Musk Rasslin' With Twitter
It's difficult to take the San Francisco Chronicle, or what I call the San Francisco Chronically Woke (SFCW), seriously. Its story of Friday, July 8th, treats the possible end to Elon Musk buying Twitter so seriously that the writer stumbles, fumbles, and spits. It also ignores the possibility that this is just haggling over price. One gem from the SFCW story:
"Musk appeared to criticize the company’s policy of letting workers stay remote forever, running an April poll on Twitter titled, 'Convert Twitter SF HQ to homeless shelter since no one shows up anyway.' (Twitter does not own the building and has no power to rezone it for homeless housing.)"
Credit to Musk for being witty while making a very salient point: Why pay for a largely-empty building? The SFCW, however, acts as Musk was actually literally proposing turning the Twitter building into a homeless shelter. Which might well be a far better use of the real estate, but that discussion perhaps for another day.
The SFCW writer seems to recoil in horror at the thought of Woke Twitter censors having to navigate the streets of the cesspool known as San Francisco. Work amid the mess their Wokeness helped create, perpetrates, and exacerbates? The Horror! The Horror!
Ignored too is a bigger problem: If Twitter has been lying and concealing information about bots and fake accounts to Musk, it has also been doing so to its advertisers and other customers.
Seeking Alpha has a nice concise article on how Twitter makes money:
1) “Twitter makes most of its money through advertising. In fact, advertising represents more than 85% of revenues. Advertising includes Promoted Ads, Follower Ads, and Trend Takeovers. All ads are marked as 'Promoted' on the feed. In 2021, Twitter earned over $4.3 billion from advertising.”
2) "Data licensing makes up the rest of Twitter's revenues (about 14%). This accounted for about $760 million in 2021. This segment of revenue sells subscriptions to public data to companies and developers."
If Musk is correct that there is major Fraud by Twitter, how much would the refunds to advertisers and data purchasers total? That, of course, depends on the particulars. The first is the applicable Statute Of Limitations—which if Fraud is proven could well be Tolled (not apply in whole or part), perhaps going back to the early days or even the creation of the company. The second is, if Fraud is proven, how enormous would the Punitive Damages be?
Should a massive Civil Fraud case be brought against Twitter, there would almost certainly be an effort to turn it into a Class Action. A “Class Action” is typically where the corporate perpetrator pays out a little chump change, the attorneys “representing” those harmed make out like bandits, and those cheated get the shaft a second time.
But not everyone screwed first by Twitter, and secondly by a Class Action lawsuit, would roll over. Some would work to not have their damages covered by a paltry Class Action sham and seek full redress—Actual as well as significant Punitive Damages.
Who owned Twitter before Musk—and who still might if the deal goes south? Companies that have less interest in short-term profits and more in power. In Twitter's case, controlling the flow of information enables them to make significant long-term profits—and not necessarily from Twitter. From NationalWorld, Twitter's pre-Musk ownership is summarized as follows:
“Institutions, including private firms and investment funds, own about 80% of the stock.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management - Morgan Stanley's investment arm - the Vanguard Group, and BlackRock Fund Advisors are the main institutional owners.”
But there are a couple little problems with the “power first, money anyhow” standard operating procedure: Arguably, Twitter was run like a fiefdom, rather than in the best interests of Twitter Shareholders including those not part of the clique.
Back in the day, when there was a better appearance of Justice in America, corporations run like little fiefdoms using improper means and/or having dishonorable goals could lead to “Piercing The Corporate Veil”, meaning that the big active stock owners, company Directors, company Executives, sometimes others as well, could be personally liable. Not just at risk of losing their investment in the company, but being on the hook personally. That "piercing" is sometimes described as, "Shoving It Up The Corporate Ass".
If a Criminal proceeding is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, those same players could do some prison time should it be determined they worked together for illegal goals or utilized prohibited methods to achieve legal goals.
How things ultimately play out, it's way too early to tell. Is the Musk-Twitter saga just a sideshow to the freak shows that seek to control the planet? Will the US have a functioning Judiciary by the time any litigation over the Musk-Twitter dealings reaches a Courtroom? Whatever is actually happening, it certainly is not the cartoon painted by the SFCW.
