Zebeth Media Solutions

elon musk buys twitter

Elon Musk, disaster artist • ZebethMedia

We’re at the point in the Elon Musk/Twitter debacle where the fact that it’s a shit show is our new normal, and anything that resembles a normal functioning tech company or leadership is more newsworthy than the inverse. But even as we take for granted that Musk’s rule will continue to tend towards chaos, it’s worth stepping back to look at the billionaire executive’s history of inciting catastrophe as a preferred method of doing business. Crises lead to an acute need for solutions Musk has always positioned his businesses as being intended to serve the long-term interests of humanity as a whole, and to his credit, he has always seemed to genuinely believe that to be true, a trait he shares with Superman — but also with Lex Luthor. In doing so, Musk is tapping into something often used as a unifying motivator behind great effort in disaster and alien invasion films: Namely, that if we face an existential threat, we’re more likely to face it as a unified force capable of superhuman feats. Starting with Tesla, Musk’s businesses have all been positioned as solutions to monumental problems that ultimately threaten the long-term survival of the human race. X.com, which would become PayPal, is probably the exception to that rule, but the fact that it’s an exception in more ways than one is probably much more prescriptive about everything that comes after than anything else. Tesla was intended to help humanity avoid the existential threat of climate decay — particularly at the hands of carbon emissions, by becoming the first company to effectively build electric vehicles at mass market scale. SpaceX is a different approach to the same problem — a means to “make humanity an interplanetary species” that imagines a future state in which Tesla and related climate change mitigation efforts have, at best, bought us extra time to get off this festering dirt ball and to another (even less hospitable though?) celestial body like Mars. Musk has also founded not one, but two organizations for the purposes of combatting a threat many would consider even more far-fetched, but no less existentially challenging should the worst-case scenario come to pass: namely, artificial intelligence. Aiming to take an approach to artificial general intelligence that worked more on influencing the direction of its development, Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015 alongside former YC President Sam Altman and others. While he no longer seems directly involved in that organization’s day-to-day operations (he left the board in 2018), Musk also later founded Neuralink, a startup focused on the more ‘practical’ (insofar as the word has any meaning in this context) application of creating an implantable brain computer to help people augment their intelligence in a bid to keep pace with AI’s eventual presumed supergenius powers. Messes as macro- and micro-motivators As much as Musk uses looming global threats as consistent base notes that hum threateningly in the background of all his businesses, he also employs specific, immediate crises to ‘motivate’ his employees for fast (and often reckless) change. To be fair to Musk, it looks like often these crises arose from the same kind of brash hard-charging that you could say allowed him to break his way into businesses like the automotive and aerospace industries, where entrenched interests and high-costs have typically meant newcomers didn’t last long. Musk has specific intelligence and talents that have contributed to his success, but preparedness and planning aren’t among them, based on my longtime observation of his career. Some leaders, as they proceed in their career, seek to shore up their shortcomings through training and self-improvement: Musk, I think, saw the power that chaos creates and chose to go in a different direction, frequently architecting the disasters that prompt abrupt transformations and fire-drill urgency in his own teams — and that further his business interests when it comes to public policy, too. Author and tech industry critic Paris Marx famously pointed out that much of Musk’s hyping of his proposed hyperloop technology was actually about defraying support for the high-speed rail project in California, framing much of his work in transportation as amounting to attempts to “stifle alternatives” to individual car ownership, and by extension, Tesla. Perhaps the most insidious (but also arguably effective) way that Musk wields disaster as a motivator is in moving his employees to action. The Tesla Model 3 production process is a prime example: Musk himself described it as “production hell” in the early days, and was frequently found sleeping on factory floors while trying to rally his workforce around the challenges they faced. But much of the challenge was down to a decision on Musk’s part to eschew a traditional auto assembly line approach in favor of ultra-dense and ultimately unworkable automated robotic assembly units. On its surface, that was a big bet that didn’t quite pay off despite Musk’s best efforts. A more critical observer might argue, though, that Musk chose a much riskier path to the detriment of his workforce because he knew he’d be able to recoup a lot more sweat equity once they were in crunch mode regardless of the outcome of the automated play. Twitter: Elon’s calamity masterpiece Elon’s piece-de-resistance so far has to be Twitter, however, when it comes to causing massive problems and then putting added responsibility on people under his supervision. From the start, when he cleared house by laying off half the workforce (with predictable ripples in terms of knock-on infrastructure effects, not unlike when Thanos disappeared half the Marvel cinematic universe) he’s being sowing chaos. For the past couple of weeks since then, it’s seemed like he’s been introducing new disasters almost daily, including sprint product introductions (and rollbacks), sudden reversals in the company’s work-from-home policies, and just today, an ultimatum essentially promising those who remain significant overwork. Musk clearly thrives in a chaotic milieu, and Twitter is the best example yet of him architecting the landscape exactly to his preferred habitat. In the process, he’s also revealed much more about

