The richest man in the world, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, made an offer to purchase the Twitter platform for a price of $41 billion. The offer represents a value of 38% more than the current evaluation. [SEC FILING HERE] The offer is filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission proposing a full takeover for $54.20 per share in cash.
Within the filing Elon Musk states his intentions:
“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy. However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder. Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it. (SEC LINK)
What Elon Musk appears to be doing is perhaps the biggest story that few understand.
I share this perspective having spent thousands of hours in the past several years deep in the weeds of tech operating systems, communication platforms, and the issue of simultaneous users. What Twitter represents, and what Musk is attempting, is not what most would think.
In the big picture of tech platforms, Twitter, as an operating model, is a massive high-user commenting system.
Twitter is not a platform built around a website; Twitter is a platform for comments and discussion that operates in the sphere of social media. As a consequence, the technology and data processing required to operate the platform does not have an economy of scale.
There is no business model where Twitter is financially viable to operate…. UNLESS the tech architecture under the platform was subsidized.
In my opinion, there is only one technological system and entity that could possibly underwrite the cost of Twitter to operate. That entity is the United States Government, and here’s why.
Unlike websites and other social media, Twitter is unique in that it only represents a platform for user engagement and discussion. There is no content other than commentary, discussion and the sharing of information – such as linking to other information, pictures, graphics, videos url links etc.
In essence, Twitter is like the commenting system on the CTH website. It is the global commenting system for users to share information and debate. It is, in some ways, like the public square of global discussion. However, the key point is that user engagement on the platform creates a massive amount of data demand.
Within the systems of technology for public (user engagement) commenting, there is no economy of scale. Each added user represents an increased cost to the operation of the platform, because each user engagement demands database performance to respond to the simultaneous users on the platform. The term “simultaneous users” is critical to understand because that drives the cost.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Twitter has approximately 217 million registered daily users, and their goal is to expand to 315 million users by the end of 2023. Let me explain why things are not what they seem.
When people, users, operate on a tech platform using the engagement features, writing comments, hitting likes, posting images, links etc, the user is sending a data request to the platforms servers. The servers must then respond allowing all simultaneous users to see the change triggered by the single user.
Example: when you hit the “like” button feature on an engagement system, the response (like increasing by one) must not only be visible to you, but must also be visible to those simultaneously looking at the action you took. If 100,000 simultaneous users are looking at the same thing, the database must deliver the response to 100,000 people. As a result, the number of simultaneous users on a user engagement platform drives massive performance costs. In the example above, a single action by one person requires the server to respond to 100,000 simultaneous users with the updated data.
As a consequence, when a commenting platform increases in users, the cost not only increases because of that one user, the cost increases because the servers need to respond to all the simultaneous users. Using CTH as an example, 10,000 to 15,000 simultaneous commenting system users, engaging with the servers, costs around $4,500/mo.
This is why most websites, even big media websites, do not have proprietary user engagement, i.e. commenting systems. Instead, most websites use third party providers like Disqus who run the commenting systems on their own servers. Their commenting systems are plugged in to the website; that defers the cost from the website operator, and the third party can function as a business by selling ads and controlling the user experience. [It also sucks because user privacy is non existent]
The key to understanding the Twitter dynamic is to see the difference between, (a) running a website, where it doesn’t really matter how many people come to look at the content (low server costs), and (b) running a user engagement system, where the costs to accommodate the data processing -which increase exponentially with a higher number of simultaneous users- are extremely expensive. Twitter’s entire platform is based on the latter.
There is no economy of scale in any simultaneous user engagement system. Every added user costs exponentially more in data-processing demand, because every user needs a response, and every simultaneous user (follower) requires the same simultaneous response. A Twitter user with 100 followers (simultaneously logged in) that takes an action – costs less than a Twitter user with 100,000 followers (simultaneously logged in), that takes an action.
If you understand the cost increases in the data demand for simultaneous users, you can see the business model for Twitter is non-existent.
Bottom line, more users means it costs Twitter more money to operate. The business model is backwards from traditional business. More customers = higher costs, because each customer brings more simultaneous users….. which means exponentially more data performance is needed.