TLC
Substack Permalink:
https://terrylclark.substack.com/p/musk-rasslin-with-twitter
"Musk appeared to criticize the company’s policy of letting workers stay remote forever, running an April poll on Twitter titled, 'Convert Twitter SF HQ to homeless shelter since no one shows up anyway.' (Twitter does not own the building and has no power to rezone it for homeless housing.)"
Credit to Musk for being witty while making a very salient point: Why pay for a largely-empty building? The SFCW, however, acts as Musk was actually literally proposing turning the Twitter building into a homeless shelter. Which might well be a far better use of the real estate, but that discussion perhaps for another day.
The SFCW writer seems to recoil in horror at the thought of Woke Twitter censors having to navigate the streets of the cesspool known as San Francisco. Work amid the mess their Wokeness helped create, perpetrates, and exacerbates? The Horror! The Horror!
Ignored too is a bigger problem: If Twitter has been lying and concealing information about bots and fake accounts to Musk, it has also been doing so to its advertisers and other customers.
Seeking Alpha has a nice concise article on how Twitter makes money:
1) “Twitter makes most of its money through advertising. In fact, advertising represents more than 85% of revenues. Advertising includes Promoted Ads, Follower Ads, and Trend Takeovers. All ads are marked as 'Promoted' on the feed. In 2021, Twitter earned over $4.3 billion from advertising.”
2) "Data licensing makes up the rest of Twitter's revenues (about 14%). This accounted for about $760 million in 2021. This segment of revenue sells subscriptions to public data to companies and developers."
If Musk is correct that there is major Fraud by Twitter, how much would the refunds to advertisers and data purchasers total? That, of course, depends on the particulars. The first is the applicable Statute Of Limitations—which if Fraud is proven could well be Tolled (not apply in whole or part), perhaps going back to the early days or even the creation of the company. The second is, if Fraud is proven, how enormous would the Punitive Damages be?
Should a massive Civil Fraud case be brought against Twitter, there would almost certainly be an effort to turn it into a Class Action. A “Class Action” is typically where the corporate perpetrator pays out a little chump change, the attorneys “representing” those harmed make out like bandits, and those cheated get the shaft a second time.
But not everyone screwed first by Twitter, and secondly by a Class Action lawsuit, would roll over. Some would work to not have their damages covered by a paltry Class Action sham and seek full redress—Actual as well as significant Punitive Damages.
Who owned Twitter before Musk—and who still might if the deal goes south? Companies that have less interest in short-term profits and more in power. In Twitter's case, controlling the flow of information enables them to make significant long-term profits—and not necessarily from Twitter. From NationalWorld, Twitter's pre-Musk ownership is summarized as follows:
“Institutions, including private firms and investment funds, own about 80% of the stock.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management - Morgan Stanley's investment arm - the Vanguard Group, and BlackRock Fund Advisors are the main institutional owners.”
But there are a couple little problems with the “power first, money anyhow” standard operating procedure: Arguably, Twitter was run like a fiefdom, rather than in the best interests of Twitter Shareholders including those not part of the clique.
Back in the day, when there was a better appearance of Justice in America, corporations run like little fiefdoms using improper means and/or having dishonorable goals could lead to “Piercing The Corporate Veil”, meaning that the big active stock owners, company Directors, company Executives, sometimes others as well, could be personally liable. Not just at risk of losing their investment in the company, but being on the hook personally. That "piercing" is sometimes described as, "Shoving It Up The Corporate Ass".
If a Criminal proceeding is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, those same players could do some prison time should it be determined they worked together for illegal goals or utilized prohibited methods to achieve legal goals.
How things ultimately play out, it's way too early to tell. Is the Musk-Twitter saga just a sideshow to the freak shows that seek to control the planet? Will the US have a functioning Judiciary by the time any litigation over the Musk-Twitter dealings reaches a Courtroom? Whatever is actually happening, it certainly is not the cartoon painted by the SFCW.
TLC
Substack Permalink:
https://terrylclark.substack.com/p/musk-rasslin-with-twitter
posted by TLC's Place at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home