this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38315 readers
494 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.19-050450/https://www.ft.com/content/d4616dec-c4c7-417f-8549-134710bbc5b1

Social media site X’s valuation has soared back to $44bn, underscoring the sharp turnaround in the company’s fortunes since its owner Elon Musk assumed the role of staunch ally to President Donald Trump. 

Investors valued the platform at $44bn in a so-called secondary deal earlier this month, in which they exchange existing stakes in the company, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. 

X was also working on raising fresh capital in a primary round, which would aim to raise about $2bn through selling new equity and be used to pay off more than $1bn of junior debt that Musk agreed to take on to finance his buyout of the company, then known as Twitter, in 2022, several people briefed on the situation said.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

A fool and their money is easily parted. Whoever paid out these kinds of dollars for equity, the rest of the street is lolz at them

[–] kbal@fedia.io 31 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I used to think that the worries about social media algorithms exerting some kind of profound mind control on the users were overstated, but holy fuck, what kind of perverted sci-fi brainwashing power does twitter have that people are still using it even in the year 2025?

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

There’s plethora of content on X like politicians, celebrities, media workers, quips, commentary on quips and commentary on commentary. They’re there because for those who made it that means money and influence. People enable it because they confuse politics with entertainment.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 12 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

oh I would quit X, but I'd miss [ politicians / my friends / the latest gossip / the hottest memes / Stephen King ]

It might've seemed to make sense in 2016 but that bullshit doesn't fly any more. It no longer takes any imagination or courage to see it for what it is. There are no more excuses.

[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Twitter is for those that want to be followed (aka those that want to be famous), and those that want to follow those people (be part of the hurd of fans). I do not understand it because fit into neither of these groups. However, it seems to be a common human thing. Seems very tribal. Being part of a group, elevating and worshiping some people, and wanting to associate with THE IN people. News media types seem to love twitter.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 2 points 3 hours ago

Oh yes I did fail to include a full catalogue of all the base instincts it obviously appeals to — but it's as if people are eating a giant pile of shit for breakfast, and you're helpfully explaining that well, we all need to eat.

[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 19 points 5 hours ago

Babe wake up, new market manipulation just dropped

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 13 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Sounds like someone is in some financial trouble with TSLA dropping.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 22 points 7 hours ago

Twitter is worth 3 Rubles & 6 sheets of toilet paper. Money laundering is happening.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 4 points 5 hours ago

What_the_f.gif

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 46 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

That's a very expensive Nazi bar.

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

elon shld hire me, i could make a nazi bar much cheaper! i read somewhere he likes efficiency after all

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 6 points 9 hours ago

(slash s!!)

[–] Lemmist@lemm.ee 44 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

I'm not a stock trader so don't know the terminology. Do I understand correctly that shareholders just say "From now on X would cost $44bn because we say that"

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 31 points 9 hours ago

What it would mean is that someone bought some stock at that price/share.

[–] BlueFootedBooby@lemm.ee 6 points 9 hours ago

Well, it says investors said that, not shareholders, so that works pretty much as any market - shit is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 20 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

What's the calculation that investors / the stock market is making here? That in time Twitter will become less of a cesspit and that ads can be served? Or is this just YOLO money?

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 24 points 9 hours ago

They’re trying to put a price tag on ability to influence societies. It does have value but I’m pretty sure everyone is guesstimating.

[–] Tempus_Fugit@midwest.social 21 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting, well my evaluation is that it's worthless, not priceless, worthless. You'd never catch me dead on that shit stain of a platform.

[–] ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 9 hours ago

It seemed to be quite effective in influencing public opinion before elections. Which makes it even more disgusting to attach such a price tag to it.

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 hours ago

ah, but there was a billion in junior debt 🤣