• kitonthenet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is revisionist, that sequence of events was what caused him to start to play footsie with the idea of buying Twitter, the SEC saying that’s a big no-no is what made him actually make the offer to buy it and then he was forced by a court to finish the deal after a long legal battle to not buy it

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      105
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget the part where Dorsey literally conned him by playing to his ego. Jack cashed out almost a billion in cash to himself even though Twitter was close to bankruptcy. It was brilliant.

      • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        What cracks me up the most is that Jack already had a Twitter clone in the works, ready to be released once Musk burns down the old plattform and people wish for Twitter but without Musk back.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bluesky isn’t exactly a twitter clone, it’s what Jack wanted Twitter to pivot to, but the board of directors refused to play ball.

          So Jack spun up a separate entity and explicitly made it its own thing outside of twitter.

          • maaj@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bluesky is pretty dope, but the moment I see ads, I’m nuking my account.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Genuine question: given that running a platform like that costs money, and that money must come from somewhere, what would you actually do if you were in charge of running it? You either take money from advertisers, or you charge users directly, and I’d hazard to guess that if you’d nuke your account upon seeing ads, you probably wouldn’t pay actual money to use it.

              So what do you do?

              • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not the person you were speaking to, but get nationalised or run on donations as a non-profit.

                But I do pay more than my share for most fediverse instances that I use (which reminds me, I use this one enough - should probably make my donation regular)

                • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Honestly, I would love to see a Wikipedia-style social media platform take off, but I really don’t know if the finances could work out. Wikipedia already struggles, and it’s obscenely useful. I don’t think nationalization is really feasible for social media - at least in an American context - because it would be subject to the government’s legal limitations on regulating free speech, which are extremely minimal. A federally run platform would not be able to remove literal unironic Nazism, which is probably going to be a bit of a turn-off to normal people.