Speaking of the SEC [0]:

> In 2018, he came under fire after tweeting that he was considering taking Tesla private, and the SEC charged him with fraud. Musk agreed to a court-approved deal in order to settle the charges, which required that Tesla lawyers review any social media posts containing information "material" to shareholders. Months later, after he was called out for defying the order, the settlement was amended to include a specific list of topics Musk needs permission to tweet about. The list includes tweets about the company's financial condition, production numbers or new business lines.

> The SEC notified Tesla that two of Musk's tweets from 2019 and 2020 — one about Tesla's solar roof production volumes and one about the company's stock price — hadn't received the required pre-approval, the Journal's Dave Michaels and Rebecca Elliott reported.

I find it hard to overlook that at least one thing that might be motivating him to buy Twitter is to tweet however he wants to tweet, regardless of US law.

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/01/tech/elon-musk-tesla-sec-twee...

You're conflating two issues.

He got in trouble because of what he said given his responsibilities to Tesla and the market in general, not where he said it.

He'd have gotten in just as much trouble had he posted on Instagram.

Yes, I imagine it would have been the same on Instagram. And yet he posted it on Twitter and they put a ruling on how he had to get approval before tweeting specifically. I imagine that ruling would still apply if he were to own Twitter but I see it as a potential escalation: "You're telling me I can't say whatever I want on my own platform that I just bought with ~$40B?"

Maybe I'm wrong and he'll still abide by the law (which, apparently he wasn't doing very well anyways), I just see it as possible escalating conflict between a private business and a government agency.

Actually yes, it doesn't matter if he paid $50B for Twitter. It's still a violation of SEC rules regardless of whether he owns the platform or not. This argument makes no sense.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a violation of the SEC rules. I'm saying that if he is alleged to have violated them already when he didn't own the platform, there may be a chance he violates them more if he does own it.

I don't think he's that incomprehensibly stupid, really. The only question is whether the SEC has the authority to actually create pain for someone whose wealth is so outside of the norm.

I don't think he'd be as bold-faced about it, however, he does have a tendency to mock people on Twitter, including his tweet of "SEC, three letter acronym, middle word is Elon’s."

> The only question is whether the SEC has the authority to actually create pain for someone whose wealth is so outside of the norm.

I assume they should have the authority to make such rulings regardless of how wealthy someone is. Now, will they actually enforce those rulings to create that realized pain? Maybe that depends on how much regulatory capture one can muster.

Wouldn't he need to buy the SEC then?

I'm not saying he would be able to tweet however he wants, but perhaps a desire to do so, aka, to not have the SEC tell him how to communicate on a platform he bought for ~$43B. I just see it as a potential escalating standoff between the SEC and Musk.

Perhaps I'm looking too deep into this and he really does care a lot about other people having freedom to tweet whatever they want. I think there's just a good chance that the SEC ruling telling him he needs to have his Tesla tweets reviewed before sending them could also be motivating him to buy Twitter.

I can't see any connection with the SEC issue. Nothing would change. Doesn't matter whether he owns the platform or not, he's not supposed to tweet market manipulating lies or exaggerations, which is why he has to run them by legal first.

I agree he's not supposed to. Maybe I just think that since the SEC thinks he has already broken that rule, that if he were to own the platform, he might break that rule even more.

> I find it hard to overlook that at least one thing that might be motivating him to buy Twitter is to tweet however he wants to tweet, regardless of US law.

This doesn't really track. First of all he already tweets however he wants. Secondly what difference would it make to the SEC if he owns Twitter here?

In this recent TED video Elon Musk takes the opportunity to clarify things regarding that settlement:

https://youtu.be/cdZZpaB2kDM

Also highly recommended for anyone curious about what he wants to do with Twitter.