User engagement features on Twitter are significant, because that’s all Twitter does. Not only can users write comments, graphics, memes, videos, but they can also like comments, retweet comments, subtweet comments, bookmark comments, and participate in DM systems. That is a massive amount of server/data performance demand, and when you consider simultaneous users, it’s almost unimaginable in scale. That cost and capacity is also the reason why Twitter does not have an edit function.
With 217 million users, you could expect 50 million simultaneous users on Twitter during peak operating times. My back of the envelope calculations, which are really just estimations based on known industry costs for data performance and functions per second, would put the data cost to operate Twitter around at least $1 billion per month (minimum). In 2021, Twitter generated $5.1 billion in revenue, according to the Wall Street Journal.
There is no business model, even with paying subscribers, for Twitter to exist. As the business grows, the costs increase, and the costs to subscribers would grow. So, what is going on?
The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap. The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.
If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.
The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database. The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.
There is simply no way the Fourth Branch of Government, the U.S. intelligence system writ large, is going to permit that discovery.
BREAKING: As @elonmusk offers to buy the rest of @Twitter a legal source tells @FoxBusiness @SECGov and @TheJusticeDept have launched what he described as a "joint investigation" into a myriad of Musk regulatory issues primarily involving @Tesla https://t.co/TDFLED1XuI
— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) April 14, 2022
This guy gets it. 👇 This is the bigger picture dynamic. https://t.co/fsSuMo8Lwl
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) April 14, 2022
And to think…….. this massive exposure started because one man, President Trump, made the personal decision not to concede the stolen 2020 election that he won……..
President Trump: the master “rope-a-doper”, supreme!!!!!!
Our racist government will never allow an African American to buy Twitter.
Especially this one!
Wrong kind of “African”.
Don’t Delete Me, Bro!
Saudi stakeholders have already nixed selling their shares to Musk
And that panty waist limp wristed Justin Trudeau couldn’t WAIT to push that button. Yes … this WILL end in Revolution. Mankind was BORN FREE! As FREE as the wind blows … as FREE as the grass grows …
Now you know why Trudeau panicked hard when he heard the convoy was headed his way.
He panicked even more when his Emergencies Act backfired and has unforeseen consequences such as a bank run when he started freezing back accounts, why did he drop the whole thing only 72 hours after getting Commons approval?
The fact that Trudeau was humiliated by the EU parliament has driven into his pea brain the fear of We the People.
His party’s approval rating was so low he had to do a deal with the NDP to hold off any non-confidence vote and now he’s trying to kill independent journalism in Canada to stop any dissent to his government policies.
If Trudeau pulls that bank account freezing stunt again it won’t be truckers with bouncy castles and hot tubs heading for Ottawa it will be very angry people with torches and pitchforks and no amount of armed thugs in masks and body armour will save him.
The problem the 4th branch of Gov has with Musk is that they NEED HIM.
Musk controls Tesla (BEVs) and SpaceX ( access to Space Station, NASA, DoD, etc…).
Musk is likely the ONLY person, other than Putin and Xi, that can pull this. And he certainly has chosen his time quite well.
Elon Musk may be many things, but stupid is NOT one of them…
But who controls musk?
Musk
His inner voices – and there are many
Space X is the only non Russian game in space town.
NASA is still counting Polar Bears at the South Pole.
Absolutely! I love Elon Musk
He is the most important person in the world today!
He may be saving us all
This is all making sense.
Big Gov is controlling and censoring everything on these platforms.
Big Gov is underwriting Discus, Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies and in return they allow the “ Intelligence community “ to vacuum up all of the details on every customer and to censor anything that is a threat to Big Gov.
Big Gov uses taxpayer money to subsidize and build the systems needed for this.
The social media companies win because there overhead is extremely low so they make billions in profit, the intelligence community wins because they get to control the message.
Looks like Elon has backed them in a corner. 😂
This also explains who actually spent $400 million against Trump.
They want you to think it was Mark Zuckerberg’s but it was probably taxpayer money paid from the intelligence community.
BINGO!
Things are about to get VERY interesting!
So Big Gov is using our money to silence us…sick bastards…[insert photo of Obama toasting with the tech oligarchs]
Big Gov hates us…..loves our money…..but hates us!
Explains why the Saudi’s got involved.
