[Dudelander]

> Don't really like this framing of the problem - he owns a majority of voting shares, and he paid (or, rather, overpaid) mightily for that right. You can't really be "fired" from being an owner.

This is basically what people mean by "too rich to fire". I don't think anyone is suggesting that if he wasn't a stakeholder, he'd keep his job solely because he had a lot of money. I think it fair to say that, if Twitter was a publicly traded company with a board of directors, Elon likely would have been fired by now. Or, at the very least, significantly reigned in.

[tjs8rj]

In that case we should thank our stars it’s not a public company. Musk taking over twitter has done more to expose corruption and hypocrisy than almost anything else. The Twitter Leaks, balancing the algorithms, and even biasing them against the same people they used to be biased for (all while the same people that defended censorship now whine about it) pulled the masks off many in power.

Sure he might just drive it all into the ground, but the interim piloting has created so much good (whether some acknowledge it or not).

[Dudelander]

That's bait.