insurrectionist accounts is an indication of the future. Outside the US, invocations of free speech aren't going to protect Musk from the consequences of his actions. Now that it is just one platform among many, Musk can't rely on the threat of cutting off service when, for example, the EU imposes massive fines on thim
Whether the US can approach the lack of deference that the EU and Brazil show to billionaires and Presidents is an open question. In Musk's case, he would spin being shut out of Europe as a badge of honor, and he did back down in Brazil. At his level, fines are an accounting problem for staff.
Shouldn't that have been "It is a truth universally acknowledged that any social medium is in want of a little bit of shitposting."? Or maybe there is a better variation? Sorry, could not resist.