When your “public square” is a private company, any sulky billionaire can buy it | Hacker News Reader

When your “public square” is a private company, any sulky billionaire can buy it

lithub.com

58 pointsmwattsun108 comments

1) I don't recall much outrage over Amazon's Jeff Bezos, a billionaire, buying the Washington Post; nor that the Atlantic is owned by Steve Jobs' widow. Nor the many other cases of rich and powerful people owning media properties.

2) Is it really that much of a "public square"? Since only about 22% of USA adults are on Twitter; and 80 percent of the tweets come from 10 percent of users (thus 2.2% of the USA population). see https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...

Could it be more that the noisy journalists are on Twitter, but the rest of us don't really care all that much ... ?

> Could it be more that the noisy journalists are on Twitter, but the rest of us don't really care all that much ... ?

Most of the available evidence seems to indicate most of Twitter is bots or people who are indistinguishable from bots because they don't have any opinions of their own. I don't see much loss in Twitter being bought, or ceasing to exist entirely.

It's because we don't actually love the science, it's just what we lkke to say. Elon was the darling until we didn't need him anymore, he talked to the jujitsu guy, and now he is othered.

Private media companies are different from platforms. Twitter, Facebook is more like phone network than a broadcasting or printing company.

Media producers have always been since founding been owned and controlled by someone. I really don't understand why is it different that now a some new billionaire owns it...

The most concerning thing about twitter is the combination of A) people on twitter thinking twitter is representative and normal, combined with B) journalists taking A as gospel.

I love articles on tabloid sites like CNN et al that have a headline of "People are freaking out over X!"

And then the article is composed of 5 random people who tweeted about X.

And all of the people turn out to be bots run by the same propaganda firm pushing a narrative.

Not just CNN, pretty much all of the main media providers do exactly this.

And once they publish the article, other people share it and some portion of people say "I can't believe people are saying X!" without realizing it was 5 bots.

Lather, rinse, repeat, and suddenly you have a "movement" or "trend" from absolutely nothing.

Check out Ryan Holliday's "Trust me, I'm lying" to see how it works.

The Twitter-induced infantilization of journalism isn't even funny anymore. Once I would expect journalists to dig for interesting stuff among their contacts. Sifting through Twitter cannot make up for that.

"What's an invesssstigative journalisssst, my preciouss hobbitsses?" - "Something from the First Age, Sméagol."

there was a fair bit of noise but the comparison isn't really that apt because the Washington post and the Atlantic aren't even metaphorical public squares but publications by and for the chattering classes and moving from print oligarchs to tech oligarchs in ownership is angels dancing on the head of a pin.

> 2) Is it really that much of a "public square"? Since only about 22% of USA adults are on Twitter; and 80 percent of the tweets come from 10 percent of users (thus 2.2% of the USA population.

That sounds pretty sizable to me. "Public Square" is an analogy to a physical space where people would gossip and politic, but that doesn't mean everyone in town engaged in it, and popularity isn't a new thing, it would always be the case that a small number of voices have outsized reach.

> "Public Square" is an analogy to a physical space where people would gossip and politic

I don't think so, as that analogy would mean literally any space where people gather is a public square, including my living room. Typically what's implied by "public square" is that the space is owned by a government, and the public by proxy, and (in the US at least) is bound by Constitutional restrictions that private entities and citizens aren't.

When people say things like "Twitter is the de facto public square" what they're arguing is that Twitter should be considered (or converted into) public property, and no longer be allowed the free speech rights enjoyed by private enterprise, which include the ability to ban users, or moderate or delete content for any reason other than explicit legal necessity.

What is your address? You're open > 12 hours a day to the public right? How many hundreds of people can you fit?

It feels a weird impulse to me, this being persnickety about what is or isnt a public square. We're comparing trees and oh this one is deciduous but this one is evergreen, so these arent the same sort of assemblages... the differences dont justify overlooking the commonality: these are forests. In the macro these are the same.

And the differences dont even match up. There's a number of what would be considered public squares around that are privately owned. There are court cases about planned redevelopment of some thta would end long decades of public use too, & no clear sense of how these challenges will resolve. I see the common forest of the public square in all of these, even if not all are explocitly carefully planned; that the public is there, & has been, & uses it is a more noteable distinction to me. The behavior not the legalese is the dominant characterizer to me.

Its obvious that twitter is the clear & obvious site for the piblic to congregate & mingle online, without any compare.

