this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
345 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

82856 readers
3830 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A jury has found Elon Musk liable for misleading investors by deliberately driving down Twitter's stock price in the tumultuous months leading up to his 2022 acquisition of the social media company for $44 billion. But it absolved him of some fraud allegations, finding that he did not "scheme" to mislead investors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Triumph@fedia.io 126 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

If the punishment is a fine, it's only illegal for poor people.

The only war is class war.

[–] cannedtuna@lemmy.world 54 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Considering he’s made $400B since acquiring Twitter, this was just a minor cost of doing business.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

I could change the world for the better with this sum. Hell, even with the fee. Oh well, I'm sure it's best that he has that money 🙄🤮.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 35 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 hours ago

I don't know, 0.5% isn't a bad rate...

[–] LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip 8 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Considering he’s made $400B since acquiring Twitter...

Serious question: How?

AFAIK, Twitter wasn't terribly profitable before they sold to Musk. Then after he purchased it, the enshittification accelerated.

How on earth does this result in $400 Billions in profit?!?

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 17 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

He made $400B, not Twitter. That's almost entirely from Tesla and other ventures, not Twitter.

Last I've been able to find Twitter was valued at $33B when xAI bought it.

And that's just raw valuation which is easily manipulated, not revenue or profit, which can be easily manipulated.

[–] LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip 3 points 12 hours ago

Ahh, okay. I understand. Thank you for the clarification.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

that is the worst chart

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

It's not real money, and Musk isn't the richest person in truth, not by a long shot. This is theoretical money based on overpriced companies that are propped up by what I suspect are some rather shady practices and investors using it as a casino stock.

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The money doesn't have to be real for Elon to be able to use his stock as collateral for billion dollar loans. So he in fact has real money, that banks gave him, and that he will never pay back.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

While true, a recession will change things.

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago

It will only restrict his ability to get new loans, and make his collaterals worthless. But he probably spent most of the money they gave him, and like with twitter, he shifted the assets around in his network of companies, like a thimblerigger.

But that's kind of like saying that inflation will make the rich poor, which is also not true.

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Actually worst than imaginable if you delve deep the psychology of the rich is akin to tumour development. Never forget these rich fuckheads would bet over your misery like a game.

Someone please assassinate and kill Elon please

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Not necessarily, the fine just needs to be a sufficient size.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago

"Wake me" when anything at all happens...? The point is, they have the power.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 4 points 13 hours ago

Sanka, ya dead?

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Fines are not assessed that way.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Some are, but they often have maximum caps.

So for a UK speeding fine he'd get a £1000, but if it's wasn't capped it would be somewhere in the region of 340 million.

Your Speeding Offence Details

Speed Limit: 30 mph Recorded Speed: 35 mph Excess Speed: 5 mph Offence Band: A Road Type: Standard Road What This Means For You

Your offence falls into Band A, which carries a fine of 50% of your weekly income. Based on your weekly income of £640,000,000, your calculated fine is £320,000,000. This has been capped at the maximum of £1000 for standard road offences.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 hours ago

Finland has similar thing, but it is not capped. There's a ton of 100 000+€ fines given around here. Obviously with Musk it would be a bit different, since the fine is based on actual income, not some imaginary monopoly money on the stock market.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Why would any such fines be capped, unless the entire point is to effectively legalise crime for the ultra rich?

[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] yakko@feddit.uk 1 points 11 hours ago

More chagrined than anything else. Having dual citizenship with US and UK is like having one foot in the grave and another foot in the toilet sometimes.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)
[–] slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Disclaimer: I know you're probably only trolling, but I'll answer anyway:

...not assessed in a way to be of sufficient size to not just be considered a cost of doing business. In other words, pricey enough to take away the incentive to not only take away the profit but to also deal a significant blow to the wealth of the richest person on earth.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Percentage of profit accrued from the offense. They are static values.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Just because they're currently assessed that way doesn't mean they can't be assessed a different way...