After the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary released a report accusing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) of colluding with companies to censor conservative voices online, Elon Musk chimed in. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Musk wrote that X "has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators" behind an advertiser boycott on his platform.
"Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution," Musk wrote, leading several X users to suggest that Musk wants it to be illegal for brands to refuse to advertise on X.
Among other allegations, Congress' report claimed that GARM—which is part of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), whose members "represent roughly 90 percent of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually"—directed advertisers to boycott Twitter shortly after Musk took over the platform.
Twitter/X's revenue tanked after Musk's takeover, with Bloomberg reporting last month that X lost almost 40 percent of revenue in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. That's worse than prior estimates last May, which put Twitter's loss around one-third of its total valuation. Ars chronicled the worst impacts of the ad boycott, including sharp drop-offs in the US, where an internal Twitter presentation leaked to The New York Times showed Twitter's ad revenue was down by as much as 59 percent "for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May" in 2023.
Last year, Musk sued other "collaborators" in the X boycott, including hate speech researchers, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Media Matters for America (MMFA). However, his suit against the CCDH was dismissed this March, and Media Matters has claimed that Musk filing his MMFA lawsuit in Texas may be "fatal" because of a jurisdictional defect.
There are the shareholders...
Institutional only now, and they're all big companies who Musk strung along for the ride. He's already on the hook with them, and they are obviously not pleased. He still the majority shareholder, and it's lost 75% of its value since he took it over, and it's clearly going to just bleed to death. They've already lost their investments.
When do you predict twitter will shut down, or be sold my Musk?
You say "institutional investors" as if it's their money they're losing. It isn't. It's everybody's 401(k)s and IRAs, held through mutual funds that disenfranchise them from being able to vote their shares and put that power in the hands of the "institutions" (read: fund managers) instead.
Point is, not only is Musk still fucking over real-people shareholders, they're the second-class ones who can't even do anything about it!
No.
Took me all of 2 seconds: here
Notice the mutual funds in here? That person is right.
...Are you stupid? Do you know what things like Blackrock and Vanguard are, and what they do? The entire point of those companies is that they hold and invest other people's money.
Yes, they have more money than small nations. They are using their CAPITAL to invest. It's literally a legal requirement to do so in all developed markets, and these are global companies doing so. They are spending your retirement doing it. They're spending thebinsane amount of money you give them as a fee to do it. They'd be in court today if they were doing what you're suggesting. In the US, anything designated as a retirement fund is only held my institutions (banks) that designate themselves as such, and SEC regulations prevent them from using any NON-CAPITAL cash from investing in this way.
You don't have a goddamned clue what you're talking about. We're not talking about banks illegally investing people's savings accounts; we're talking about non-banks investing people's retirement accounts that they've specifically been advised are not FDIC insured and can lose money. You're confusing two very different things.
The bottom line is that it very much IS REGULAR PEOPLE'S MONEY that they're using, NOT THEIR OWN MONEY! The fund managers themselves have no skin in the game. The owners of Blackrock itself (holders of individual shares in Blackrock, not Blackrock-administered mutual funds) have no skin in the game. The owners of Vanguard only have skin in the game because it's got a weird corporate structure where it's owned by its funds, but even then the money that Vanguard is investing didn't come from Vanguard's revenue; it's all money that they're handling on behalf of clients (i.e. regular people) who own shares in Vangaurd-administered mutual funds. It's those clients who gain or lose money depending on the funds' performance, not Vanguard or Blackrock -- the fund companies just get revenue by charging fees (i.e. the expense ratio, etc.).
Sorry to say after you wrote all that, but you're describing malfeasance from a FUND HOLDER. Last I checked, the companies you describe are fund targets, not holders. You should get in touch with the people investing your money then, because none of these X shareholders are administrators of funds.
~~The things that you're saying are just flat-out factually untrue. You didn't "check" anything, or if you did you certainly didn't understand it. Go educate yourself before you keep being confidently incorrect.~~
Edit: Actually, I've got a better idea: how about you tell me how you think companies like Blackrock or Vanguard work? I genuinely want to understand how you came about such huge misconceptions.