No. There are also fines to the state/federal government. I saw one number (CA?) of $500/person/day. Don’t know if that was it or minimum or what.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
At $1.85 million/day, he'd go broke in only 325 years.
I don't think it's a major worry for him.
This fact is probably something close to why I personally don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who wants to do whatever they feel like doing.
"hate the player, not the game" doesn't apply to folks who own the referees.
What, in your opinion, would be fair, other than "paying them forever for doing absolutely nothing"?
The law apparently says he has to pay them for 60 days. He's doing that.
If he's making a big deal about bringing in single digit millions per month to "pay the bills", you'd think he'd care about double-digit million fines, but who knows. He has more FU money than anyone else alive.
That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.
Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
Yes, but he's claiming the $8/mo is to "keep paying the bills", so why focus on that small revenue stream and then pay a huge fine?
> Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".
The revolution will be a subscription service, got it.