Elon Musk vows ‘thermonuclear lawsuit’ as advertisers flee X over antisemitism::Tesla founder threatens to take action against media watchdog ‘the split second court opens on Monday’

  • Mike@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a terrible argument. As if the idea and pitch aren’t relevant in any way. For a preschool example of this, check out Shark Tank. You might have heard of it?

    • Roboticide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s not a terrible argument. Anyone can have a pitch or idea. That does not mean it’s automatically a viable product/service or a viable business.

      It’s a valid question, how do we define “founder”? To play devil’s advocate, I’m curious if the people who think Musk didn’t co-found Tesla also agree Aaron Schwartz didn’t co-found Reddit. He joined later, after reddit was already incorporated by Hoffman and Ohanian.

      In business, “founder” is already an honorary title. It has no inherent power. Co-founders often ensure they get C-suite positions as a company grows, have stock/shares, or other legal powers, but none of those are guaranteed just by being a “founder”. So practically, there’s no difference between calling Musk a “co-founder” versus “honorary co-founder.” Let’s just focus on calling him a piece of shit for the very definitive and obvious things we can point to.

      • Mike@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If the pitch is made and a VC opts in but doesn’t negotiate a title, then they aren’t privvy to the title of co-founder only after the concept is proven sound. Either you’re a founder or you’re not.

        *edit to add visual