At the regular Twitter shareholder meeting on Wednesday, there was no vote on the Tesla billionaire. Elona Musk The application for the social platform was $44 billion. This vote will take place in the future, the date of which has not yet been determined.
CEO Parag Agrawal stated early on that the executives would not answer any questions related to the proposal. Even a shareholder’s question about what would happen to his shares if someone buys Twitter and privatizes it was dismissed. (If this happens, the shareholder will be paid the agreed purchase price for each share and the shares will be delisted).
Musk did not join the meeting, although he could, being one of the Major shareholders of Twitter.
But the drama surrounding his proposal – almost all of which was created by Musk himself – threatened to escalate into Wednesday’s hearings. Shareholders putting forward proposals for voting often mentioned his name. One proposal from the New York State General Pension Fund calls for a report on Twitter’s policies and procedures regarding political contributions using corporate funds. It passed by preliminary vote.
Two proposals made by conservative groups did not receive enough votes to pass. One called for an audit of “the company’s impact on civil rights and non-discrimination” and called “anti-racist” programs aimed at establishing “racial/social justice” “deeply racist”. Another demanded more information about the company’s lobbying activities.
Several sentences spoke of the deep existential conflict that is being played out between Twitter users, employees, shareholders, and employees. While shareholders on the one hand have criticized the company for what they see as too liberal policies and prejudice against conservatives (for which there is no reliable evidence), others have said that the company fails to protect users from harassment, abuse and misinformation.
Musk’s “free speech” edict, which he indicated would regulate the company if he took control without giving details, only ignited the conflict.
Musk promised that the takeover of Twitter would allow him to rid the social media platform of pesky “spambots”. But he arguedwithout providing evidence that there may be too many such automated accounts for the transaction to proceed.
Pundits said last week that the world’s richest man’s drastic turnaround doesn’t make much sense other than as a tactic to derail or renegotiate an increasingly costly deal for him. The fact that this is all being played out publicly – no less on Twitter – only exacerbates the chaos that was constant in Musk’s bid even before he made it.
Earlier in May, the mercurial billionaire tweeted that the deal was “postponed” because he wanted to pinpoint the amount of spam and fake accounts on the social media platform after claiming Twitter’s own estimate was too low.
Experts say Musk can’t unilaterally put the deal on hold, though that doesn’t stop him from acting like he can. If he leaves, he could be on the hook for a $1 billion breakup fee. Alternatively, Twitter could sue Musk to force him to go ahead with the deal, though experts say this is unlikely.
Uncertainty weighed on Twitter shares. Broader investor concerns about the social media sector have driven stocks lower this year. Then late at night, Monday Snap, which launches the Snapchat app with disappearing messages and video special effects, issued a scary profit warning, saying “the macro environment has worsened further and faster than expected” since last month.
Social media companies compete for the same pool of ad money, increasingly threatened by rising inflation and changes at Apple Inc. which can limit the information that social media platforms can collect about users, which is a big advantage for advertisers.
Shares of Snap Inc. They fell 43% on Tuesday, though they retraced some of Wednesday’s losses, climbing nearly 12% to $14.31.
Shares of Twitter rose $1.09, or 3%, to $36.83 in afternoon trading on Wednesday. Musk agreed to pay $54.20 per share.
At its own annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday facebookParent company Meta Platforms and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have faced harsh criticism from a shareholder.
The shooting targeted Facebook’s algorithms, careless controls on disinformation and hate-inciting content that disgruntled shareholders claim have undermined democracy, fueled murders and pogroms, and had a devastating impact on children.
The backlash has sparked a series of proposals aimed at requiring Meta to have more independent oversight of Facebook, Instagram and its other products, while reducing the power of Zuckerberg, whose majority stake in the company has prompted one outraged shareholder to criticize him as an “elitist oligarch.” “During a 70-minute meeting.
But none of the 12 proposals received more than 30% support, based on preliminary results announced on Wednesday. The uneven result largely reflects the iron grip Zuckerberg holds through his majority stake in the company he famously founded in a Harvard dorm room almost 20 years ago.
Zuckerberg. Meta’s chairman, as well as the company’s CEO and other eight directors on the board of directors, also received over 90% support to continue in their roles. Strong support came just a few days after large New York City pension fund which owns shares in Meta, said it would vote against the directors in protest.
AP Technology writer Michael Liedtke contributed to this story.