> When people say things like "Twitter is the de facto public square" what they're arguing is that Twitter should be considered (or converted into) public property, and no longer be allowed the free speech rights enjoyed by private enterprise,

I do think twitter would be better as a public good, & i think any nation with democratic values whatsoever would be actively competing to create equivalent public utilities, to better protect & afford speech more securely & in perpetuity. I think what uou fear is up for debate, far from certainv calling it a town square or public square doesnt meam twitter has no rights. But perhaps we should indeed limit their corporate personhood tonsome degree, in reflection of their emerged nature as a preeminent public utility. Perhaps.

I dont think you can argue against the logic just because you dont like one possible implication. I tend to think the implication is less dire than you project, but I see it all as very much up for debate, not forgone in how it would conclude.

I cant think of anything remotely in twitters caliber where the public of the world can go to freely gossip with one another.

Scientists, authors, journalists, techies.. a huge amount of really smart creative people are on this platform sharing their lives, cool things they find, & discussing topics & current affairs. I can roll up to any given conversation and join it.

I cant think of anything that comes remotely, no where near as serving as effectively as the public square of the world as twitter.

Dinging it because it only has x% would be modestly interesting to engage in of there was anything even faintly as connective, populated, & open to the world. There is not. Remarking that some people have outsized presence mirrors the real world: to expect the world engages in a public square exactly the same way as one another is absurd & a discredit.

Indeed, a public square with a potential reach of 2.2% of US population can probably not be realised anywhere locally (f2f). Back of the envelope guess is that would amount to 6-7 million people in one spot.

1) WaPo or The Atlantic are not so intimately involved in my life. I tweet on Twitter and send DMs and meet people, etc. I consider Twitter personally to be much more interactive and actively engaging than most news agencies.

2) fair point that not many people actually talk there. I wonder how many actually talk in a public square though. Probably a similar minority. The thing about Twitter is that it gets quoted in other media sources—TV, radio, print—anf the conversation doesn't stay just to those talking on Twitter. Yes that happens with NYT articles but Twitter amplifies so much conversation so that what gets spread on Twitter often finds its way to dinner tables.

Moreover, few were willing to regard Twitter as a “de facto public square” when the cancel culture debates were raging. Then Twitter was merely a private company exercising its rights to moderate its platform… which I sympathize with, but also there’s a functional reason to enforce free speech in the public square, and at a certain scale social media is the public square and it’s probably better to protect the rights of the many at the expense of the owner. I suspect if Musk buys Twitter it will reveal some hypocrisy on both sides (some “free-speech” people will advocate for Musk’s right to moderate as he sees fit and other “private platform” people will advocate against moderation).

Of course, whether or not social is “a public square” is not well-defined.

So what rights to Twitter should the people have and what mechanism would be used to enforce those rights? Or has Twitter not reached the scale where you consider it the public square?

I don’t really know what to do with Twitter. I think it could be interesting to regulate social media networks such that they are required to speak some open protocol. Twitter is thus just one portal/view into an underlying network, and they can moderate it how they like but you could also switch to some other portal while continuing to interact with your Twitter contacts. Basically Twitter doesn’t own your content or your connections; you can take that with you if you leave Twitter. But that’s pretty radical; I don’t necessarily advocate it.

"I don't recall much outrage over Amazon's Jeff Bezos, a billionaire, buying the Washington Post"

I do. Everyone from Jacobin Mag to Forbes was asking "Why?" and the implications. Was the tenor as furious as Musk with Twitter? Not really, but I'd argue the nature of the news cycle and the tenor of this purchase is quite different. Bezos wasn't known for endless attention grabbing then (and outside of the occasional messy divorce and space dick flight, still isn't now) and the purchase in appearance was very standard faire, albeit a little anxiety inducing for some folks for its implications.

Musk + Twitter on the other hand, follows a couple of years of Elon's post-Trump style endless attention-grabbing via constant performative jackassery/shitposting/sneering at rules of the "mere mortal" class, and includes his defective approach to following SEC rules, hostile takeover antics, etc.

So the "outrage" (and I'd argue it's less actual outrage and more exasperation at the perpetual circus) is a bit different in that respect.

Right, I too remember so many people discussing how bad it was for humans that Bezos bought the Post, and I don’t follow print media news closely.

The UK/NPR model is the only way to do it right. Media companies simply can't make money, and therefore unless there is public funding it is inevitable we'll end up with a bunch of pet media outfits at the whims of rich tycoons.

Quite right!

This process is exposing the hypocrisy of the Twitterverse. They, the vocal blue-checkmarks, were happy and smug when "their guy" -a billionaire, was setting the tone, now that a different billionaire would set a different tone, they are now expressing concern where before they did would dismiss it with, go set up your own platform and a private company can set its own speech rules!

It's telling when their concern is that he is going to decrease censorship and increase transparency.

22% is absolutely fucking huge

Since the term “public square” originally referred to a gathering place for a few hundred or few thousand people, I think it can be applied safely to a site with nearly 70 million American users.

As Scott Adams recently pointed out, even if we restrict this argument to the US, while the numbers are truein a very superficial sense, it completely misses the fact that this 2.2% of the US population seems to decide what journalists get to talk about, which then affects the entire population.

So it's a bit like arguing bees are irrelevant because they are a small percentage of the animal kindgom, completely ignoring the fact that losing the bees would kill off the whole planet.

I've been around family lately which means I've been hearing FM radio and seeing TV news. The twitter story was being run nonstop for my entire last visit so at one point I asked everyone if they used twitter or knew anybody who uses twitter and the answer was no from everybody. Everyone knew instagram users and tiktok users but no twitter. I myself use twitter sometimes but it's just when I get linked to tweets, I don't actually use twitter for the sake of using twitter. It's really strange to me that it's given so much more legitimacy than other social media sites when hardly anyone is using it.

Just a person who enjoys controlling other people's lives sulking.

I'll gladly take a billionaire controlled public square. Why? Because I can walk away form it. I'm far more worried about: when your "public square" is government controlled, they can do things like, I dunno, invade Ukraine. Have a different opinion? Too bad. Government also has all of the guns.

Are you thinking that private companies & individuals are more moral than governments, or just happy that private companies don't generally have the ability to wage war?

I'm having trouble interpreting what you mean

the latter. monopoly on force and all that

Social media has/had the potential to break the monopoly on force[1]. Granted it was the the form of assembling large groups of cannon fodder into one place to basically absorb ammo and abuse, but it did have some positive effects as well in terms of political change. It could again. I guess what I'm saying is that a monopoly on force doesn't always mean a monopoly on power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

We could just use federated tech like the open web. No one is asking for some government run facebook.

People keep saying this and they keep getting ignored. I don't get it because to me it ticks all the boxes.

So what's the problem anyways? One platform is changing ownership, the open web doesn't care.

There's some lack of diversity in popular platforms. Would be nice to see $43B invested in popularizing Mastodon or some such thing.

I actually don't see any issue with this either. The 1995-2008 web was sorta like this and it was quite beautiful.

The problem these days is people, for better or worse, walk towards platforms.

When the billionaires control the public square, you can be pretty sure they're controlling the government too. So there's no difference between these two scenarios.

Thats a bit detached from reality. Conflating a billionaire spending their money for something that as far as youre co cerned is a different proposition to something the governement can madate and control through their monopoly on force.

Especially when the government is actively working against this specific billionaire, promoting and funneling money only to their competitors (even foreign ones, via tax credit)

They only work happily with SpaceX because it saves them potentially billions per year (and often there is no other option).

Plenty of the laws passed by American legislatures are literally written by corporate lobbyists and promoted by the corporate media, yeah.

Is the corollary to this that if we ever see some faction largely controlling that public square, we can assume that they're also controlling the government?

Not at all. To me it seems like what people on Twitter say has basically zero relevance to what's happening IRL.

I wonder how long it will take for Musk to run for the Whitehouse. Such a good way to have people talk about him even more, he cannot not do it.

Musk can never be the POTUS, because he's not a natural-born US citizen.

Well, at least not until the Constitution is amended to remove that requirement. But it is not likely, I agree.

He cannot do it.

The Constitution places a few limitations on who can be President. One of these is that you must be a natural-born US citizen.

Wow that's a very bad law.

I wonder if changing the constitution will cost him less than buying Twitter.

Wow that's a very bad law.

I don't think so at all. The system is designed so that the American people, in the framework of the system, make it run. There's no need to worry that we only got the 2nd best person in the job, because we're not counting on their excellence to work miracles for us.

While on the other side of the coin, it's still possible for a bad actor in that position to wreak a lot of damage (especially given the historical erosion of controls on government action and the gradual abdication of Congressional oversight).

So it's more important to avert a potential disaster, then to avoid the cost of missing our one potential savior.

you make it sounds like a naturally born Citizen is less likely to be a bad actor. I guess there must be this magic dust falling on the cradles in the US and not elsewhere which makes people be good guys ;)

I think it's assumed that a natural-born citizen is less likely to have a hidden agenda favoring a different nation. Or looking at it from the other side, more likely to have a vested interest in the good of the nation.

That's a pretty poor assumption. In practice people that choose to become citizen of a country are often prouder and more worthy of it than people who just happened to be born there.

Yes, I'm married to one such.

Let me ask you: would you go even a step farther? Should we allow non-citizens to hold the office? If not, why not?

Well each country have their own rules and traditions to decide who can be citizens or not, which give them the rights and duties that come with citizenship, I think it's fine. What bothers me with this law is that it depends on how they became citizen, making them half citizens or citizens on probation, something like that. And I'm sure they don't have half citizen duties.

He was not born in the US. Like Arnold, unless the law changes he won't be able to do it. Unfortunately.

Well if a billionaire controls a public square, I wouldn't consider it a public square.

Edit: one thing that bothers me about HN is the context-less downvoting. I wish people would reply with why they're downvoting. For me, it wouldn't be a public square because it is privately owned, it would be more like a shopping mall or an amusement park. Just because a shopping mall has free admission to the public doesn't mean it is a public space.

Careful with the shopping mall analogy. Someone will inevitably bring up Pruneyard[0] and derail things. I think "a bar" is probably the best analogy out there. There might only be one in town. It's open to the (adult) public. People discuss issues. The barkeep can 86 you if he doesn't like your behavior, or shoes, or politics, and your rights will not have been violated.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

Yes I like the bar analogy better, thank you!

Sounds like Twitter is already government controlled.

Not the US government though… rather, the Saudi government, who hold an unknown but presumably massive portion of the shares.

This feels almost incoherent enough to be AI generated. I'm not sure what the argument being made even is.

Are they mad that Elon wants to buy twitter because he's rich? Are they mad because of his stated position on free speech? Are they trying to point to some imagined hypocrisy in people considering twitter a public square who are also cheering Elon's attempted purchase of it?

In the end the company would just be moving from one set of millionaires and billionaires to another set.

And then what's with the sudden tangent to AI regulation?

> Are they mad that Elon wants to buy twitter because he's rich? Are they mad because of his stated position on free speech?

I think yes to both. But they don't want to just blatantly say it so it's wrapped in some kind of gibberish.

Quite - a lot of words spent to make no particular point that I could discern.

Yes. The headline talks about sulky billionaires but the whole article is sulky.

Both can be true

What is this article about? Is it about the privatization of public space? Because that would be an interesting subject to elaborate on. Is it about your objection to people being self-righteous and "woke" on Twitter? That's much more boring, tough luck and welcome to humanity. Is it about AI? Frankly I have no idea: that part of the article seemed like a wild right-turn when I hit the bottom of the article.

This article is about trying to hammer into the public’s brain the conflation of Twitter and a public utility. Referring to something that a small fraction of the country interacts directly with and an infinitesimal fraction actually contribute to as the public square in order to build support for legislation that would wrangle it into requiring it to reflect their viewpoint.

Social media is the 21st century public square, and it's not just Twitter. 2% of US adults actively posting on Twitter means it's more common for you to see a Twitter user than a ginger on the street. Allowing tech companies (or more pointedly, their board of directors) to control public discourse is a huge error and one I'm sure we'll pay for in due time.

"the law doth punish man or woman that steals the goose from off the common, but lets the greater felon loose that steals the common from the goose"

-17th-century poem

Still holds up.

hmm yes really applies to this situation. Goose commons switcharoo. Really sheds light on the Elon Musk Twitter takeover.

If you don't think it does, you should explain how.

Actually, no. The burden is on mustached to show that it does, not on dcgudeman to show that it does not.

I think the point sweetheart was making is that a sarcastic response without any counterpoint isn't productive. I don't think dcgudeman understood my comment without more context, but i was happy to provide that.

I'm just here to have interesting, productive conversations :)

I'm expressing how the privatization and capitalization of public spaces is as old as america itself -- as expressed in this early colonial poem -- and the Musk takeover of twitter is just another example.

But that begs the question. Is Twitter a public space?

I've promoted this comment of mine since some are saying the article is incoherent. I posted it because:

I took the author to be asking a couple of important questions:

1) Do we want the "Codes of Conduct" and "Mission Statements" of private corporations to be our moral guides? I think a lot of religious people take issue with some of their stances, especially in regards to trans rights. (I am not stating my own opinion here.)

2) An interesting idea about AI that I hadn't considered: Can we have a proper discussion about regulating AI on platforms that are regulated by AI?

I think people are really blowing twitters influence and impact out of proportion. I think theres a small vocal minority on twitter that uses it that think twitter is the world and discourse happens on it. Most people don't use it let alone are even tweeting.

It's funny when people get sulky because someone wants to provide a space force open discussion. Twitter is the place that banned a true news story and interfered in a presidential election. They also ban people for correctly stating a person's sex. If people are cranky, they can build their own.

Personally, I hope Elon Musk buys Twitter and grinds all of the blue checks under a repressive heel, Leto II Atreides-style. When they are banned, I will reflect their "It's only censorship with the government does it *disingenuous look*" and "free speed doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and "it's a private company!" thought-terminating cliches back at them. I want them to feel "silenced" and mocked for complaining, until the value of what they have lost aches like a broken arm. They should be reminded of the disrespect they had for a document written, after all, by "dead white guys."

I often despair and wonder if people as a group tend to only function ethically when they are true underdogs.

While I tend to feel like you do, keep in mind that the hypocrisy runs both ways. While Conservatives were complaining about being gagged by the Left, they were all about free and open speech. But when Trump complains about platforms providing the soapbox for his enemies, it's his supporters that want to wield the gags.

I'm sure that lots of people really do value free speech as such, whether or not it's benefiting them (I know I do, and I don't have any reason to suspect different of you). But it sure seems like at least the activists are only interested in using it as a weapon when it happens to be in their own hands, and stomping it underfoot when the circumstances differ.

Hence my bit about underdogs. The ACLU seemed to fight for a lot more for free speech back when they and their side were not ascendant.

Man I think I subscribe to different twitter channels than you. But what you ended your post with has been proved out time and again. Maybe it is a reason to despair.

He wouldn't do that, but it would be useful for them to understand that's what they are doing right now.

I want those people to feel those things too, but definitely not at the expense of Musk demonstrating petty hypocrisy and breaking his word. It would be enough anguish for them if they could no longer gang up and silence people, and they knew Twitter would no longer help them do it.

Being the way they are, though, I bet they would find another way.

>We go there to make noise about how the world could and should be a “better place.” We go on Twitter to noisily call out strangers...

Do "we"? I certainly don't. A few product updates, feature previews, giveaways and that's it for me.

>Neoliberalism and its incessant privatization of public space also explains social media’s weaponizing of morality. Rather than a digital version of the town square, Twitter is the privately owned space in which private companies and billionaires can compete for public virtue. Rather than real citizenship, that’s the mock political identity of our neoliberal age.

What exactly is this publicly owned web forum which the author pines for? I guess he cannot create it himself, because then it would be privately owned. What is he proposing? A government owned "public" Twitter?

If there is no actual proposal, it is interesting that this issue is now so pressing. When this publicly traded private company was banning and moralizing, it didn't seem to be an issue. "It is a private company, go somewhere else if you don't like it", was the standard refrain. Now when the shoe is on the other foot, the problem is private ownership.

From my side it reads as if Elon has master-level trolled partisans. His stated intent to literally take the company private should have been the first clue.

From my side it reads as if Elon has master-level trolled partisans.

I think that's exactly it. I can't find any other interpretation that makes sense.

Lots of folks are up-in-arms about how he's going to destroy free speech. But since there's no hint from Musks's quarter that anything would be done to limit anyone's speech - more the opposite, that he largely opposes any such limitations - their concerns make no sense. I know it's partisan and uncharitable, but the only way I can find to read it is a fear that the kind of anti-speech limitations that they are accustomed to and they like will be removed. Thus, Musk has trolled them into revealing this secret preference.

There is a weird new trend of redefining "free speech" to mean "speech that doesn't offend me".

indeed. anything you dont like iant free speech, its hate soeech. even if youre the one doing the hating.

Given that some of his products are state subsidized, it seems a bit reckless on his part to upset partisans. On the other hand, he's made it this far in life without my advice. Either way, it is popcorn worthy Internet drama.

