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.