Fake Twitter accounts flock to blue check mark chaos • ZebethMedia

Elon Musk’s mercurial leadership and half-baked product plans are already creating fertile ground for confusion on Twitter. We’ve lost count of how many times Musk has changed his mind or offered contradictory claims about what a new paid $8 verification badge would do, but after pushing the feature live, fake accounts are seizing on the chaos. Twitter’s bought blue check marks are now available for some paying subscribers, injecting the timeline with tweets that appear to be from official accounts. And apparently Musk’s Twitter skeleton crew made no meaningful changes to the visual language of the blue check, so right now it signals that you’re either really who you say you are — @CocaCola, for instance — or you’re somebody random who just coughed up $8 and got a stamp of approval. Now when tweets appear in Twitter’s timeline it’s impossible to visually distinguish the two categories of blue check accounts from one another. Doing so would require clicking through to examine a user’s follower count, which isn’t necessarily a reliable way to tell, or searching for whatever clues might be found in their other tweets. Clicking on the check mark itself from a profile page apparently displays different copy too, but like everything on Twitter right now, that is subject to change. So far this has resulted in some quick attention for an account impersonating LeBron James, which announced that the basketball star was requesting a trade away from the Lakers. A few other athletes got the same treatment, including baseball pitcher Aroldis Chapman and NHL player Connor McDavid. Following sports transactions and news could become a total mess with the new verification system Already fake LeBron and Aroldis Chapman tweets going around pic.twitter.com/vQgMqws1W0 — Joon Lee (@joonlee) November 9, 2022 As we’ve reported, Musk has already changed his mind a number of times already on the scheme to get rid of bots and spam by making people pay $8 a month. But now that the feature is suddenly live, anyone can impersonate someone else for $8 a month and see their content boosted algorithmically without any vetting. (Though apparently that paid perk, like nearly all of the “new” Twitter Blue’s features beyond the blue check mark, is “coming soon.”) All of those accounts are suspended now, but only after the tweets gained traction and caught the attention of Twitter moderators. With one half of the staff it was previously operating with, it’s impossible for Twitter to catch all of this stuff after the fact if it doesn’t have any interest in vetting at the time of payment, which Musk apparently doesn’t. The implications for Twitter as a reliable news source and the potential for abuse here is massive. Musk held off on his haphazard plan until the day after the U.S. elections, but with many races not yet called we can definitely expect to see confusion that’s orders of magnitude more consequential than a fake basketball trade. Misinformation potential aside, Musk’s plan also undermines the presence of celebrities — one of the things that makes Twitter interesting for the average user. If Twitter users can’t even reliably find prominent people like athletes, politicians and movie stars to follow, the platform’s value is going to fall off a cliff pretty fast, with its advertising revenue not far behind.

Elon Musk sells 19.5 million Tesla shares worth almost $4 billion • ZebethMedia

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is selling millions of Tesla shares again. The celebrity executive disposed of 19.5 million shares Tuesday, which is worth about $3.95 billion, according to three filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Musk did not take to Twitter to explain why he sold shares, but it’s possible the money will go towards his $44 billion deal to buy the social media platform, which went through last month. In April, Musk also sold around 9.6 million shares of Tesla stock, which at the time was worth $8.5 billion. Those shares were sold at around $885.42. Since then, Tesla has issued a three-for-one stock split, bringing the cost of each share down. Musk sold shares Tuesday at an average price of $202.56 each. Tesla is currently trading at $191.30 after hours.

Musk’s $56 billion Tesla pay deal goes to trial amid Twitter overhaul • ZebethMedia

