The news of the week that has caught everyone's ear is the offer for the full buy up of Twitter by Elon Musk. In short Machiavelli must now be smiling in the afterlife. This article will explore the situation around how Mr. Musk played his hand and is forcing those at Twitter to play their hand and that due to technology these moves are being played out for all the world to see.
Regardless of the outcome, it is the opinion of this author that Mr. Musk must be applauded for his efforts. A best effort has been made to chronicle this situation and provide and explain the relative tactics, reasons and reactions involved. While Twitter started around 2006/2007 other significant dates will be used to show relevant timeline markers. It is to be noted that these are the opinions of this author who hopes that the reader will consider the talking points in their own analysis of this situation.
The Game is Afoot
Before getting started, at the time of this writing the tag-line of the Twitter HR department is - 'We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.' There is a button below this line that leads to the careers section of Twitter. Why is this the hiring line and not the elevator pitch used to attract users or advertisers?
- September 2018 - Alex Jones is banned from Twitter.
- April 2019 - Carl Benjamin, UKIP candidate from the UK, is banned from Twitter.
- September 2020 - Twitter bans or shadow-bans people discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story, just before the US election. (Shadow-banning is the practice of down ranking a commentator and uplifting the orthodox view)
- January 2021 - President Donald Trump is banned from Twitter.
- January 2022 - Elon Musk purchases 9.2% of Twitter for ~3 billion USD.
The final point in the list above has kicked off a furious reaction from the Left side of the social/political spectrum with the biggest complaint being that no single person should be have overt control of the digital public square and therefore public discourse. Oddly enough, the fact that Jeff Bezos, of Amazon.com, bought the Washington Post in 2013 seems to have failed to garnish any serious opposition.
Due to the sheer size of the investment made by Mr. Musk the Twitter Board of Directors (BoD) offered Mr. Musk a seat on the board; an offer that was turned down by Mr. Musk. Regardless if this act of denial was the result of Mr. Musk's own line of thinking or that of his advisory panel it was still a good move as the seat on the BoD came with some caveats. The two main considerations are: a) no BoD member can own more than 14.5% of the shares and b) The BoD member must work towards the best interest of the company, of course the reader should sort out who gets to decide what is best for Twitter.
The NYSX and the Law
It must be noted that on April 16th 2021, the value of a Twitter share was 70.12 USD.
By not being a member of the Twitter BoD, Mr. Musk held open the door of opportunity for himself; not only did Mr. Musk keep his options available, he hampered the options of the BoD as the BoD has a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders. This means that the BoD is there to make the shareholders money and by not taking the offer, the Board is not meeting their obligation thus opening themselves up to a class action lawsuit.
On April 14th 2022, Twitter stock dropped from a 48.36 at opening to 45.06 USD before the market closed. The longer this trend continues, the more pressure the shareholders will most likely put on to the BoD to accept the deal because the shareholders could have made out like bandits and they were denied that opportunity. Mr Musk started his share grab at a time when a single share was around 40.00 USD; so even if he sold his stake in the company and so - he wins. Additionally, if the price drops below 40.00 USD he can simply hold on to his current shares and buy more shares at the new lower price thus gaining more power meaning that once again - he wins
Mr. Musk, also did not make a threat to the Twitter BoD, in that if the Board did not take the offer he gave them he would sell his 9.2% and a sale of that magnitude would drop the price of the stock to a new low, thus once again causing financial concern and emotional consternation on the part of the shareholders. Mr. Musk of course with his vast wealth can once just buy up his old shares and more at the lower price and so once again - he wins
Exposing the Cathedral
Mr. Musk wittingly or unwittingly opened up another can of worms as it were; the reaction from the social/political Left, as they like to be called, has been both shocking and yet sadly predictable. It is almost as if a man is looking to buy a building that has gone slum and upon inspection turns the lights on and sees the roaches all over the kitchen counter and when he claims he will bring in pest control; the cockroaches complain. The previously expressed metaphor is of course over the top, though that was the intent.
Lines from those in the mainstream media included items such as; a) 'to protect our democracy we need more moderation not less', b) 'Elon Musk wants to control what people see and think and that is our job', and c) "Musk is clearly serious about promoting free speech for the benefit of democracy, but the line between free speech and hate speech or misinformation is becoming increasingly muddied, and attempts to change Twitter could easily lead to these issues spiraling out of control." said GlobalData analyst Rachel Foster-Jones.
The Culture War
There has always been political battles within societies; regardless of the society. The important part to consider is the authoritarian versus the libertarian stance; both sides of the political system have been guilty of being authoritarian and the typical sway factor is how much of those in the centre pick a side.
It is unfortunate that when given a taste of power some people want to engage in a form of gluttony and feast at such a level when they feel they have sufficient numbers in support of their cause's focus. Currently the political Left has social control and the political Right is demanding social freedom. Back in the 1960s when the political Right had social control, the political Left demanded freedom; hence the emergence of the Summer of Love and the Flower Power movements.
It is the opinion of this author that many within the general population didn't notice at the time the lack of love for others and that the flower in question was the poppy or at least the resulting chemical derived from the poppy. This is where the authoritarians seems to fail, in that the rules they impose on others can never be applied to themselves and that is just wrong. This author believes that people need to apply the rules to themselves before they apply those same rules to others; and the rules aught be equitable for all. There was a rise in self love at the time, which of course flies in the face of the phrase - 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' Where as the authoritarian stance seems to prefer the phrase - 'there are rules for thee and fewer rules for me' as was made evident by so many politicians over the course of the last two years.
Machiavelli wrote that a Good Prince should be both loved and feared and that if there is only one choice then being feared is preferred. For this author this should be the basis of good parenting and yet eventually that parenting needs to stop, leaving the youth to conduct themselves accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment