this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
225 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10162 readers
78 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The ‘free speech absolutist’ gleefully promoting anti-vaccine misinformation is now suing a hate speech watchdog for “using flawed methodologies to advance incorrect, misleading narratives."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He was forced to follow through with the sale, the law is what protected Twitter's board of executives and shareholders from Musk not taking Twitter private.

After the business is private, the owner has no contractual obligation to take actions that benefit the company (unlike a CEO), he probably could have just shut Twitter down right after he bought it if he wanted to.

Idk how many Twitter employees held shares and how many shares they held but the shares were their legal protection against Musk taking Twitter private and running it into the ground.

I agree that we need changes that favor employee protections but it's a slippery slope as to who exactly is liable. Is it Musk? Twitter's BoD/shareholders? What exactly are they liable for? [Quick edit] Also, what would the penalties be and who would be the claimants?

Not so quick edit: I was thinking about something related to unrealized gains if someone was promised that the sale of Twitter would net them greater profits than keeping the company public but that really only applies if the asset(s) haven't already been sold. Hoping someone can add something more specific and credible, interesting to think about.