We are not customers on socials, we are the product.
Looks like Elon has backed them in a corner.
True, but there are many corners and they (them) have many options.
don’t forget the “Angry Birds” app when that came out – millions of users jumped on board – “Angry Birds” was a leaky app and the NSA scooped up users’ info
NSA has scooped up all user’s info but they have so much clutter they can’t find anything.
Time to bring in the GameStop disruptors. In addition, I think we will discover that MSNBC and CNN are also funded by the deep state. How do you lose 70% of viewership and remain viable? Even AT&T should be shutting them down on the most basic of business principles. They’re not, and will continue to accept the gov. money.Isn’t it
Infuriating to know the networks and Big Tech who censor and accommodate spewed hate, lies, and disinformation, are being funded out of your severely shrinking paycheck?? As far as these soulless bastards care Trump and good, decent Americans can eat shit, they don’t consider us worthy of being alive.
I am hoping Musk is playing 3D chess here. He’s already got the Twitter brats in a snit, and now the Wall Street bully boys are assembling a posse.
This is where good finally gets to step in front of bad, and says ENOUGH!, we are exposing you at all costs. Let’s hope and do everything we can to assist.
Boycott EVERYTHING Disney, Nike, Twitter Facebook, Woke-a-Cola, the NCAA and a million others. We have the ability to cause major pain. It’s time now Treeps. Resist.
Amen Screaming Eagle! a thousand likes…
I am glad that you included the NCAA . . . why doesn’t the NCAA stand up fir girls in sports . . . what about Title IX?
money is fungible as is evident in recent Ukraine “appropriations”….big money NWO concerns have no problem losing in their propaganda arms as they easily recover more than that in their other areas of operations…..REMEMBER of all the 500 channels you see as a “choice” 6 large mega-corporations own 93% of the Media distribution
But AT&T did just cancel OAN …
Imagine that?
Woke T&T censoring?
I am at such a loss…./ Sarc.😜
So, to paraphrase mr. obama, they didn’t build that. And now they’re coming for elon because he has exposed them.
It is my understanding that Tesla has gathered an incredible amount of data for a self driving AI in the Tesla vehicles that are using that feature. I would say that Musk has some insight into the data processing capabilities that you are describing for simultaneous user engagement. And the fact that the DOJ is going after him would lead me to believe that the government knows that the technology is either here now or right around the corner that would allow Twitter to operate without their subsidy and server space.
That could partially explain their panic – in addition to the exposure of their blatant and criminal violation of Americans 1st amendment rights.
You can’t charge the battery in a Tesla if the doors are open.
I was rooting around trying to find supporting information about Twitter capacity.
In 2015 and 2017 they were bragging about designing specialized equipment to meet their needs.
Like Google and Facebook, Twitter Designs Its Own Servers | WIRED
The Infrastructure Behind Twitter: Scale
In 2018 Twitter was using Google cloud for some things and in 2020 they were “coy about its current data center footprint”
Twitter plans to build out new data center as platform grows – DCD (datacenterdynamics.com)
EMDNKH*
*Elon Musk Did Not Kill Himself
👆My very first thought.👆
My 2nd thought…didn’t the richest or 2nd richest multi-gazillionaire in China get disappeared not so long ago?
I figured there were 4 items at play:
1. Economies of scale when buying 1,000s of servers (better prices & financing)
2. Demand rotates worldwide – not every area is hot at once
3. Wall Street value / perceived value/ paper value – i.e., they’re losing money but worth $2 Trillion
4. Technical tricks and advantages they have with their scale and buying power (do they share server space w / Amazon Wed Services?)
Am I missing something?
The Twitter board can “accept” or “reject” Musk’s offer, in that it can make recommendations to its shareholders and take certain actions in furtherance of those recommendations.
What it cannot do is act in place of the respective shareholders and accept or reject an offer of purchase if a formal tender offer is actally made.
Twit Board has a fiduciary obligation to shareholders. Musk is offering a huge premium over actual value, so I don’t think they can reject the offer without substantial evidence that a 20% premium over street value isn’t a good deal. Vanguard raised its stake in Twit to 10.3 %, making Vanguard the largest shareholder.
