Elon’s personal lawyer is emailing Twitter employees to tell them they probably won’t go to prison for following his instructions.
This is 100% false btw. Ask any engineer that works at Starbase how much Musk is involved.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives online service providers pretty broad protections against liability caused by user posts.
Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires online service providers to enforce an anti-infringement policy (notice and takedown, suspension and banning, etc.) to be protected from liability for copyright infringement committed by users, but it doesn’t apply to other kinds of liability. So presumably, Twitter is not required to institute measures to prevent the type of harm that happened to Eli Lilly.
I don’t know whether there might be other statutes that would limit the broad protections of Section 230 of the C.D.A.
I assumed his involvement consists of sending off emails at 11:57 PM on a Sunday demanding that the rocket make fart noises when it takes off.
Ostensibly Twitter would have protection from liability based upon 47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(1). However, because Twitter has formally ‘verified’ the authenticity of the account, they have now take an active role in implicitly authenticating the information. At a minimum, this is a major violation of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fraud regulations. Of course, we all know what Elon Musk thinks of the SEC.
Stranger
Now I am a little disappointed that Republicans didn’t change or repeal that law.
Thank you
Right, one of those matters in the application of Section 230 protections: is the provider or platform acting as a carrier, host or moderator for others to express themselves; or are they acting as producer, editor or publisher taking some responsibility for the content. So far the cases have leaned in the direction of not letting businesses be vulnerable to someone trying things like this, as long as they show dilligence in moderating malicious or illegal content.
However Twelontter may have available an ironic defense of: “gentlemen, surely for days now any trader not in an induced coma would have been aware that the blue check meant jacksquat anymore.” And IMO, yeah, really, come on market dudes, what kind of doof would make such a financial decision based on a blue-checked tweet this week?
(Plus, if the market just takes on faith a tweet that says something any sensible person would find extraordinarily implausible coming from Lilly, without waiting for a formal corporate announcement, I have to worry about what sort of imbeciles are in charge of my retirement savings.)
It’s hilarious, but people don’t naively trust a crazy-looking tweet - they sell on the assumption that other people (being idiots) will trust the crazy tweet, so they (being far more sophisticated) have to sell in anticipation of what the idiots will do - ironically, making their actions indistinguishable from the people they think are dolts.
Wouldn’t that be something if Musk ends up letting Trump back on, then the whole thing goes belly up the next day?
Just speculation on my part, but it’s not clear that Musk and Dorsey are actually as close as Musk likes to claim, and even less clear that Dorsey is in any way advising Musk, or if he is, that Musk is listening to him. It would be typical Musk to ignore any and all advice.
The one thing that is abundantly clear is that, once Musk was hooked, the powers at Twitter moved heaven and earth to make sure he went through with the deal when he tried to back out. These are not the actions of an entity that accepted a fair offer in a fair market and had many other options; they are more like the actions of someone who has hooked a sucker.
I’d actually feel sorry for Musk if he wasn’t such a total jerk. Also, as far as impact on his personal lifestyle is concerned, all of this is just play money in an audacious game of Monopoly.
Well, we know Musk and Dorsey had very active conversations via text during the deal, because many of those texts were disclosed in the lawsuit.
Is Dorsey still sending him ideas now that the deal is done? I suspect so, but now he’s just a $1B minority shareholder, and I’d be surprised if Musk is paying him much attention.
Scarier - what if Twitter indeed goes bankrupt and Truth Social is the platform left standing?
Fine with e. The world was a better place without Twitter. Truth Social would remain irrelevant
That would be profoundly hilarious.
I do wonder how this is all going to work out in the long run. In the short run, it’s easy to predict that Twitter will tank. And as someone who believes that the overall impact of social media has been odious, that’s fine by me.
Still, many people in the world, quite a few of them decent human beings, have made Twitter a significant part of their lives and they rely on it for more than just idle amusement. (I find it telling that the best source of information about the antics going on inside Twitter right now is … Twitter.) I’m sure it’s an important channel for collecting and sharing information and ideas, for building a brand, and related functions.
Twitter may fall, but something will rise up to take its place, that seems pretty clear.
Won’t happen. If Twitter does go bankrupt, in the social media space that would be more like an accounting event than any fundamental change in the ecosystem. Lots of companies have successfully emerged from bankruptcy, and even if Twitter doesn’t under the same brand, the demand for that kind of service will ensure that some variant(s) of it will thrive (as long as Musk isn’t involved, or has learned enough to keep his incompetent micromanaging hands off).
TruthSocial is a totally different thing with only the most superficial similarities. Its whole reason for existence is to be dedicated to fake news and crapoganda and, above all, Trump worship.
It’s also the actions of a board that has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to try to get the best possible deal, and then to implement it.
Always found it kind of amusing about this aspect of corporate governeance. That there is a duty to get the shareholders the best possible payout… even if you wind up with the corporation and its goods and services and labor gone. And the law will punish you for doing otherwise. But then again that does protect the stockholder from going down together with the company if/when it dies.
I have to say, I think twitter has played a pretty significant role in garnering support for Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has used it to plead for support and to troll Putin with humorous memes and jokes, etc.
Twitter isn’t all just bad social media. Good things have happened there.
Would agree: something or several somethings will fill the role of Twitter, now that we know there is such a niche in the ecosystem. Heck, Musk or no Musk it wasn’t going to exist the same forever. It would have been replaced or would have transformed into something different, eventually.