Poll of the Day > Elon Musk is now the largest Twitter shareholder.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The blue check marks are losing it. Goodbye censorship, lol.

https://www.chron.com/business/article/Elon-Musk-Is-Now-the-Majority-Shareholder-of-17056063.php

I'm sure some people are freaking out about this.
This will be funny.

stock market pump n dump!

ok

I'm sure Ted Faro owning so much social media will go just fine, and the world is in no way ending.

"Anti-lefties," whatever the name you wanna give 'em, have been begging Elon Musk to save them from Twitter for years now. Whether that be through making his own Twitter, or otherwise. If he really wanted to do that, he would've done it right away.

Elon Musk is a lot like Kanye. Lots of talk, but no action when the time comes. Because when the time comes, reality sets in and they both realize that it's not really practical or interesting to do all that stuff people thought you were gonna do.

Entity13 posted...

I'm sure Ted Faro owning so much social media will go just fine, and the world is in no way ending.

Hey, you've got to take the good with the bad. Sure, there are issues. But robot dinosaurs! I endorse this future.

well po, since you are not a female, you're definitely gonna be like, faros right hand man

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Elon Musk is a lot like Kanye. Lots of talk, but no action when the time comes. Because when the time comes, reality sets in and they both realize that it's not really practical or interesting to do all that stuff people thought you were gonna do.

I mean, he does own multiple companies producing multiple products. One of my sister factories produces the rear tail lamp for their ever-popular car, and the local grocery store has Tesla charging stations outside of it.
He can actually do things.

Ozmose posted...

The blue check marks are losing it. Goodbye censorship, lol.

https://www.chron.com/business/article/Elon-Musk-Is-Now-the-Majority-Shareholder-of-17056063.php

I see you understand reality. Just kidding!!!!

Adam_Savage posted...

well po, since you are not a female, you're definitely gonna be like, faros right hand man

Well, I'm not currently the right-hand of any billionaires, so I don't see a scenario where I'm immediately recruited 20 minutes before the end of the world. And let's be honest, no one on PotD is getting their DNA indexed. They're not putting our genetic material in the vault for the future.

I doubt it'll make much difference.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Well, I'm not currently the right-hand of any billionaires, so I don't see a scenario where I'm immediately recruited 20 minutes before the end of the world. And let's be honest, no one on PotD is getting their DNA indexed. They're not putting our genetic material in the vault for the future.

faro is the kind of dude to just go up to a random guy in the street and be like "ur hired"

Adam_Savage posted...

faro is the kind of dude to just go up to a random guy in the street and be like "ur hired"

If nothing else, it might explain his QA department.

Wake me up when Elon finally announces robot GFs

How long until he starts claiming he invented Twitter just because he threw a bunch of unearned wealth at it?

It means he's more of an asshole now

Zangulus posted...

10%

Majority.

Pick one...

if no one else has that much, then he would, in fact, be the majority shareholder.

cool

in this case elon is the controlling shareholder, since he has more than everyone else, and, as a result, assumes the role of majority shareholder in power.

i'm not diverting to something else lmao

he's majority shareholder, even with only 10%, because he has more than everyone else, literally, he has the majority

don't blame me for not understanding

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's literally the title of the article . . .

Besides, I believe he bought out issued shares, not authorized shares. It's not the same pool. Not sure how many issued shares Twitter has, but I know Jack Dorsey only has 2%.

Zangulus posted...

So... still cant actually show me what I asked for. Youre just continuing on. Going to assume that youll just keep beating the dead horse and thinking youre right and leave at that.

dead horse?

nah, only dead horse is your paper thin obstinate gimmick my duder

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ozmos's title is correct. He's the largest shareholder. I think the headline for the article is your standard journalistic sensationalizing. He could easily be outvoted by just 2 other shareholders. That wouldn't be possible with a 51% majority.

Next subject, should twitter sue chron.com for misrepresenting the influence Elon has over the company?

Edit:
This article originally appeared on entrepreneur.com
So it's their misleading headline.

So where are the fact checking sites on this? I want to know if they say he's the majority shareholder or not.

I don't think any fact checking websites are going to bother policing mistakes in word choice in random news articles, especially when said articles report the actual facts of the situation accurately.

adjl posted...

policing mistakes in word choice in random news articles

Isn't that all they do?

adjl posted...

said articles report the actual facts of the situation accurately.

People only read the headlines. Even on the fact checking sites them selves all that matters is they marked it false, even when the accompanyiing text goes on to explain how it's actually true.

And now he's on the BoD too... lol

The meltdown will be legendary.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Isn't that all they do?

As the name suggests, they check facts. That can involve correcting mistakes, but when said mistakes are more a matter of technicality than anything really meaningful and/or the rest of the article is factually accurate, there's not much point in making a big deal out of it.

adjl posted...

As the name suggests, they check facts.

Which they proceed to ignore.

adjl posted...

when said mistakes are more a matter of technicality than anything really meaningful

That's all they base their conclusions on. They focus on some minor detail that misses the point of what people are saying about it.

Every Russian media grifter started tagging him today whining if they get suspended lmfao.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Which they proceed to ignore.

That's all they base their conclusions on. They focus on some minor detail that misses the point of what people are saying about it.

Citation needed

Metalsonic66 posted...

Citation needed

A while back there was a topic on this board about the US government distributing crack pipes. Snopes take on it was that it was false. Their reasoning was that the safe smoking kits contain more than just crack pipes. They later edited their findings to say it was outdated, since a statement was made that federal funding wasn't being used for this. They kept changing the focus to minor details in order to avoid acknowledging that the real matter at hand is true.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-crack-pipes-racial-equity/

Here's a classic one.

Trump said Clinton "acid washed" her private email server. She didn't. She used an app called Bleachbit, not a corrosive chemical.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/sixteen-fact-checks-second-presidential-debate-n663421

Seems accurate fact-checking to me. Looks like you're the one focusing on minor details and missing the point

Imagine dying on the hill of "He didn't say that exact term!" when he did... and let's all be honest here, the fact check of "Acid-washed" was for Trump supporters that would believe she literally poured acid on the servers to destroy them. Whether Trump understood what he was saying or if he heard BleachBit and misconstrued it is completely beside the point.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Looks like you're the one focusing on minor details and missing the point

If you approve of the US government distributing an item that it normally arrests people for possessing... just say so. For everyone who doesn't approve of that, how it's funded or what else they also distribute isn't the issue they have with it.

Archaea_Ottoia posted...

let's all be honest here, the fact check of "Acid-washed" was for Trump supporters that would believe she literally poured acid on the servers to destroy them.

Yes, let's be honest. We both know the context for Trump's statement. The issue is not what method a corrupt politician used to destroy evidence. The issue is that a corrupt politician destroyed evidence.

So, honestly, do you think using software as opposed to using a corrosive substance makes destroying evidence okay?

These straws are so hard to grasp

Metalsonic66 posted...

These straws are so hard to grasp

I'll admit I have difficulty comprehending the paper ones. When I unwrap one of those I just throw it away without using it. I'd rather drink from the cup.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So, honestly, do you think using software as opposed to using a corrosive substance makes destroying evidence okay?

That's really what you got out of that exchange? Nice.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So, honestly, do you think using software as opposed to using a corrosive substance makes destroying evidence okay?

better than trying to flush them down the toilet