What Musk does after this is anyone’s guess. He’s not stupid. This will get interesting.
No disputing that fiduciary responsibility. My point is what “accept” and “reject” do and do not mean in the context of the board’s power.
(Meanwhile, I suspect a lot of arbs are altering their Easter weekend plans.)
I am not a lawyer but, I believe they can. If they were to turn down such a lucrative offer, the shareholders recourse would be to dump the directors at the next required meeting and elect a slate that would accept the offer. The shareholders do hold the ultimate power but, it can only be exercised within the law and bylaws of the corporate charter. Hostile takeovers are possible not purely by amassing a 10% stake or so but, the threat it represents if the holder can get a few other sizable shareholders to see things their way and/or persuade enough outstanding individual shareholders. It usually never gets to an actual vote, the threat being enough. Most hostile takeovers, however, are due to underperformance and it is generally assumed many shareholders would prefer to see a new board and/or CEO to make substantial changes which threatens the old guard clinging to their positions. This, of course, is not a typical hostile takeover, Musk is offering to buy it outright for cash, a tantalizing offer to shareholders and with a premium making it hard for a board to reject if their fiduciary duty is to shareholders and not someone or something else.
Musk is not soliciting proxies in order to alter the board’s composition, effect a merger or a change to its governing documents.
Rather, he’s announcing his intent to purchase all outstanding shares. He needs neither the approval of the board or of other shareholders to do that.
The board’s responsibility is to evaluate the offer and communicate its recommendation to shareholders as their fiduciary.
It has no power to accept or reject an offer to purchase publicly held shares on behalf of those shareholders.
“Most hostile takeovers, however, are due to underperformance and it is generally assumed many shareholders would prefer to see a new board and/or CEO to make substantial changes which threatens the old guard clinging to their positions. This, of course, is not a typical hostile takeover, Musk is offering to buy it outright for cash, a tantalizing offer to shareholders and with a premium making it hard for a board to reject if their fiduciary duty is to shareholders and not someone or something else.”
Twitter’s net profit margin show it only turned a profit between 2018-2020. It seems that came to an end as soon as Trump, whose Tweets were driving massive traffic to the platform after he was elected President, was banned by said platform.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/net-profit-margin
Twitter was willing to throw its shareholders under the bus by banning Trump, so we’ll see if history repeats itself here.
Yep.
Interesting times we’re in.
Go Elon- and whoever’s on your side in this!
Well, trusting a single Derp State hasn’t worked out so well . . .
So social media like Twitter and Facebook are US government/CIA/NSA data mining operations and photo gathering mechanisms. If these are subsidized by the US taxpayer, then Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are in on it? Does that mean Mark Zuckerberg’s 400 million dollar 2020 election donation is originally tax payer money used by the CIA to determine who gets “elected” as POTUS?
It makes sense given how natural enemies like leftisn and Natsec shouldn’t trust each other yet everytime the FIB and CIA have asked for it Twitter and Facebook have been happy to hand over data. They’re working together against us now. My bet is they clamped down the laptop story at the behest of the IC because it harmed their intetests..they got cover with “50 former 7ntel members say it Russian disinformation”. Musk can’t be bought off and he’s unpredictable (like Trump) and therefore a threat.
Well, there are billions at stake.
What would you expect them to do?
TRILLION$…..they spent an additional $6T in “COVID Relief” just last year…..PRC was taking a $500B/YEAR hit under PDJT’s tariffs which Slo Joe lifted
Mark Zuckerberg is getting part of his “election donation” back as he is moonlighting as a female White House Press Secretary and soon to be a MSNBC stooge.
.
I have some questions…
Does twitter have “confidential” contracts with various governments and private entitities that move its decision-making?
Is there any reason twitter could not tie advertising to popular hashtags that contain triggering keywords?
Is there any reason why twitter could not identify “blue check marks” and users with followings over a certain number or transactions over a certain amount, and charge them a few cents per month per follower or transaction in order to recoup costs?
If the U.S. government is subsidizing twitter directly or indirectly, would that not make the entirety of twitter censorship other than illegal content (copyrighted material and obscenity) unconstitutional?
.
