|
Yes, very crazy, but not for the reasons you think. If Twitter was a Democratic Party institution they would have banned Trump in 2015. Instead, they bent over backwards and created a new policy specifically to justify not banning @POTUS when his rulebreaking[0] became apparent in 2017. The only reason why we even think of Twitter as (D) Media is because January 6th forced them to reverse course. Your theory is inconsistent with Twitter's prior actions, too. While management initially geared up to take a poison pill, they never actually committed to it. Once Musk had actually lined up a purchase proposal, management actually agreed to it, and then Musk tried to bail out from that deal. If Twitter was actually (D) Media, they would have committed to the poison pill plan instead of backing down. Likewise, if Musk was buying Twitter with the intent of turning it into (R) Media he wouldn't be trying to back out[1], he would be following through. A much easier explanation is that Twitter management was caught off-guard by Musk, and then later realized Musk was bullshitting in a way they could take advantage of. Conversely, Musk figured he could pretend to buy Twitter while unloading Tesla stock and then realized way too late that he was actually committed to buying Twitter. [0] Which, interestingly enough, included ignoring DMCA 512 takedown notices [1] Interestingly, Donald Trump has gone on a rampage on Pravda Social about how Musk is a bullshitter. |
Doesn't that mean Musk was caught off guard (or in a self-own) by Twitter, not the other way around? Or that it seemed like a good deal for all parties until the floor fell out from under both Twitter and Tesla stock, at which point it became an incredibly bad deal for Musk.