> tool of propaganda for Musk's financial interests and self-aggrandizement looks very very concerning to put it mildly

How is it any different than Bezos buying WaPo, in principle? That does not seem to have been detrimental to Amazon shareholders. And how does having a propaganda arm detrimental to Tesla financial interests? Marketing is a euphemism for propaganda after all.

(I can see legitimate Tesla shareholder concern for Musk attention being spread too thin, but to claim having Twitter makes things worse beyond his existing presence as a user seems ridiculous.)

Bezos bought WaPo for what is (to him) a relatively small sum of money to be a hands off owner of something he thought should continue to exist and has potential for Amazon style economising. That's a bit different to Musk proposing to offload or borrow against a significant chunk of his TSLA shares whilst declaring winning an argument with the management of his favourite social media platform about rewriting Twitter's policies on controversial stuff is more important to him than making money. And yes, Musk's record of posting Tweets unhelpful to TSLA as a user is another reason for them to be alarmed at controversy on Twitter becoming increasingly important to him.

It's not just the inevitability of less time to focus on managing TSLA (though running Twitter being a full time job was an issue for Dorsey, and he was only running one other company and wasn't at war with the management) but also the hints that this is an obsession.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I have not seen WaPo pushing Amazon propaganda in their content.

I'd like to take this occasion to remind you that my first comment was a rebuttal to someone's argument speculating about the motive or rationale behind this acquisition and posited that Musk's control of the platform would afford him political influence to further his own financial interests, hence my opening reply.

> posited that Musk's control of the platform would afford him political influence to further his own financial interests,

Clarification: Positing that many TSLA shareholders presently believe Musk's control of twitter would afford him political influence to further his financial interests.

Well, I stand corrected then if that was your initial intent but the delusion with these folks is really strong to come up with such ridiculous scenarios to justify their unquestionable attachment to that online persona.

One thing I feel relatively sure of is that present TSLA shareholders are the sort of people who, up until the present, see fit to own TSLA shares. This despite everything that is already publicly known or said about Elon Musk.

If I keep myself in my personal mindset of a Musk skeptic and try to model the behavior of TSLA shareholders, I would anticipate TSLA shareholders selling immediately (today, and every day previously in the past several years), because that is what I would do if I were gifted TSLA. But that's obviously not what TSLA shareholders do, so my personal mindset evidently makes for an inadequate model of TSLA shareholders.

If instead I try to suspend my own beliefs and imagine myself as somebody who thinks owning and holding TSLA is a good idea, then my new assumed mindset says that Elon Musk getting more power, by hook or by crook, is a good thing for me.