“If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.” – Sundance
I didn’t understand much of what Sundance explained but I understood that!!! That explains why President Trump, his supporters, conservatives and Christians are by far the most users who get their account suspended or terminated!!! It all makes sense now!!!! Godspeed Sundance!!!!
Gotta admit, I didn’t have ‘the Saudis own Twitter’ on my Bingo card.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/breaking-saudi-owners-twitter-decline-musks-offer-twitter-stock-tumbling/
They don’t.
AlWahli works for CIA.
Cameron Winklevoss (of the Social Network movie plotline) tweeting with Elon Musk about short of liability risks the board will be facing if they turn down this offer…
https://gettr.com/post/p15c3fs42fe
Apparently, Vanguard and its holdings have raised their share of Twitter to 10.3 %, beating out Musk by 1% of total shares.
Musk made a buyout offer. Gut says that Twit Board will reject it. That said, Musk can purchase shares on open market and gain 51% ownership at far less than 43 Billion. Maybe that’s his plan.
If Musk dumps his 9.2% in one day with a programmed put option, Twit shares might crash, and he could then pick shares up on the cheap with a preprogrammed call option. SEC might be upset, but that’s what lawyers are for.
Musk is not stupid. I’m curious to see what he does. He’s got the money to do it. Way out of my league.
Vanguard Blackrock are the speartip 9f the great reset. The inverse fascist model where business controls government. Sundance is right over the target.
The hidden players behind the great reset and “you will own nothing” are revealing themselves.
“These two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn, are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”
Count Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal amongst this elite.
Sorry, but Vanguard is not owned by the richest families in the world. Vanguard has a unique management structure where the individual mutual funds own Vanguard. And hundreds of millions of individuals own Vanguard mutual funds through 401k and IRA accounts.
Thanks again, Sundance for the valuable insight.
What does this reality say for the business model of Truth Social?
There is a viable business model – they just need to flip the public consciousness of it.
A user pays a fee which gives them “XXX” amount of engagement. Once that engagement threshold is reached, the user fee increases.
Ex. 0-100 followers costs $5/mo. 100 to 500 followers costs $10/mo. 500 to 1,000 followers costs $20/month. 1000 to 5,000 followers costs $40/month. 5,000 to 10,000 followers costs $80/mo. etc. etc.
The cost wouldn’t actually be based on followers, it would be based on user engagement activities. The more engagement rises the more the user would have to pay.
The user would go from a container with X-capacity to a container with XX-capacity, to a container with XXX-capacity etc.
That’s the only sustainable business model for a technology system that is based on simultaneous users and engagement.
.
This is helpful.
A lot of people would not like this, of course, but it sure would clear out some of the nasty immature and bots. The fees would not be unreasonably expensive, but yes it would require a perspective shift. It also further would eliminate privacy because a credit or debit card would have to be tied to the account.
… brings me to another question. When twitter started, it went around buying up similar little businesses, blogging platforms, and such that could have been viewed as competitors. With a non-viable business model, who funded this, and why…
.
This would stop the bots.
This would also make the debate more legit as well because now it’s just real people with different perspectives.
Plus there are a number of people that just want to read posts from people they like/trust. It seems you move ads at those that don’t really want to post or have any super active followers?
Maybe. Or the Feds would just fund the bots.
Analogous to SaaS cloud subscription model… subscriber pays more as usage increases in direct proportion.
Elon Musk must be channeling someone with this move..
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1514707666764972034
according to business insider …..the very woke vanguard…..just increased its share of twitter from 8.8% to 10.29%…….hmmmmmm……
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/vanguard-just-became-the-largest-twitter-twtr-stock-hold
.
Which leads me to another question. WHY. There are better investments.
This is all very disturbing.
.
That amount is miniscule to vanguard. Mere pittance.
Vanguard is the beast…4th branch, SES, deep state, or however you prefer to describe them?
Taken all together, this is my conclusion.
I keep finding myself defending Vanguard.
Vanguard is not the same type of company that Blackrock is, and should therefore not be painted with the same brush.
In simplest terms, here is a ‘copy & paste’ from a post found on Reddit, which shows the difference:
“Vanguard is owned by its funds. The company’s different funds are then owned by the shareholders. Thus, the shareholders are the true owners of Vanguard. The company has no outside investors other than its shareholders.