As if Elon Musk didn’t have enough on his plate, the world’s richest man is headed to court next week to defend his $56 billion Tesla pay package. Richard Tornetta, a Tesla shareholder who filed suit in 2019 to rescind Musk’s 2018 pay deal, claims the package — “the largest compensation grant in human history” — is unjustly paid to Musk without demanding he focus entirely on the carmaker. The trial begins November 14, yet another drama Musk will have to juggle as he works to overhaul Twitter. Musk’s deal to buy the social media company went through at the end of October, and since then Musk has set to work laying off swathes of employees, getting sued for said layoffs, and generally scheming out loud on the platform about charging users $8 per month to get a blue tick next to their names. The Twitter buy didn’t exactly help Musk’s case in the lawsuit over his pay package. Aside from Tesla, Musk already serves as CEO of SpaceX, the Boring Company, OpenAI and Neuralink. With Twitter, Musk will only lend credence to Tornetta’s claims that Musk is a “part-time executive” at Tesla. Tornetta also claims the board set low bars on performance targets for Musk and that the grant was “demanded for the avowed purpose of colonizing Mars (the planet).” Tesla has said Musk’s pay package delivered a 10-fold increase in value to shareholders. The trial will be decided by Kathaleen McCormick on Delaware’s Court of Chancery. McCormick oversaw Twitter’s suit against Musk that ended in him agreeing to close his $44 billion deal, an acquisition which he financed in large part by selling his Tesla stock. The grant ‘defied its goal of focusing Musk on Tesla’ Tornetta’s lawyers argue the 2018 package did not achieve its stated purpose of getting Musk to focus on Tesla, and no wonder — there were no provisions requiring Musk to devote time or attention to Tesla, nor were there provisions limiting Musk’s allocation of time or attention to non-Tesla endeavors. “Indeed, Musk testified that since the Grant’s approval, he has spent a little more than half his time on Tesla matters and has dedicated substantial time and attention to various other endeavors,” the lawsuit reads. Musk’s lawyers responded that his ambition is what makes him unique as a CEO, and that he does not punch a clock to determine time spent at the company. The disputed pay package allows Musk to buy 1% of Tesla stock at a discount each time performance and financial targets are met. If they aren’t met, Musk gets nothing. Tesla hit 11 out of 12 targets, according to court papers. “In any event, under the proposed plan, Musk would not earn any compensation at Tesla unless he drove tremendous growth, which could not be accomplished without significant time and attention from the CEO,” said Musk’s lawyers. The suit against Musk also claims the package was not entirely fair because Musk controls the board. “None of the committee members were independent of Musk,” wrote Tornetta’s lawyers. For example, Kimbal Musk, Musk’s brother, sits on Tesla’s board — a pretty clear conflict of interest. Tornetta’s filing also points to former board member Antonio Gracias who the plaintiff describes as a close friend of Musk’s. Gracias, personally and through his private equity firm, has collectively invested over half a billion dollars in “essentially all of Musk’s entities,” according to the filing, including PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity, The Boring Company and Neuralink. In addition, the filing calls out Ira Ehrenpreis and James Murdoch, who are both still on Tesla’s board, as being personal friends of Musk and investors in Musk’s entities. Gracias, Murdoch and Ehrenpreis are also listed among the defendants on the case.

Elon Musk refutes Twitter layoff timing to affect year-end compensation • ZebethMedia

Elon Musk, Chief Twit, has refuted claims from a New York Times report this weekend that states he plans to lay off employees before Tuesday, November 1, thus cutting staff off from receiving stock grants as part of their compensation. In response to a tweet from Eric Umansky, deputy managing editor of ProPublica, that said Musk was “making sure to fire people at Twitter before part of their year-end compensation kicks in on Tuesday,” Musk said: “This is false.” He didn’t provide any clarification about what, specifically, was false. Umansky’s tweet included a screenshot of a highlighted portion of the NYT story that also noted stock grants make up a significant portion of an employee’s pay, and by laying off workers before that date, Musk may avoid paying the grants. Musk did not respond to ZebethMedia’s request for clarification on whether the layoffs will affect stock compensation. He may very well have been refuting the entire NYT article, which stated Musk is said to have ordered job cuts across the company, citing “four people with knowledge of the matter.” But that seems unlikely, given the layoffs that are already underway. Previous reports said Musk would layoff 75% of Twitter’s staff, but last week when the executive visited Twitter headquarters, he said those numbers weren’t correct. Still, reports have been surfacing about various layoffs at the social media company, including of top Twitter executives like CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, General Counsel Sean Edgett and Head of Legal Policy, Trust and Safety Vijaya Gadde. Musk’s $44 billion deal to purchase Twitter went through late on Thursday last week. The New York Stock Exchange stopped trading Twitter’s stock on Friday morning, where it had been listed since 2013. Twitter will officially be delisted from the stock exchange on November 8. Current shareholders will be paid $54.20, Musks’s buying price, per share. It’s not clear how Twitter’s now-private status will affect current employees with stock grants.

Subscribe to Zebeth Media Solutions

You may contact us by filling in this form any time you need professional support or have any questions. You can also fill in the form to leave your comments or feedback.

We respect your privacy.
business and solar energy