Musk's plans to buy Twitter continue to move forward. Recently, the news came out that Musk plans to launch an acquisition of Twitter within 10 days, the funds are still being raised, and he himself is willing to contribute 10 billion to 15 billion US dollars.
Following the news that it had become Twitter's largest individual shareholder, on April 14, Musk proposed to wholly acquire Twitter for $43 billion, hoping to turn it into a platform for free speech, "It is very important to have a stage that embraces free speech, and Twitter has become a de facto city square." ”
Musk
To clear the robot's virtual account first, allow long tweets to be posted, adopt a more cautious blocking mechanism... In a subsequent TED interview, Musk showed a strong determination to transform Twitter, and did not forget to take the opportunity to satirize Zuckerberg's control of Meta, "Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp can still be passed down to Zuckerberg XIV." At the end, he added, "This will not be the case on Twitter." ”
Not long ago, Musk also claimed that he would not buy Twitter, "It is the source of my pain, and everyone will blame me for all the problems." But now Musk has said that for the sake of the future of human civilization, he must do this.
But on the other hand, the acquisition did not go well. Twitter launched a "poison pill plan" against the barbarian Musk, once Musk holds more than 15% of the shares, other shareholders can buy additional shares at a discounted price, thereby driving up Musk's stock purchase costs. After the acquisition encountered resistance, Musk said: "If the acquisition is successful, the board salary will be zero, so that there will be $3 million left a year." ”
It is true that Musk is the world's richest man, but he is highly tied to the wealth of companies such as Tesla, and even if he is confident that he can fully afford it, whether the cash flow is sufficient will still cause doubts. Private equity giant Apollo Global Management also came to make fun of it, saying it might provide debt support for buyers such as Musk.
Regarding Musk's acquisition, Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, expressed optimism: "It will be difficult for any other bidder to show up, and Twitter's board may be forced to accept this bid." ”
There are also some that are not optimistic. At this point, the acquisition of Twitter is no longer about the fate of a company, but will also affect the future global social media landscape, which worries some people. Max Boot, a Washington Post columnist, said: "If Elon Musk acquires Twitter, the social and political impact scares me. ”
Huang Yishan, former CEO of social news platform Reddit, analyzed: "If Elon Musk acquires Twitter, he will be involved in a painful world. "Because he doesn't know what content moderation and free speech mean." Musk will be forced to censor tweets, not because of political pressure or because of users, but because this is a dynamic change in the social network itself.
Huang Yishan also believes that if Musk insists on acquiring Twitter, it will not only not solve any problems, but also take away his energy and time on Space X and Tesla.
The following is a long article by Huang Yishan on Twitter, compiled by the editors of the alphabet list:
I've been asked many times what I think of Musk's acquisition of Twitter. Okay, now I'll give my opinion. Assuming Musk succeeds in privatizing Twitter, he will be drawn into a painful world. And this, he did not realize.
Around the time of Web1 to Web2, the late 1990s to 2005, the Internet had a very strong culture of free speech that originated in the United States, and could even break the authority and shackles of religious conservatives to ban pornography.
Many of today's older tech leaders, like Musk and Marc Andreessen, grew up in the old Internet environment. For them, the Internet represents freedom, new frontiers, a blossoming of the human spirit, and a great optimism that technology can create a new golden age for humanity, which I have also believed in.
Until I started running Reddit.
Reddit was born in the last few years of the "old Internet" and after a few years of operation, I found that the old Internet era had passed. It's not that emerging platforms are killing it, it's that too many people are pouring into the internet, which is creating new problems.
With the development of social networks, people can post anything at will. The Internet is no longer an avant-garde place for people to seek freedom, but a battlefield for the entire world to dominate, on which every culture war is waged, and each side is trying to deprive the other of its right to speak.
All my left-wing friends around me are convinced that social media platforms support white supremacy and misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of evidence to support their views. For example, many times, the platform has made unfair judgments about some of the things they have said, but let the other party's worse behavior of users escape censorship, and there are many examples of this.
And all my neutral-right friends share the belief that social media platforms support the other side of their views. Both of them see the platform's system as biased against them, offering extreme conclusions like "All executives and board members are men" and "Silicon Valley employees are overwhelmingly left-wing."
Speaking of which, I have to reveal the pervasive institutional biases of large platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.
These Silicon Valley giants are keen to write interesting things, rather than chasing users, managing and supervising their bad behavior. They want users to stop arguing about stupid things and creating more trouble, so they can take the time to roll out more features without having to juggle stupid and trivial disputes.
Social platforms don't care about politics. Facebook's user base has left-leaning and right-leaning at different times, and so have Reddit and Twitter, and they don't care about that. Donald Trump was not dealt with because of his right-wing stance.
They care about money, but prefer users to shut up and be polite. But this is impossible, and ideas and ideas are inherently powerful and dangerous because human variability and behavior are infinite.
When that happens, they have to pretend to be fair and set some principles that are set into rules. It's not because certain ideas are good or bad, or right or wrong, it's purely an operational problem arising from people's disagreements on digital platforms. It is not the topic that is being censored, but the behavior. This is a dynamic change that appears in the social network itself.
I feel that the best solution to non-mainstream ideas is not to review them, but to allow for better ideas to be discussed. But running a large social network often forces you to go against the grain.
Let me give you an example. The lab leak theory, which has been censored at some point before, is not because it is inherently wrong, but because it can be imitated and made a reality. Replace the "lab leak theory" with any topic you think is being unfairly censored, and the reason it's being censored is never because of the content of that topic itself.
The operating platform cannot do nothing. So social media platforms spend a lot of time stopping our war online.
At this point, I think Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey has done a great job. He was a mature executive, and the final years of his leadership were the best in Twitter's history.
Jack Dorsey
But Jack also paid some price. There's a reason he has a crazy meditation routine that eats only one meal a day and then continues with spiritual retreats. Because it takes an inhuman mental state to run something like this, it could be the mental trauma left by the position.
Musk and Jack are in a different situation. Musk was introduced to the internet very late, and until then, he had been busy doing more practical things, such as building electric cars and reusable rockets, and wandering between female singers or actresses. He doesn't know exactly what has happened to Internet culture since 2004.
Musk is a high-profile figure, and any time Twitter does anything to solve a problem, he's blamed by all sides, even if he's not the CEO.
All in all, it's not a fun job. Musk taking over Twitter will not only not solve the problem, but also distract him from his time and attention on Space X and Tesla, and will also damage his mental health, which will be a loss for all of humanity. I don't think Musk should do that, his time is precious and limited.
I am very much against censorship. For example, I objected to social networks censoring every topic during the pandemic, and I personally suffered some of the effects. On the values of the old Internet, I fully endorse Musk.
But now, that era has passed.