Blackrock, on the other hand, is a publicly traded company. Other people own Blackrock and have interests of their own. That means there is no shareholder/investor conflict of interest in Vanguard that plague so many other investment companies.
Because Vanguard is owned by its investors, it has a long term strategy. It doesn’t have to satisfy hungry investors every quarter. They don’t have to cut costs relentlessly or release new products every so often.”
The CEO of Vanguard (Gregory Davis) is not involving himself in politics or ‘wokeness’, etc. — unlike Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, who most definitely is trying to set policies world-wide.
Vanguard does have a very different ownership structure so I would also encourage people to do their own research before making assumptions. However, the CEO is not Gregory Davis. The CEO of Vanguard is Mortimer (Tim) Buckley. Greg Davis is a Managing Director and CIO. Here is a link to the entire management team:
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/sets-us-apart/our-management-team.html.
I stand corrected, as you’re right. Tim Buckley is the CEO of Vanguard. Greg Davis is the CIO.
Still, the balance of my post is accurate.
Vanguard is not the boogie man. Blackrock is.
With a wave of vanguard’s magic wand? it buys shares to counter Elon Musk.
https://investorplace.com/2022/04/vanguard-just-became-the-largest-twitter-twtr-stock-holder-heres-why/
The increase in shares of Twitter held by Vanguard were purchased sometime in March — well before Musk’s recent action.
FTA: According to an amended 13G filing, Vanguard now owns 82.40 million shares of TWTR stock, which equates to a 10.29% stake. That’s roughly 12 million shares more — or 17% — than when the firm last reported its stake in the company back in early February. Vanguard is now the largest shareholder of TWTR stock, beating out Elon Musk.
Recognize that those shares were purchased by individual investors (clients), or by Vanguard Fund Managers (mutual funds) who are managing the mutual funds owned by individual investors (clients).
All this ‘Vanguard bashing’ is misplaced. Instead, investment firms worth bashing are Blackrock, Bain Capital, etc.
I am not a fan of BlackRock but they too offer and manage various mutual funds, ETFs, and closed end funds. I assume their ownership of Twitter is via these funds. Investors buy and own shares of the funds.
Google Lite: DuckDuckGo Announces Purge of Independent Media – “Only MSM Allowed” – News Punch
“From now on, only trusted, established journalists like DARPA, CIA and NSA!”
17 Intelligence Agencies Continue to Agree!
Dumped the duck. They were originally promoted as the anti Goolag. Another lie.
Me too!!
What are you using, if you don’t mind.
All of these are metasearch engines.
Dogpile. https://www.dogpile.com/
“Each search engine has its own method of searching and each will return different results. Dogpile looks at all of them, decides which are most relevant to your search, eliminates duplicates and reveals them to you. In the end, you get a list of results more complete than anywhere else on the Web. ”
Mamma: https://www.mamma.com/
Metacrawler: https://www.metacrawler.com/
startpage seems to work well. There are other new ones that I know n nothing about.
Same
Thanks for posting your comment about DuckDuckGo.
I found another search site.
Thank you.
Given Tesla’s history of government subsidy, I find this comment rather ironic.
Musk is an enigmatic figure. He is at the tip of the spear in transhumanist technology that could be weaponized in the worst of ways, yet his speech — and now increasingly his actions — suggest a humanist worldview. In his defense, the argument could be made that, given the inevitability of transhuman technology, and given a choice, would it be preferable to have that technology developed and controlled by the technocratic elite whose anti-human motives are known, or by an enigmatic maverick with the potential to be a new “founding father” of sorts for human liberty?
I need to see more. This battle for Twitter will hopefully provide much of what needs to be seen.
At least Elon Musk is very public about Tesla’s government involvement. Twitter, not so much.
“If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.”
Folks, that’s OLD NEWS! For years, David Knight has been talking about how the US Government is involved with and behind Big Tech. He talked about how DARPA was behind LifeLog, better known as Facebook. He talked about how the CIA’s front venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, gave seed money to the tech giants. In-Q-Tel picked the companies that would receive seed money; pitted them against one another; then sat back to see which scorpion would emerge from combat with the others. What, you think that Google, Twatter, Fakebook, et al, were organic? You thought that Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and company did it all themselves? If so, I have a bridge I’d just LOVE to talk to you about… 🙂
Did you just expose all that to the world?
