That tweet seems a bit weird, especially coming from him.

It makes sense from purely a) founder/entrepreneur perspective which PG normally speaks from. Forcing someone to run a company they don’t believe in is normally a bad strategy. And b) assuming the board member cares about Twitter as an entity beyond the short term monetary gain/share prices. Since most board members are already wealthy and are motivated by more than $$ when taking on the job

Of course fundamentally the question is obviously moot give the legal obligation both from Musk and for the shareholders to optimize payout before a recession, but it’s an interesting thought experiment of whether it’s going to harm them either by going to court and/or having a disinterested owner.

Personally I think regardless if Elon is forced to buy Twitter he’s obviously going to do try to make the best out of his investment (or at least a better product). He’s a poweruser who clearly cares about the product. Can’t be much worse than it already is. His concern is probably just the price not that he doesn’t want to own Twitter.

> Let me answer that: they do not want to be owned by someone who doesn't want to.

That person wanted to own Twitter, though, and very much so. To that effect, that person made and absolutely ludicrous offer (e.g., merger without due digligence), just to end up owning Twitter as soon as possible.

The fact that a few weeks later, the same person changed their mind about Twitter, is absolutely their own fault. They agreed to terms.

Man PG has jumped the shark completely. What the hell is that tweet - a deal is a deal, how can he implicitly say it should be ok for it not to be honoured (and with his twitter following, saying something publicly has an impact, however small)