Shareholders like him on the board, and they would be even happier if he were running the company, because an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable.
I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have a lot of experience with running ad sales. His big breaks have been PayPal (kind of), Tesla and SpaceX. None of which were social, none of which were "free".
Also, I think Twitter was undervalued compared to its potential, and Elon wouldn’t be buying part of it if he didn’t think he could turn a good profit.
Unless he was buying a seat on the board so that he could help effect change that he desired.
There are fees when receiving money as a result of selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes (likely most) of its money.
If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who is less likely to return and make more purchases). Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a conference ticket or course fee).
Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal account charges you each transaction (which is false). The new argument is different, which asserts that a vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.
You misunderstand me. I didn't say you got charged extra for paypal over Stripe, for instance.
Stripe which you mention is also expensive, and also factored in to the price. I don't know of any serious eccomerce company that is not acutely aware of card fees. Every payment gateway charges high fees and it is factored in to the price the consumer pays.
I personally would not invest in a company where I cannot trust claims being made by the board.
Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good. Twitter is a public company, but not a public good.
All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction, including those issued by unlisted companies, e.g. start-ups.
I wonder if people who say things like this actually use Twitter. Twitter has far less moderation than the other social media giants. It’s a high school popularity contest, and the cool kids didn’t need blue check marks from the teachers to be cool.
Wow that's very troubling. Can you show some examples of studies, or representative serious anecdotes?
The OP hasn't provided their answer but I'd be interested in your answer too!
> Free speech in this case is code for saying anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons.
I was just curious if the government's guarantee not to censor political speech is just as ill-advised. A quick "yes" would take about 5 seconds to give, or of not, just a short sentence about what the motivation is for keeping the government out of policing political speech. e.g. "If the government can suppress political speech, then..."
Doesn't seem like a huge ask for the curious!