No.
Elon is poised to.
He’s to the tech-government cabal what Donald J. Trump was/is to the UniParty government in D.C. — so is he a good guy or a willing participant in the screwing of the USA. Wow, everything is becoming clearer and clearer and muddier and muddier. Be careful, Elon!
Im not a twit, so I never looked around at twitter to see if there was any advertising. Since there isnt, this all makes perfect sense. Watching the DC communists and their ministry of propaganda scramble to get ahead of this will be cheap entertainment. Watching them go after Musks business interests demonstrates how truly evil and corrupt DC is.
Musk may have had this Twitter goal in the back of his mind when he set up Starlink. Did he have the Starlink thing in mind when he built rocket ships?
He may be 10 steps ahead of anyone else.
But I fear the “Mike Tyson punch” from the gooberment may wreck his plans.
Just read Thoma Bravo is considering offering a bid. Here’s some big business grabbing more control.
… livin’ in interesting times …
Best known as a Chinese curse . . .
This makes perfect sense. I skimmed a WSJ article that had popped up on my phone: the just was Elon might not be able to get the “cash” without paying a huge tax bill because he probably couldn’t get a loan against his Tesla shares (I guess there’s some Tesla rule where executives can’t take a loan against more than 25% of their shares)
I didn’t dive too much into it, but my gut reaction was the WSJ position was garbage – I now know why they’d publish something so significantly BS – Elon can get the money, period.
Plus if u recall a couple of months ago musk sold more than 2o billion $ of Tesla. Most to pay his tax bill but kept around $ 10 billion for pocket money.
Twitter is a means of controlling the populace by controlling that which is discussed.
just like the slaveholders of yore who wouldn’t allow their slaves to read, write or own books . . . . Bibles in particular.
This was also true of catholicism thru the dark ages….
Priests would read scripture in Latin with their backs turned to the congregation.
And nobody would be able to understand it. Even today, the RCC picks and chooses what to read and forces people to participate in unholy sacraments aside from marriage which is in the bible. Baptism is also in the bible, but nowhere does it say that babies should get baptized.
Larry Fink, Uber Tribe progressive is behind the scenes on this doing whatever it takes to keep a hard left suppression vehicle from falling into the wrong hands… He will bankrupt this company and sell it for a dollar to BLM to insure Musk doesn’t get it…
the threat Elon Musk poses to the 4th branch would be the reason that I just read that today the alphabet agencies launched an investigation into certain aspects/practices of Tesla. they will use every dirty trick in the book to bury him
50 former Intel officials say Musk is Russian asset…..board says can’t sell. Or something like that.
If anything, I think Musk is working with the Deep State. He’s taking Twitter private to preserve Twitter for the Deep State. It’s also rumored that he’s smuggling weapons into Ukraine to be used against the Russians. So I don’t think Musk is on “our side”.
Well then, we should find out which side Musk is on then. These are interesting times.
I think the model of interpretation for Twitter is being misunderstood.
Aka it’s being compared in use/programming treehouse running a single database that calls loads based on every article vs Twitters call modeling.
Manhattan vs WordPress in thinking.
By example, I would guess treehouse spends a considerable amount of dollars and hardware on just supporting the comment section of the site. Where in twitters overall architecture less than 40% is committed to actual data storage (of all types).
Everything is scaling towards big data because analytics are more valuable than any currency. In the case of Twitter their business isn’t speech, it’s human predictability and how to steer masses. That’s their value!
Free speech or censored speech will be irrelevant to that business model.
We’re very VERY naive in our thinking.
Prince ,AlaWeed, …you know, is panicked to his top table cloth. This guy is pure evil. Watch your 6 Elon!
Common sense suggests that that the govt is involved with all the major tech companies
This one sentence from Sundance’s article is essentially a sums up the service: “The servers must then respond allowing all simultaneous users to see the change triggered by the single user.”
The one major TECHNICAL feature missing that supports his theory about the US Government’s involvement is that “every individual transaction has to be processed and displayed in NEAR REAL TIME across 300 million users.”
Now do “free” internet pornography.
So then, 42 U.S.C. section 1983 should be applicable to Twitter.
That would mean anyone who has had their constitutional rights violated by Twitter (through censorship, denial of services, etc.) would have redress under the 14th Amendment pursuant to the Civil Rights’ Act of 1964 for money damages and, perhaps, punitive damages.
What you need for section 1983 to apply is a state actor. If the veil drops and in reality Twitter is a state actor, section 1983 applies. There is often litigation over whether a given entity is in fact a state actor and it is a question of fact. They would deny it, but imagine the discovery process.
NSA. They’ve got you covered:
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
How do astronauts get to and from the space station?
Only two options. Russia or SpaceX. 😉
Elon Musk is rich via partnership with the US government (Space X, carbon credits) and China (doubling Tesla production, recent remarks about how great China is). He is a trans-humanist. He promoted drilling during the winter simply to raise his stock. After all, a guy who claims time and again he doesn’t want to be a messiah, by definition wants to be the messiah.
If Musk owns Twitter, it will only help people worship him more. He’s not Cincinnatus. He’s a fascist, 100 percent.
That everyone is on board with him proves the genius of our founders. Human beings love kings, love authoritarians, love to be ruled.
Musk is not pro freedom. He’s not pro democracy. He’s pro Musk.
I remember very similar things said of Trump during the 2016 campaign by the conservative punditry of the time, which turned out to be inaccurate. I hear your skepticism and share it to a degree, but I’m also willing to embrace the possibility that his motives are legitimately libertarian. If trans-human technology is inevitable, would we rather it be spearheaded by authoritarians or libertarians? Would we rather it be forced upon us from a top-down technocracy or simply made available to us in the free market to democratically decide how to use? Is Musk on the authoritarian of libertarian side of that spectrum? I don’t know, but I’ve seen enough to want to see more in order to find out.
yes. we are paying for it. paid to “develop” it, too. like fb, it is a public thoroughfare. they have no right to ban anyone just cause they disagree with them. worse, it is used to secretly handle data ds/cabal want to handle (think coordinating action, cp etc). and track all users. he threatens to drag it all out… if they wont sell it, shareholders must vote out the board. then try again.
Elon responding to shareholder Alwaleed (of Las Vegas shooting fame and DNC piece) who claimed the price wasn’t high enough…
Looks like poking people in the eye can become additive.
Frank J. Fleming: “Elon Musk has also offered to buy CNN+ for twenty-eight bucks.”
“I made ’em an offer dat ‘dey can’t refuse.” _ Elon Corleone
CNN+ isn’t worth 28 cents.
I believe that musk and these other tech billionaires are just front men for whoever owns the shadow government and deep state. Must probably wants to take it private so that it can be completely controlled by the deep state. Don’t take what people say as being the real story . Using private corporations to do what public government cannot do is the typical modus operandi of the shadow government.
This is one of the most mind-boggling articles and if it has any truth (and it sounds like it is definitely a possibility) there would be so many ripples and ramifications from a heavy government subsidy of social media and from the knowledge that it is government who is the underpin of social media.
It would mean that those people that Twitter banned or shadow banned were de-platformed at the direction of government. The US government itself has targeted conservatives, targeted anyone who questioned the CDC or Covid, targeted President Trump, and nationalist leaders worldwide.
This raises all kinds of questions in my mind. Is this on behalf of the Democrat Party or is it bigger than that, since all these social media companies are international organisms? Is this on behalf of the WEF Davos crowd with their involvement, their subsidy also?
And who is running this? What organization in the US government is large enough, with enough hidden funding, to run something like this internationally?
It’s a public-private partnership. 🙂
So what about section 230? How can 230 immunize against liability if Twitter is government, even a part owner?
Which is just a euphemism for fascism. That’s what’s really going on here. It’s the means whereby the government launders all its activity that would otherwise be illegal. The First Amendment prohibits government censorship of free speech? They just create a “private company” to do the dirty work for them.
You are absolutely right. People keep saying we are moving towards communism, however, it is really fascism. This form of governance is in its infancy in the US and was begun by the Obama regime.
The government’s response to Covid-19 brought it out into the open for all to see.