[dathinab]

Wtf, how fast am I supposed to respond to you and why should I bother down-voting you?

Anyway, no it has nothing to do with him buying Twitter. It about the thinks he himself has tweeted in the past, and how he acted in the past especially wrt politics.

Should be obvious if you had followed him in the past with an objective mind and don't just blindly assume things, but I guess that's to much to ask (EDIT: the blindly assuming things, the other part is opinionated)

[xwowsersx]

Oh I was only confirming the downvote, not the lack of reply.

But "it should be obvious.." is the Proof by Assertion fallacy. It's not obvious to me so I asked you what your basis is for saying this. Since I haven't followed Musk to the degree you apparently have or come to your conclusion based on the amount I have followed him, can you point me to some specific tweets or actions of his that substantiate your assertion?

[dathinab]

Yes, it's not supper obvious and that was a bad choice of words.

But it's also not hidden. I which I had the time to point out a (long) list of twitter tweets which paint the picture, but I don't have that. And there is also the problem that he (understandable) deleted some of his tweets. But pointing out a specific tweet is pointless as someone could always come up with some arbitrary reason why this specific tweet means something else. It's about the broader picture.

To name some examples:

- He is currently actively trying to undermine labor protection law (as well as contractual clauses he agreed to when buying twitter) by masquerading mass firings at twitter to be supposedly all based on failed performance reviews. But if you take a closer look at 1) `the method used for the reviews` and 2) `who is let of` (especially in context of him being a petty person and had personal beef with some of the people on twitter due to how he (verbally) attacked twitter in the past) it is very clearly that it's not related to performance. (But US labor protection law is at best bad joke, so...)

- His repeated stance against labor and/or buyer protection in other cases, too. Like wrt. Tesla factories.

- Him repeatedly abusing his influence to hinder improvements to public transportation, often buy pushing red hearing projects which do only improve the situation for a few wealthy people but can be used as an excuse to kill/hinder other public transportation projects. One of the examples would be his boring tunnel company promising fixing the traffic situation but instead build fast lanes for a few wealthy people while making is majorly harder to fix the traffic situation for the general public. (He knew what he was doing.)

It might not be obvious how this example matter. this

But they increase how companies can take advantage of the general population both in ways which reduce the money they effectively have and reduce other ways they can take political influence.

And they are just some random examples I can drop of my hat before going to bed which I remember good enough to write down, there are many more.