This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Related to a theme that's been touched on in other recent Elowitter threads: the thing about Al Waleed specifically doesn't really bother me. There are many problems with the behavior of anglosphere media, but the biggest is that they consistently agree on what the correct Overton window is, with only small deviations. If Musk decides to censor criticism out of pettiness, or keep Trump off as a favor to Al Waleed, then these are all unfortunate, but a relatively small price to pay for breaking the alignment between Twitter's totally-not-censorship and everyone else's totally-not-censorship.
Of course, sometimes there'll be alignment---in this case there pretty clearly is with respect to Trump. But that's more of a coincidence than it was before, so as far as I'm concerned it represents a strict improvement.
More interesting/concerning to me is the implication that Morgan Stanley, BofA, etc. may have some ability to influence these decisions. Are there similar cases in the past of those banks being part of large deals (by financing the individual/corporation making the purchase), and then exerting meaningful control?
More directly, I'm not sure I believe even the claim that Al Waleed is influencing things. Isn't it more likely that Musk merely wishes to give the appearance of some sort of reasonable process---or even more, intends to use the Trump question as an early test of whatever process he intends to set up ("content moderation council" was suggested Friday but I can't find any more recent evidence that this is happening)? "Normal" timescales for setting up a meaningfully different moderation process would be what, 6 months or more? I don't think too much can be read into a delay of a couple weeks, and what I can read into it is reassuring. Restoring Trump has symbolic value, but provides little actual protection (particularly for non-Trump people) going forward. Setting up a moderation system that would not have banned him in the first place is far better.
Based on my limited professional experience as a risk manager covering lending to private equity deals, I would say that lenders have no meaningful input into management decisions at PE-owned companies as long as they are not in financial trouble. The loans will have covenants (something like "Twitter needs to maintain free cash flow three times the interest on the senior debt and a book debt-to-assets ration of less than 75%") with a provision to call the loans (which would require Musk to put in further billions of his own money to replace them with equity or put Twitter into Chapter 11 with the likely result of the banks ending up as the main equity holders) if they are breached. What usually happens if a PE-owned company breaches covenants is that the lenders (who don't want to become owners) use this right as leverage to take a closer look at the business and decide if they think it is salvagable. Given Musk's negotiating power viz-a-viz the banks, I assume the covenants on this deal will not be binding unless Twitter gets into very serious trouble.
The other equity contributors have whatever rights they negotiated (default is that Musk gets what he wants as majority owner). Non-selling existing shareholders like the Saudis have a weak negotiating position so they almost certainly have no control rights at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link