He was never on the good side of the state anyways. They buy his services because they're the best and vastly cheaper than anything else, not because they like Musk or want to give him a chance or something. Musk got his chance by himself.

I think it's more that they can't imagine controlling a public speech platform without censoring it to their advantage, so they can't imagine anyone else would not immediately do the same -- to them.

>>We go there to make noise about how the world could and should be a “better place.” We go on Twitter to noisily call out strangers...

>Do "we"? I certainly don't. A few product updates, feature previews, giveaways and that's it for me.

Yeah, this is really a self-inflicted problem. I'm personally a left-wing partisan but I still don't see this problem on my timeline because I curate it. It's maybe 10-20% political topics, but it's ones I care about like war and apartheid, not constant noisy call-outs. The rest is people talking about work, media they enjoy, what happened in their day, etc.

While there's a lot wrong with Facebook and Twitter (especially the things the algorithm decides to force on you), if you use the Twitter chronological timeline, you're seeing the people you chose to follow and the content they post. You can even disable retweets if you find that someone you value is RTing stuff you don't want to see. People need to learn to do everything they can to avoid pointing the toxicity firehose at their own faces.

> "As I write this, the world’s wealthiest and noisiest man has made a characteristically loud public offer to buy the internet’s most memetic social media platform."

There seems to be the idea in some lefty-er online circles that Elon Musk made a "loud offer" to "cause a media circus", "manipulate the market", or even "snub the SEC". They seem totally ignorant of the fact that this offer was made on the SEC's website to comply with their reporting requirements: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...

His past behavior gives strong evidence of these things. If one looks at this offer without any broader context, then sure, it looks like people are making a big deal out of nothing. But that's disingenuous.

You mean the public characterizations of his past behavior, don't you?

I'm not an EM fan but that doesn't mean he always gets a fair shake from the media.

What about announcing it on Twitter along with the trolly memes Elon is also posting about it? If it's not the threshold of "loud" its at least certainly not quiet. By comparison, how many memes did the president of nVidia tweet about hot boxing ARM's board?

Not to say being loud is bad but c'mon. Its only not loud _for Elon_. This is a pretty loud as far as SEC filings go.

Amazing how quickly Musk replaced Trump as the world's noisiest man in their minds.

Lots of idealism about free speech and suchnot. THe public interest however depends utterly on how often the media is use, by whom, and for what. All that matters deeply, at least in how folks view the issue and how they emotionally react. The arguments follow from that.

So no its not ideal, and no, folks have not been free of hypocrisy in their responses, but few issues are completely black and white.

> That’s “like church” some of you might say. No. Twitter is church. That’s why I don’t go there. And it’s why Elon Musk is willing to pay $43 billion to own it. Follow the money. It always leads to one kind of church or another.

There's some leaps here the author takes as self-evident that I don't follow.

This was spraying all over the place.

Why is it acceptable for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to own and control online speech, but not Elon Musk?

Public companies can have voting structures that prevent anyone from just buying it and taking over. Like Alphabet/google, Brin and Page have a majority of voting rights, but only own about 12% of the stock.

That can lead to the Crazy Monarch problem. Monarchy has lots of benefits over democracy but all it takes is one crazy monarch to reverse that. I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we're going to see that with Mark Zuckerberg and his Metaverse gamble.

This article is pretty bad, for example:

> We live in a financially unregulated world where Elon Musk can wake up one morning and choose to use $43 billion of his own money to noisily acquire a social media platform.

Musk's actions has to go through the SEC, and in any case it seems his offer will not be accepted. How is this an example of "financially unregulated"?

I’m also unclear what regulations they seem to think makes sense. The other way to phrase it is “Elon Musk can wake up one morning and use his personal money to buy a private property that is publicly available for sale.”

"Financially unregulated"? Yes, there are not currently regulations prohibiting people from offering to buy stuff. If that's a problem, any solution is likely to be worse.

If Musk already owned, say, Facebook, then the antitrust regulations might kick in. But just offering to buy a company? Yeah, that's unregulated. Free market and all that.

I'm guilty as charged as I sometimes moralize on Twitter, but I disagree that the Twitter "tool" hasn't shaped Elon Musk. I think it's become part of who he is.

When your “public square” is in the middle of a company town… everything else follows.

Pretty sure the kingdom of Saudi already owns your precious public square.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com