Musk is trying to buy everyone out because he wants to influence the direction of Twitter. Why not ascribe a similar set of motivations to the other current shareholders? If that is a motivation for them, then shareholder profit is not the only relevant sense of shareholder value.

This isn't an argument for the poison pill clause, but is an answer to the following quoted question. It is funny to see this motivation of most existing shareholders ignored in order to bring into being analogous motivations of another. Especially when Musk's offer for Twitter has been in order to change it promote certain values, but conspicuously, better profits has not been one of those touted values.

> While this might be sad for the company, why is it not in the interests of the shareholders to take the offer?

I will sabotage my own argument somewhat though and say that I believe the economic motive dominates over time and is almost always (in macro and micro) the primary force.