No matter if you think @yoyoel did an amazing or terrible job at Twitter, or have no opinion at all, what @elonmusk did to him yesterday was both dangerous and disgusting.
It’s the sort of thing that would cause most boards to call a special meeting. But Twitter doesn’t have one
Today in DOGE: friend of a friend just got laid off. Been fed employee for over four years, and got promoted less than a year ago.
But that promotion is technically a “new” role, thus probationary.
In other words, fired because they performed well.
Nothing to see here, just the owner of this site and a presidential candidate chatting it up with a man indicted for rape/human trafficking and another who lied about dead kids to harass their grieving parents.
This may really be the bottom.
Crowdsrike is not a Ukranian company.
It's based in Silicon Valley. It's listed on the Nasdaq.
Its largest shareholder is a private equity firm from which Trump hired his top international econ advisor (who later became Ambassador to India).
If Trump issues an EO to basically overturn the TikTok ban law, what’s to stop him from doing the same with most any other law?
Not a rhetorical question.
No matter how one feels about TikTok, there seem to be some major constitutional issues at play here.
1/ This is silly (as is the hearing). We know where most of @elonmusk $$ came from for Twitter, in terms of banks and outside equity.
2/ The idea that any passive investor can influence how Musk operates his companies runs counter to most of Musk's history.
Plaskett to Jim Jordan: "Americans can see through this. Musk is helping you out politically, and you're going out of your way to promote and protect him and to praise him." She then adds, "there are many legitimate questions about where Musk got the financing to buy Twitter."
