zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
The underlying issue: Musk's incentives don't give him much reason to care if Twitter goes under. Musk likely feels he might as well push for any changes he likes, and gain whether Twitter survives or not.

What was Musk's biggest bugbear about 'old' Twitter? The moderation system. If Twitter goes under, the only practical alternative at the moment is Mastodon, and Mastodon can't replicate Twitter's moderation due to its architecture. So Musk gets what he wants anyway. He doesn't have much to lose in this scenario: Financially, he'd remain a very rich person. One can argue he'd be better off without Twitter anyway.

>>yyyk+4f
Why wouldn’t he care if Twitter goes under? It would be a double digit % decrease of his net worth if Twitter halves in value. It would also be a public embarrassment, and a wasted opportunity to have spent more time at his other companies.

>>awb+SW
He also leveraged a bunch of his tesla holdings to make the purchase. As his actions repeatedly make the TLSA price fall, there is risk of a margin call and him having to forfeit his collateralized shares.

Will be pretty funny if he loses control of Tesla.