Musk actually buys Twitter.

[Cherico]

Musk has apparently been extremely aggressive in slashing Twitter expenses by refusing to pay for a lot of things where he thinks they won't actually call his bluff and/or he can argue contract technicalities.

Since they litterally spent years censoring anyone they didn't like good fuck those guys they completely and utterly deserve this kind of treatment.

 

[Husky_Khan]

The Commentator Dave Rubin had a long thread from his visit to Twitter Headquarters.



Apparently there is a lot for the engineers to "fix" when it comes to Twitters software and coding and the like.



and



Seems like quite the mess to untangle.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Since they litterally spent years censoring anyone they didn't like good fuck those guys they completely and utterly deserve this kind of treatment.

I fail to see how business services -- not even "partner" businesses that had anything to do with Twitter content per se -- who had nothing to do with any of Twitter's decisions "deserve" to be screwed over.

 

[shangrila]

I fail to see how business services -- not even "partner" businesses that had anything to do with Twitter content per se -- who had nothing to do with any of Twitter's decisions "deserve" to be screwed over.

Seems to me that fighting against a takeover was not in service to Twitter the corporation but rather to the board and management personally. Especially if, as everyone says, Musk was taken for a huge ride, and his offer was vastly better than deserved.

 

[Terthna]

So whatever happened with that poll Musk made asking if people wanted him to step down from controlling Twitter?

 

[shangrila]

So whatever happened with that poll Musk made asking if people wanted him to step down from controlling Twitter?

He said he would step down as soon as he found a satisfactory replacement . . . which is exactly what he had said even before the takeover went through.

 

[Bacle]

So whatever happened with that poll Musk made asking if people wanted him to step down from controlling Twitter?

Musk ran into the issue of finding a competent, honest, non-partisan, and tech business savvy CEo to replace him is much, much harder than he'd thought.

I think Musk would like to hand off control of Twitter and go back to his other projects, he just hasn't been able to find anyone he trusts to do the job.

 

[Culsu]

Musk ran into the issue of finding a competent, honest, non-partisan, and tech business savvy CEo to replace him is much, much harder than he'd thought.

I think Musk would like to hand off control of Twitter and go back to his other projects, he just hasn't been able to find anyone he trusts to do the job.

Yeah, I think that's Musk's biggest concern right now: he has absolutely zero guarantee that, the moment he turns his back on Twitter, that the appointed CEO won't go back to business as usual since he's most likely a west coast tech lefty. I mean, we already can see how the algorythm is again throttling accounts, how people that have been brought in do the same shady stuff as before (looking at the whole Eliza Bleu situation).

 

[Abhorsen]

So the Russian 'bots' never existed, but now we have proof:

 

[Cherico]

I fail to see how business services -- not even "partner" businesses that had anything to do with Twitter content per se -- who had nothing to do with any of Twitter's decisions "deserve" to be screwed over.

I already told you that I don't care and I don't have any sympathy at all for them.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Seems to me that fighting against a takeover was not in service to Twitter the corporation but rather to the board and management personally. Especially if, as everyone says, Musk was taken for a huge ride, and his offer was vastly better than deserved.

How is, for example, the landlords that actually own the buildings that Twitter's offices lease and occupy in any way "fighting against a takeover"? Or the business jet rental company they happen to use?

 

[shangrila]

How is, for example, the landlords that actually own the buildings that Twitter's offices lease and occupy in any way "fighting against a takeover"? Or the business jet rental company they happen to use?

And why are you going on that, when this line of conversation is specifically on those hired for the legal battle?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

And why are you going on that, when this line of conversation is specifically on those hired for the legal battle?

No it's not. Cherico posted about the lawyers, but I then pointed out it wasn't just the lawyers but part of a larger trend of Musk cutting Twitter expenses by just not paying. He's not actually treating the legal team any differently than dozens of subcontractors and business arrangements.

That, and arguing that it's okay to defraud lawwyers because you don't like them advocating for their clients which is exactly their job, is kinda fucked up anyway.

 

[Buba]

arguing that it's okay to defraud lawwyers because you don't like them advocating for their clients which is exactly their job, is kinda fucked up anyway.

Very leftist in my book - "dey so evul! imma no paying them like totally never!"

 

[Skallagrim]

There are two approaches to this kind of thing. The one rooted in an intuitive sense of justice, and the one based on legalistic considerations.

When it comes to justice, I am most often in the former camp. Because I find that if it feels wrong, it tends to be wrong. Screw the rules; I can sense that forcing someone to pay for the lawyers of his opponents is simply not... just. Let the lawyers send the bill to fucking Dorsey and his pals, and they can duke it out amongst themselves.

 

[shangrila]

No it's not. Cherico posted about the lawyers, but I then pointed out it wasn't just the lawyers but part of a larger trend of Musk cutting Twitter expenses by just not paying. He's not actually treating the legal team any differently than dozens of subcontractors and business arrangements.

That, and arguing that it's okay to defraud lawwyers because you don't like them advocating for their clients which is exactly their job, is kinda fucked up anyway.

Yeah no. Disputing contract termination clauses, which is what all the other examples are, is extremely common. You care about them solely because of leftist media focus, same way leftists go on and on about every Tesla crash.

And my entire point about the lawyers was on who exactly was their client. Please try to keep straight who you are talking to. Pretty hilarious point from a leftist perspective though, seeing how hard leftists have gone after lawyers representing conservatives, trying to get them fired or disbarred.

 

[Bacle]

 

[Megadeath]

Yeah no. Disputing contract termination clauses, which is what all the other examples are, is extremely common. You care about them solely because of leftist media focus, same way leftists go on and on about every Tesla crash.

And my entire point about the lawyers was on who exactly was their client. Please try to keep straight who you are talking to. Pretty hilarious point from a leftist perspective though, seeing how hard leftists have gone after lawyers representing conservatives, trying to get them fired or disbarred.

So, to be clear, you think it's okay to go after a lawyer for poor choice in accepting clients, even funny, but only when it lines up with who you personally think is a bad choice? Surely it's either wrong in both cases, or perfectly legitimate and reasonable in both cases?

 

[shangrila]

So, to be clear, you think it's okay to go after a lawyer for poor choice in accepting clients, even funny, but only when it lines up with who you personally think is a bad choice? Surely it's either wrong in both cases, or perfectly legitimate and reasonable in both cases?

No, I said the Left certainly thinks that. I haven't offered my opinion on the virtue of unilateral disarmament in the context of lawfare, merely on the hypocrisy of any Leftist going on about it.

Other people have offered opinions on retaliatory lawfare, but you should probably also try to keep straight who you are talking to.

 

[Megadeath]

No, I said the Left certainly thinks that. I haven't offered my opinion on the virtue of unilateral disarmament in the context of lawfare, merely on the hypocrisy of any Leftist going on about it.

Other people have offered opinions on retaliatory lawfare, but you should probably also try to keep straight who you are talking to.

Well, perhaps I have misunderstood. In your earlier post, I took you saying:

Seems to me that fighting against a takeover was not in service to Twitter the corporation but rather to the board and management personally. Especially if, as everyone says, Musk was taken for a huge ride, and his offer was vastly better than deserved.

in the context of the post you were replying to, was an argument that the lawyers did "deserve" to be screwed over, whilst I took the general phrasing and tone of your last post:

-Snip- Pretty hilarious point from a leftist perspective though, seeing how hard leftists have gone after lawyers representing conservatives, trying to get them fired or disbarred.

as suggesting you didn't approve of how hard "leftists" had "gone after" lawyers.

Since I'm confused though, for my own edification and clarity, what is your opinion on the validity of pushing for increased repercussions for lawyers who take on cases perceived as frivolous, politically motivated or vexatious?