Best Read Out There Re Musk/Twitter
Monica Showalter has it at American Thinker: Has Elon Musk stumbled into some scandalous truths about Twitter?
Other’s have hinted at this aspect, but Showalter—following Sundance—goes deep. My one reservation is that Musk himself has benefited mightily from federal money, as I understand the situation. Still, subsidies for cars are one thing and subsidies for censoring the information flow to the subject population is quite another thing.
Go read Showalter’s article. Here are a few excerpts to show you why you need to read it:
What Musk seems to have stumbled upon is the argument that Twitter's servers may well be owned by various governments, maybe the Saudis, but almost certainly the U.S. government.
This analysis by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse, who knows tech, points to the oddities:
...
Twitter is not a platform built around a website; ... 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.
Sundance cites the monster data usage the system requires, with no economy of scale -- each new user adds costs, which Twitter seems impervious to. As its user base stagnates, it still makes money, because it avoids those costs. Musk noted the oddity of huge accounts with millions of followers who rarely tweet, asking if the website was "dead," which was a reasonable question, given the previous understanding of Twitter as an entity that makes money based on users to advertise to. This dynamic involving the federal government certainly would explain the absence of rivals to the company -- and perhaps the difficulties that Truth Social has had in scaling its operations. (I just got onto Truth Social this week after a long stretch on the 'waiting list.')
…
The other thing he may expose is scarier:
Twitter shut down the president of the United States, which if it's controlled by the government, while the elites take the profits, it means the government itself shut Trump down. What would be the implications of that, and how the heck could this scandal be corrected? It would show the extent of the rot of the deep state that an entity so closely connected to the federal government could carry out that kind of coup. And that presents a Constitutional crisis. This kind of third-world behavior would have to be exposed by Musk -- and Congress would need to stop it.
I won’t pretend to understand the tech aspect, but I think I do understand the implications of the Deep State—and kudos to Showalter for using the term—controlling Twitter and Twitter’s filtering/censoring activities. Read it and tell me what you think. For my part, I’d have to say I would no longer be surprised if this were true. It would be just one more link in the long chain connecting Big Tech to the Deep State.
I haven’t a clue on the who funds it question. I’m marinating on the article.
I’ve long had questions as to how Facebook could buy up competitors for enormous sums of money when it was still private, and long before it was actually making any money, some before it had any real revenue.
Twitter hasn’t bought up much, but a company loosing hundreds of millions a year, that pre-Musk had accumulated $800million in liability reserves - which based on the footnote appear to be mostly related to shareholder lawsuits - isn’t worth a market capitalization of 10x to 30x its revenue. There is no path to reasonable profit margins, if profit margins at all.
The move to pass a poison pill, almost guaranteed to tank the stock, opens up the door to an insane shareholder class action lawsuit. Since Twitter doesn’t appear able to actually pay it, the deep pockets for individual investors and pension plans are the institutional investors like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street.
I suppose the institutional managers could end up backing Musk’s push to purchase at escape liability, but with a poison pill now on the table, why would Musk offer to buy their shares?
Based on the economics the market value of social media companies have long been detached from the fundamentals. The absolutely hysterical reaction shows neither the board, nor the CEO, seem particularly concerned about causing predictable financial harm to the shareholders, much less running the company in their best interest.
The fact they’d take on the liability and destroy the company by unanimous board vote shows there is something else going on, and almost certainly cabal-style money beyond comprehension.
I've been saying it for years. Twitter is not financially self-sustaining. They are spending a lot of money, constantly, from someone. At this point, it's hard to believe that would be "investors" hoping to someday turn a profit. It makes much more sense that Twitter is doing exactly what it's being paid to do. Like Google or Facebook, but more so. (I believe Google makes a profit.) Who can foot that bill?
As for Musk, that guy's a spook. Rather, he's a front for something spooky.
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf