this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
5236 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can someone explain the conflict they see here? X and Tesla are 2 different companies.
The issue here is because they're linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.
So although they don't own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.
The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that's even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we'd expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.
This should be easy to prove that their correlation to one another is significantly more than to the market, or maybe more accurately to tech stocks as a whole. do you have these numbers or is it just speculation?
The other poster makes a much stronger argument, pointing out how some investors in Tesla are concerned about musk having to sell stock to support x, which could lead to a fall in x prices.
This is a very tenuous connection, especially considering the relatively small amount of money involved.
It's far more likely the judge just doesn't consider the two companies to be closely linked enough to be an issue.
Also, it says the judge bought in 2022, and the price today is pretty much equivalent to the LOWEST point of 2022. So it’s not like it has performed well for him. But I don’t know shit about stocks. Just wanted to point that out.
And while $35,000 is a pretty big investment, at least to an average person, would that amount of money be persuasive enough to convince a judge to do what this one is doing? The perceived corruption, I mean.
How dare you interrupt the circle jerk.
Here's the conflict a to b: https://fortune.com/2024/08/15/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-twitter-x-advertiser-boycott-finances-bradford-ferguson/
archive link
A strong point for sure, thank you.
In my opinion, it comes down to the wording of the U.S. judges' code of conduct
While the link between Musk's two companies might be debatable, it definitely raises "reasonable questions" about whether or not the judge can be impartial. It is much easier to recuse oneself then to try to deal with a mistrial, so the judge not recusing themselves is extremely suspicious.
Also, as to evidence to whether Musk's involvement with X has impacted Tesla stock, that has been a matter of debate for a while. X is in a dire financial situation because of the loans taken out during the buyout. If they cannot get advertisers back on the platform, then either X goes bankrupt or Elon has to chip in his own money. Musk's money is mostly locked in to Tesla stock, and if he sells a large number, the stock will inevitably go down. Therefore, if Elon loses this case, it is very possible that the judge will lose money.
As I noted elsewhere, the latter argument about him having to sell to bail out x is a compelling argument. That their values are inherently tied together by virtue of him being owner I'm less convinced about because people claim the stock prices are linked, but have no provided no evidence that it is the case, despite it being a relatively easy thing to prove mathematically.
The mathematical proof is that Elon owns several hundred million Tesla shares and his holding or selling of those shares will impact the share price of the judge's shares. Up or down, the price will be impacted, that's just how markets work. If he is forced to sell those shares to fund X, the judge will be impacted.
Also, you shouldn't really need an exact proof for the judge's recusal. There is a chance he is impacted by the result of the case in a significant monetary way, so why not pass the case to a judge who doesn't have these connections. This isn't the last judge in Texas (just one of the most partisan) so there is far greater upsides to recusal than downsides.
Why risk the optics of impropriety when you don't have to?
Yeah the other comment reeks of "just asking a question" everyone with two braincells knows the companies are related. They just want you to waste your time doing the reading they should be doing of they're actually curious.
Why do people downvote others who are just asking questions? I’ll never understand the mindset. You ask an honest and genuine question and people just downvote it for no reason. I don’t get it.
I'm sure it's a bunch of things, but people are so used to rushing to conclusions without giving it some real thought, myself included, that when someone doesn't immediately take a side...well, they must be taking the opposite side as me.
As a Brit, we just had riots due to a rightwing posh dickhead "just asking questions". Look for "Farage riots". (Something Elon made worse)
Some questions aren't questions but dog whistles and conspiracy theories.
Of course owning stock in one Elon company compromises you judging another Elon company. You don't even have to look hard to see how he leverages one for another. Or could if he hadn't already. Not seeing it is done willfully.
Because disingenuously asking loaded questions (not saying this is one) has become a favorite tactic of conservatives and other trolls. It's so common now that people automatically assume the questioner is acting in bad faith.
Same owner, pretty simple.
"If you help my X then your T goes up in value"
Does it though?
If you can show me some strong correlation between x and Tesla stock, that doesn't also correlate with the market as a whole, it would go a long way to proving that point. Other than that, it's just speculation that it might influence the price of his own stock, which seems like an extremely tenuous claim as to why it's reasonable to believe he should recuse himself.
A couple years ago Musk made a tweet and tanked tesla’s stock with it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/investing/musk-stock-too-high-tweet/index.html
Elon's companies have had financial trends that ebb and flow with the whims of the influence of their owner, intended and otherwise, the correlation is:
They have the same owner.
Let me get this straight, just because they could stand to gain financially does not mean they should recuse themselves. Furthermore we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt decision X results is Y extra money to satisfy you.
If you move the goalpost past Jupiter I guess there is no corruption at all. Keep moving along nothing to see here...
That is a pretty ridiculous response, frankly. If you're saying this judge should step aside, you should be able to back that statement up with at least some evidence.
There are plenty of judges without this conflict of interest available. They recuse themselves because ethically it is what is right. There is no shame, it is normal procedure.
A judge who has a large investment should not rule on a case that they have a financial interest in. Even if you believe they could remain impartial it breeds distrust in the process.
So you are arguing they should prove 100% that their claim is true but that is not how it works. Corruption is a real issue and your hand waving isn't making it go away.
You're treating the fact this is a conflict of interest as a foregone conclusion, and I'm not convinced the link between the two is strong enough to be a concern.
You could have just said it was speculation. All the attacks and lies about what I am doing or what would satisfy me were completely unnecessary.
Elons purchase of twatter is backed by tesla shares.
He might need to sell TSLA stock to bail out Twatter.