[bezospen15]

The board is simply obligated to entertain the offer, they will reject as it is not in the best long term interest of the share holders. Yes it is monetarily competitive but also Twitter will basically lose most of their users if Elon is in charge. It's no secret that he has alt right motives.

A billionaire should not be able to do this in the first place.

[twox2]

"It's no secret that he has alt right motives."

If it's no secret, can you cite some sources?

[wara23arish]

Yes, we should keep it under the influence shareholders like the Saudi Monarchy. Twitter users’ values definitely align with them??

Im curious why do you think a billionaire shouldn’t be able to buy a company?

I actually prefer it when several billionaires are “at odds” eg bezos vs musk. Rather than just silently agreeing and covering for each other as it has been for what feels like eternity.

[bigbluedots]

What are 'alt right motives'?

[EricE]

Anything that doesn’t fit the OP’s worldview, apparently. Same reason racist, -phobe and -ist have pretty much lost all meaning in modern discourse.

[amachefe]

How is that the interest of investors what happens after the are paid?

[yurishimo]

I'd consider myself pretty far left, especially by American standards, but Musk is in no way some sort of crypto (in the traditional sense) fascist. He's got some pretty libertarian views on free speech, a blind spot for PoC, and that's about it. I'd hardly categorize that as "alt right".

[brnt]

Actually, libertarianism is entirely constructed by what you can call alt-right circles. See Jane Mayer's Dark Money.

[mixedCase]

Libertarianism is literally just liberalism before modern day US liberals coopted the name, hence the alternative label "classical liberal". In the rest of the world being a "liberal" still means the same thing.

Feel free to summarize the point if there's any.

[dragonwriter]

> Libertarianism is literally just liberalism before modern day US liberals coopted the name

Once liberalism stopped being purely oppositional and established some power, there became a division between people for whom the progress achieved to date was the end goal and the people who saw it as partial.

In places where the success of liberalism also ushered in pluralism (not the US), the latter group got different names depending on exactly what they saw the end goal as...

In the US, once the early progress of liberalism was the right edge of the Overton Window, use of “liberal” and “conservative” as evolving relative-to-center terms for the directions on the primary axis of political dispute became fairly common, though even that fell apart as a consistent thing when part of the local “liberal” coalition turned sharply right with neoliberalism, resulting in an evolving use of differentiating language within the former “liberal” umbrella.