One seat is enough for some change. People will have to be on their toes. One board member can bring up issues and they will need to be addressed and shared with the other BOD members. They can't just blow it off. BOD can also talk to lower mgmt/employees to see what the culture at these type of companies are developing.

You just need one teacher in a room to maintain some control in a classroom. You also only need one spy in a room to cause issues. If other BOD think the one may go public if they are being ignored, they will behave more conservative.

Go to a stockholder meeting and ask a question to a board member versus the CEO and you will cause a commotion. Not sure why people don't do this more often at shareholder meetings.

Except in this case, it's Elon Musk. He just bought 10% for "shi*ts and giggles..."

I wouldn't put it past him to start a "Let's Save Twitter" campaign where he shows people how to buy a share, then assign your proxy vote to Musk so he can institute his changes. Hell, the entire subreddit WallStreetBets almost took down major player in the financial industry out of spite. I wouldn't be surprised to see them all throw in on this and get Musk to 50% of the vote.

Twitter is a money loser today that even with the Musk bump for the day, is close to 40 percent off it's 52 week high.

I'd be pretty surprised if he doesn't up his stake at least a bit, but I am not a high dollar net worth individual by any measure compared to his investment advisors/bankers, so I am not sure what kind of timeline/process would be most probable.

Quote:

---

She should be under legal investigation for numerous questionable behavior.

---

Your US Marshal contacts tell you about that Ms. Delriego?


Musk needs to start his own platform and put Twitter in the ground.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

This needs to be the first one sent packing from Twitter!! Vijaya Gadde is the enforcer and root of the Twitter censorship against conservatives. She should be under legal investigation for numerous questionable behavior. Vijaya Gadde is the policy, safety lead director and a chief legal officer and general counsel of Twitter. She is the most powerful person on Twitter's executive team. Tim Pool took her and Dorsey on, face to face on the Rogan Podcast that was must see programming. This b**** is pure evil and a proven liar. Her and Dorsey lies to congress under oath and nothing was ever followed up.

---

100 Percent.

Quote:

---

Vijaya Gadde is Twitter's Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety head. She's actually the person who was behind banning Trump, she told Jack while he was sunning himself in French Polynesia.

---

LOL this is creepy af

Now that is greatness!

What can a 9% twitter share owner tweet? Whatever he wants to

pic.twitter.com/l8Ryq7nN38

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 3, 2022

Ian Crossland (of Tim Pool's podcast) has supposedly been working on the idea of a personalized social media interface whereby section 230 compliant companies host social posts and publishers can craft / tailor what users see. If Elon pushed for that he could split twitter into two different companies: a data host / public square and a presentation layer.

Now that you say that, I'm surprised some enterprising Aggies haven't done the same with TA, given how much time is spent on here

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

She should be under legal investigation for numerous questionable behavior.

---

Your US Marshal contacts tell you about that Ms. Delriego?


Musk needs to start his own platform and put Twitter in the ground.

---

Taking over Twitter would be FAR more effective. Twitter already owns the market and trying to take it down would be extremely difficult. If you own it though it would not only fix the problem it would scare the crap out of all the other social media companies as they realize there is a consequence. It would provide a real alternative.

Just wait until Elon decides to pull a Bezos and buy a major media outlet.

File5 said:

---

Now that you say that, I'm surprised some enterprising Aggies haven't done the same with TA, given how much time is spent on here

---

They aren't a public company.

aggie93 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

She should be under legal investigation for numerous questionable behavior.

---

Your US Marshal contacts tell you about that Ms. Delriego?


Musk needs to start his own platform and put Twitter in the ground.

---

Taking over Twitter would be FAR more effective. Twitter already owns the market and trying to take it down would be extremely difficult. If you own it though it would not only fix the problem it would scare the crap out of all the other social media companies as they realize there is a consequence. It would provide a real alternative.

Just wait until Elon decides to pull a Bezos and buy a major media outlet.

---

The activists inside Twitter would rather Burn It Down then let any opposing point of view Go uncensored. It's possible but it is going to be a giant headache for Musk. He'll have to install some hatchet-men to clean house.

This may get interesting. Musk could reach folk hero status if he topples this beast. Zuckerberg needs to be next.

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

She should be under legal investigation for numerous questionable behavior.

---

Your US Marshal contacts tell you about that Ms. Delriego?


Musk needs to start his own platform and put Twitter in the ground.

---

Taking over Twitter would be FAR more effective. Twitter already owns the market and trying to take it down would be extremely difficult. If you own it though it would not only fix the problem it would scare the crap out of all the other social media companies as they realize there is a consequence. It would provide a real alternative.

Just wait until Elon decides to pull a Bezos and buy a major media outlet.

---

The activists inside Twitter would rather Burn It Down then let any opposing point of view Go uncensored. It's possible but it is going to be a giant headache for Musk. He'll have to install some hatchet-men to clean house.

