[khazhoux]

You seem to miss the point.

Twitter was an imperfect yet functional website before Elon. Elon fired most of the staff. Twitter then continued to be an imperfect yet functional website.

Hell, I remember ten years of HN saying "WTF does Twitter need so many people for??", and then those same people said "OMG Elon is insane to fire so many people!!".

[duxup]

I don't know what that means as far as a comparison to a government institution.

Twitter could be massively profitable, or woefully unprofitable ... it has no impact on anyone outside investors.

[cudgy]

Many people are more concerned about the messenger than the message. They’ll flip-flop their opinions solely based on who is doing the bidding.

A glaring recent example. If Biden had taken action like Trump has to negotiate with Russia to stop the Ukraine war, would the Democrats be screaming that Biden is a “Putin apologist”?

If Barrack Obama made statements about deporting undocumented immigrants (which he did), Democrats fall largely silent. If Trump makes similar statements, same Democrats scream fascism, racism, and Nazi/white supremacy.

[naijaboiler]

Not just the act matters. The rhetoric used by the messenger matters to.

[cudgy]

Sure, rhetoric matters for style points, but the act supersedes stylish rhetoric. I’ll take proper action with clumsy rhetoric over inaction or improper action backed up with eloquent rhetoric, which is what most politicians provide.