Social Media Discussion

[Rumpy]

Well, let me revise that by saying, any sane company

[GreenGoo]

Never heard of any company not purposefully paying bills.

It's Trump's one weird trick, for one example.

This.

And it's not that unusual. When you're a goliath, you can simply dare david to sue to get paid, knowing you can absorb the legal costs when the little guys often can't. Of course it's incredibly unethical and shitty, but at this point

[Alefroth]

If he sells it (or even if he doesn't), can he write off the loss for tax breaks?

[GreenGoo]

If he sells it (or even if he doesn't), can he write off the loss for tax breaks?

Presumably there is some wizardry possible.

But that's all beyond the realm of this mortal. Maybe Zarathud has an idea?

[ImLawBoy]

Never heard of any company not purposefully paying bills.

It's Trump's one weird trick, for one example.

This.

And it's not that unusual. When you're a goliath, you can simply dare david to sue to get paid, knowing you can absorb the legal costs when the little guys often can't. Of course it's incredibly unethical and shitty, but at this point

Sometimes David companies don't pay bills to Goliaths, too. There can be a variety of reasons, from simple liquidity issues to trying to gain some kind of leverage for a deal to a sincere belief that the bill is wrong.

[Jaymann]

Never heard of any company not purposefully paying bills.

It's Trump's one weird trick, for one example.

Then he parlays it by not paying his lawyers.

[stessier]

Never heard of any company not purposefully paying bills.

It's Trump's one weird trick, for one example.

This.

And it's not that unusual. When you're a goliath, you can simply dare david to sue to get paid, knowing you can absorb the legal costs when the little guys often can't. Of course it's incredibly unethical and shitty, but at this point

Sometimes David companies don't pay bills to Goliaths, too. There can be a variety of reasons, from simple liquidity issues to trying to gain some kind of leverage for a deal to a sincere belief that the bill is wrong.

Also David companies can put Goliaths on credit hold and only ship when cash is in hand. Depending on what David makes, this can cripple Goliath. The business world can be really weird.

[Unagi]

For instance, if David makes slings - Goliath is screwed.

[Kraken]

If he sells it (or even if he doesn't), can he write off the loss for tax breaks?

Does he even pay taxes?

[Alefroth]

Good question. They say he does.

[GreenGoo]

Also David companies can put Goliaths on credit hold and only ship when cash is in hand. Depending on what David makes, this can cripple Goliath. The business world can be really weird.

I feel like it should be obvious that if Goliath needs what David makes as part of a supply stream, then yes, if David stops providing the product and/or service, Goliath's strategy isn't going to work very well.

Of course then they can just hop around between suppliers as they fight for the scraps Goliath is holding out for them to salivate over. That can't go on forever, but it can certainly happen.

Lastly, I also think it should be obvious that this all occurs after David had provided his product and/or service. Goliath isn't going to order a new lobby for their hotel and immediately tell the contracting company they have no intention of paying.

Anyway, I feel like Goliath has already thought of everything being mentioned here, and has taken it into account. If there are obstacles to screwing over David, then they'll have to either overcome those obstacles or not screw David. This time.

edit: Fixed quote attribution.

[GreenGoo]

For instance, if David makes slings - Goliath is screwed.

Goliath has a monopoly on local rock supply. Can David really afford to import from the next village over?

[Rumpy]

You misquoted me lol.

[Unagi]

For instance, if David makes slings - Goliath is screwed.

Goliath has a monopoly on local rock supply. Can David really afford to import from the next village over?

The pit of an olive will do.

[LordMortis]

All of the lawsuits that have been filed against Musk, related to Twitter X:

When Elon Musk bought Twitter in October 2022, a fairly ordinary tech company was transformed into a most unusual private corporation. Many strange things have happened at the Musk-owned social network, but this article will focus on just one puzzling aspect of Musk's leadership: His apparent refusal to pay bills.

Over two dozen lawsuits alleged that Twitter—which rebranded itself as "X" in late July—refused to pay money owed to vendors who started providing services to the company before Musk bought it. In fact, suing X seems to be the most effective method of collecting on unpaid invoices. This article will provide a summary of each lawsuit and an update on each case's status.

X agreed to settle some of the allegations, allowing some vendors to recoup at least part of what they were owed. Settlement talks are proceeding in other cases, and at least one went to arbitration. But X has taken a hard stance in fighting some unpaid-bill lawsuits, and several could head to jury trials.

Not paying bills....reminds me of someone. I'm sure it will come to me.

I think we had this conversation before the days of Twitter didn't we? I know that Musk has a history having problems paying people that predates "whoops maybe I shouldn't fire people if I'll owe millions of dollars for doing so."

Crirca 2018 which also wasn't the first time

https://wolfstreet.com/2018/08/20/the-h ... g-to-fret/

Tesla had stopped making payments altogether since the spring despite numerous promises, another supplier said, adding, as the Journal put it, that he fears “insolvency for his own company if he continues to ship products to Tesla and not get paid.”

They’re all seeing what everyone else is seeing: An erratic CEO with at best a reckless Twitter habit, a company that is being kept afloat only by its sky-high market cap that, in theory, would allow the company to sell more shares to raise more money to pay the suppliers, assuming that the shares don’t collapse. That’s not a great security for a supplier operating in the real world.

I can say with certainty, he was "disrupting" the supply chain at the time. though I must admit my memory isn't good enough to know what ultimately righted the ship. I know of at least one supplier that wasn't getting paid ultimately gave no concessions but didn't threaten lawsuits.

[stessier]

Also David companies can put Goliaths on credit hold and only ship when cash is in hand. Depending on what David makes, this can cripple Goliath. The business world can be really weird.

I feel like it should be obvious that if Goliath needs what David makes as part of a supply stream, then yes, if David stops providing the product and/or service, Goliath's strategy isn't going to work very well.

Of course then they can just hop around between suppliers as they fight for the scraps Goliath is holding out for them to salivate over. That can't go on forever, but it can certainly happen.

Lastly, I also think it should be obvious that this all occurs after David had provided his product and/or service. Goliath isn't going to order a new lobby for their hotel and immediately tell the contracting company they have no intention of paying.

Anyway, I feel like Goliath has already thought of everything being mentioned here, and has taken it into account. If there are obstacles to screwing over David, then they'll have to either overcome those obstacles or not screw David. This time.

edit: Fixed quote attribution.

You give Goliaths far too much credit. Maybe some of them think it through, but absolutely not all. It's amazing how dumb some Goliaths can be.

[ImLawBoy]

Also David companies can put Goliaths on credit hold and only ship when cash is in hand. Depending on what David makes, this can cripple Goliath. The business world can be really weird.

I feel like it should be obvious that if Goliath needs what David makes as part of a supply stream, then yes, if David stops providing the product and/or service, Goliath's strategy isn't going to work very well.

Of course then they can just hop around between suppliers as they fight for the scraps Goliath is holding out for them to salivate over. That can't go on forever, but it can certainly happen.

Lastly, I also think it should be obvious that this all occurs after David had provided his product and/or service. Goliath isn't going to order a new lobby for their hotel and immediately tell the contracting company they have no intention of paying.

Anyway, I feel like Goliath has already thought of everything being mentioned here, and has taken it into account. If there are obstacles to screwing over David, then they'll have to either overcome those obstacles or not screw David. This time.

edit: Fixed quote attribution.

You give Goliaths far too much credit. Maybe some of them think it through, but absolutely not all. It's amazing how dumb some Goliaths can be.

I tend to agree. Having worked for one of the most Goliaths of the Goliaths for 25+ years, I still sometimes shake my head at some of things that are done that don't seem particularly well thought out.

And Davids can absolutely put Goliaths over the barrel on a number of issues, particularly when a David is the exclusive provider of a particular product (e.g., something protected by a patent).

[GreenGoo]

I had no idea that goliaths don't all act exactly the same, and that other exceptions also exist.

I never would have imagined that sometimes David wins too!

I have learned.

[stessier]

The Internet works!

[GreenGoo]

It's not just for pr0n(er) after all!

[Jeff V]

Sometimes David companies don't pay bills to Goliaths, too. There can be a variety of reasons, from simple liquidity issues to trying to gain some kind of leverage for a deal to a sincere belief that the bill is wrong.

I did a $5M deal with a company you may be intimately familiar with. Come to think of it, I think we were overcharged 20%. Can I get a refund? I can give you an account to transfer it to if that will be easier.

[Alefroth]

Guess this goes here. Meta still being Meta.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... s-blocked/

Not even 24 hours later, the company was embroiled in controversy. When users went to Threads to search for content related to “covid” and “long covid,” they were met with a blank screen that showed no search results and a pop-up linking to the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Meta acknowledged in a statement to The Washington Post that Threads is intentionally blocking the search terms and said that other terms are being blocked, but the company declined to provide a list of them. A search by The Post discovered that the words “sex,” “nude,” “gore,” “porn,” “coronavirus,” “vaccines” and “vaccination” are also among blocked words.

I wonder what the search for 'porn' links to.

[Blackhawk]

Well, that's one way to avoid misinformation. Just remove all information!

[Smoove_B]

Ok, ok, THIS will finally kill the platform:

Elon Musk said Monday he's moving to require all users to pay a monthly fee to use his social media site X, previously called Twitter.

...

"The single-most important reason we're moving to having a small monthly payment for use of the X system is it's the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots."

Musk said adding a subscription would make it much more difficult for bots to create accounts, because each bot would need to register a new credit card. He added that the company plans to come out with "a lower tier pricing," than what it currently charges for its X Premium subscribers, which is around $8 monthly.

[Isgrimnur]

It's a great thing those bot owners don't have access to a lot of card numbers...

[LawBeefaroni]

Bot farms will willignly pay fees to gain access to a captive audience. Musk is such a bullahitter.

[Smoove_B]

Just need to confirm X will accept Dogecoin as payment and I guess that'll be a wrap, right?

[LordMortis]

Ok, ok, THIS will finally kill the platform:

Elon Musk said Monday he's moving to require all users to pay a monthly fee to use his social media site X, previously called Twitter.

...

"The single-most important reason we're moving to having a small monthly payment for use of the X system is it's the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots."

Musk said adding a subscription would make it much more difficult for bots to create accounts, because each bot would need to register a new credit card. He added that the company plans to come out with "a lower tier pricing," than what it currently charges for its X Premium subscribers, which is around $8 monthly.

If I have to paywall between me and hotlinks? Well, if I don't pay for NYT, the odds of me paying for an eeLon vanity vehicle of disinformation that he actively spreads? (oh, so glad the message is coming from whatsherface as the person running the company so he can step back and let the company be run without his active ignorance...)

[Rumpy]

Bots will find a way through the cracks, much like how clone accounts on Facebook can tag real accounts to spread their postings.

[ImLawBoy]

Who cares if bots are going to fall through the cracks? Is anyone actually going to pay for Twitter beyond those already paying for a blue check? I'll be cancelling my account if he actually implements this (although I doubt he will).

[Carpet_pissr]

As alluded to upthread, with this move he won’t have to worry about bots …or anything else because it will soon be a virtual wasteland, so plan is right on track.

[Zaxxon]

You can all now sign up to have a Neuralink device implanted in your brain. No word yet whether it includes a free subscription to Xitter Blue.

[Jaymann]

Yeah, I'm gonna trust Musk to implant an electrical device in my brain. He hasn't even solved the Trolley Problem yet.

[ImLawBoy]

You can all now sign up to have a Neuralink device implanted in your brain. No word yet whether it includes a free subscription to Xitter Blue.

This is actually super exciting. We've been working with a similar device, albeit not implanted at this point, with my son to allow him to communicate. It's potentially a game changer for people with paralysis or cerebral palsy to help them express themselves more easily and become more independent. We'll be keeping a close eye on this.

[Zaxxon]

You can all now sign up to have a Neuralink device implanted in your brain. No word yet whether it includes a free subscription to Xitter Blue.

This is actually super exciting. We've been working with a similar device, albeit not implanted at this point, with my son to allow him to communicate. It's potentially a game changer for people with paralysis or cerebral palsy to help them express themselves more easily and become more independent. We'll be keeping a close eye on this.

Yeah, I posted it in this thread specifically in a tongue-in-cheek manner, given the company's ownership and clickbait headlines over the past several months, but it is actually super-exciting in the longer term.

[Rumpy]

Who cares if bots are going to fall through the cracks? Is anyone actually going to pay for Twitter beyond those already paying for a blue check? I'll be cancelling my account if he actually implements this (although I doubt he will).

Exactly. This won't stop the bots, it will stop the people.

[LawBeefaroni]

You can all now sign up to have a Neuralink device implanted in your brain. No word yet whether it includes a free subscription to Xitter Blue.

This is actually super exciting. We've been working with a similar device, albeit not implanted at this point, with my son to allow him to communicate. It's potentially a game changer for people with paralysis or cerebral palsy to help them express themselves more easily and become more independent. We'll be keeping a close eye on this.

Yeah, I posted it in this thread specifically in a tongue-in-cheek manner, given the company's ownership and clickbait headlines over the past several months, but it is actually super-exciting in the longer term.

The work is great. The pile of dead, tortured monkeys is standard Musk "move fast, break things, soak up subsidies" that gives me pause.

[GreenGoo]

Ok, ok, THIS will finally kill the platform:

I was positively gleeful when I saw that. At this point I can only assume he wants to turn it into something else entirely. Why he couldn't have left it alone to generate revenue while he did another start-up I have no idea.

So weird.

[Alefroth]

Maybe that'll finally kill the idea that it's some kind of commons for public discourse.

[Max Peck]

I wonder what the probability is that Musk came up with the idea on the spot and blurted it out, and that was the first that anyone at Xitter knew of it. This is Elon Musk we're talking about, so there's a non-zero chance that's how it went down.