---

Of course it will be a headache but most of those activists are cowards and Musk is one of the few people who actually knows folks smart enough to fix that headache. Fundamentally most people want to do a job not be an activist and those folks have been waiting for a chance to turn on the activists. The real key to Twitter is the brand and user base as well.

Hell, all Musk has to do is bring back Trump and a bunch of conservatives that have been banned and the service would explode. I used to live on Twitter, now I only go there if a link is to something specific and it's the only path. That would certainly change back overnight for me.

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

She should be under legal investigation for numerous questionable behavior.

---

Your US Marshal contacts tell you about that Ms. Delriego?


Musk needs to start his own platform and put Twitter in the ground.

---

Taking over Twitter would be FAR more effective. Twitter already owns the market and trying to take it down would be extremely difficult. If you own it though it would not only fix the problem it would scare the crap out of all the other social media companies as they realize there is a consequence. It would provide a real alternative.

Just wait until Elon decides to pull a Bezos and buy a major media outlet.

---

The activists inside Twitter would rather Burn It Down then let any opposing point of view Go uncensored. It's possible but it is going to be a giant headache for Musk. He'll have to install some hatchet-men to clean house.

---

Where can I apply?

They have firms dedicated to do just that. They are designed to clean up in hostile takeover situations

TexAgs91 said:

---

What can a 9% twitter share owner tweet? Whatever he wants to

pic.twitter.com/l8Ryq7nN38

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 3, 2022

---

I don't get what's happening here.

Twitter likes to censor and bully opposing opinion and fact. Twitter thinks they are untouchable.

Elon Musk said "Hold my beer?" And spent $3 billion to become this single largest shareholder in Twitter, suggesting a possible hostile takeover in the making.

nortex97 said:

---

IDaggie06 said:

---

They are not going to give him a seat on the Board.

---

I really disagree. They have 5 board members. Yes, Dorsey stepped down a ways back (oh btw, because a conservative bought a smaller chunk, though this is under-reported), but the comments from him I quoted/linked above were from last week.

. . . . .

---

From the link above

• Paul Singer's Elliott Management Corp. bought a sizable stake of Twitter with alleged plans to oust CEO Jack Dorsey over Twitter's overt political bias

So Musk has at least one ally, maybe more flying under the radar.

Looks promising. I don't want to get my hopes up but imagine a social media platform that has a level playing field, where everyone can see the good and bad of both parties?

What's depressing is that if it wasn't for Elon, the Republican Party establishment would have done nothing to try to combat bias on social media.

IDaggie06 said:

---

They are not going to give him a seat on the Board.

---

Poopslap?

If he bought his way to a majority share, then addressed the system misinformation problems, I'd absolutely pay to have an account.

Their censorship is my barrier to being a customer, not a price point. So this fixes their business model problem too.

He could fix Twitter socially and make a huge profit in the process.

I feel like he could control the company if he gets close to 30%. Then he will get like minded people to buy in and vote for the people he recommends to the board and completely take over.

I might get one if he runs it.

nortex97 said:

---

Also this tweet from Jack right before Elon buys the shares doesn’t seem disconnected. He knows he’s about to be exposed so is preempting? Something like that… pic.twitter.com/iPUtfexztV

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) April 4, 2022

Maybe you are right, but...10 percent may or may not be his final stake anyway. If Jack Dorsey is already weaseling about...that's a good thing.

---

iowahawk hit on this a while back when he tweeted, "I liked the internet better when it wasn't three sites dividing everyone into two groups."

(Or something close to that.)

Yeah I know that, but the concept still applies. Enough money buys influence. Everyone has the right price!

The other biggest shareholders are Vanguard, Morgan Stanley, Blackrock, and State Street. Those four hold nearly 30%; institutions as a whole hold over 70%.

Not sure what Elliot holds now, but Elliot + Musk could easily hold over half of the non-institutional shares. It's unclear where Silver Lake would come down in a real war over the soul of the company.

This may be the instigating incident where the institutions have to back down from taking partisan political stands, or come completely out in the open about using their financial power to influence the vote.

This is the speech fight of a generation. Get ready to start hearing about Fujiwara, Zittrain, Fowler, Pariser, and a number of other researchers citing impact of social media and censorship on voting patterns. I can't find the guy who had one of the most startling articles….

…and that doesn't even mention the 400+ million Zuckerberg poured directly into local vote-counting apparatuses around the country.

Elon is in the house

thirdcoast said:

---

Musk should post something controversial like "men have peepees, women have vaginas" or "COVID leaked from Wahun Lab". Then when Twitter flags it he should load up on short dated puts and dump his shares.

---

Then buy back until he gets to 50%

Elon Musk should ask his fans to buy a share or two and give him their proxy votes.

As heavily leveraged as Blackrock is in China, Twitter makes a lot more sense in their non stance against the atrocities taken against the Uyghurs in the PRC

Don't know if true, but funny nonetheless.

ETA: Satire most likely.