861
X is left with advertisers pushing dubious cryptocurrency and AI 'undressing' apps, users say after Musk's outburst
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
861 points (94.2% liked)
Technology
59421 readers
2842 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm calling it now. Even if his aim was to not destroy Twitter from the inside, he will absolutely say that was his goal when it eventually happens.
People like this never, pathologically, ever, ever admit making a mistake.
Could that open him up to lawsuits from investors?
His investors wanted this. Twitter was a huge threat to a few oil rich autocratic regimes.
ooh, juicy accusation
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Larry Ellison (Oracle) were the biggest backers in the buy out deal. Saudi Arabia’s princes want to keep a tight control on information - remember how they butchered Khashoggi? With Qatar it was probably to prevent any slave labor deaths associated with FIFA from going viral. Larry Ellison probably just wanted all that juicy data, idk, he’s quiet but he gives a lot of money to right wing American causes.
Doesn't mean they won't sue.
he owns Twitter
At that point, he could just deactivate the entire platform
I though Twitter is publicly traded and has stocks? That would mean that he definitely has a duty towards investors who bought the shares to lead the company in a responsible way, and if he claimed that he destroyed it on purpose, it should lead to a lawsuit from them. But I ain't no lawyer, only vaguely remember hearing something like that. Or does he own 100% of the shares himself and is the sole investor?
It used to be publicly traded, but it went private when he acquired it.
Which doesn't mean he doesn't answer to any investors anymore, of course. He got quite a lot of assistance with that acquisition.
Oh, I see. I guess that means there's basically no-one who can sue him, if there aren't any investors.
As long as he can repay any loans and stuff, then I suppose he can do whatever he wants with the company. If, however, he bancrupts it to the point of not being able to pay back anything the company owes, then he should be in trouble. I hope.
Fafaik he bought 100% of the shares.