He was forced by a law suite since he signed papers about him buying it. It was his free choice to sign those papers. It was his free choice to have them even drafted. Also the value, is a value he came up with. (Maybe while stoned)
Well, theoretically you could make an offer, that raises the share price to the offer and then you can cancel the offer and sell your shares fornthe high price and profit.
However the SEC would investigate very carefully. Especially in the case of Musk, who has a history of stock manipulation. He'd need very good arguments.
However there was something else: After his offer markets crashed to some degree. Thus he overpaid compared to what he'd have to pay, if he had made the offer a few weeks later. So maybe he only wanted to lower the price.
It's likely that the initial offer came out of a rage. Just see the back and forth with him joining the board ... or not. However the key point is: He's not a poor victim who was forced to buy something he didn't want at all, but he initiated this and signed papers about it. The court just decided that he can't get out.
Yes but his history also shows he doesn't really care what the SEC thinks and does what he wants regardless. I think this is still a pretty plausible reason.
Everything we’ve seen so far fits the theory that he didn’t have a plan other than changing their policies and has been winging it ever since.
It seems to be mostly under the flag of 'for the children' and in the US it seems more religiously/GOP oriented but if you actually start a discussion and dismantle some of their talking points with actual proof (no, kids are not indoctrinated into becoming trans or gay, it's just about understanding), the actual underlying rabid hate comes out.
I'm not LGBTI+ myself but I'm very good friends with many of them and I find it sickening. Leave people to be who they are.
I had no idea about Musk's daughter though, that explains some of it in his view I guess.
This is where I consider "pride month" relevant: I'm not LGBTI+ either and for large parts consider the hate a edge phenomenon on internet and in some groups and more or less forget about it. During pride month there are so many anti-gayncomments one can overhear, which to me serves as a reminder that in my bubble it's not a problem, but once you step out it's a crazy world ... (I'm outside the US)
When I grew up in the 80s it was all totally OK. A bit uneasy still but OK. In the 90s things improved even more. Being gay was just normal, not even special. Not that everyone was gay but it was just normal the way some people are blond and others brown-haired. It wasn't even a 'thing' anymore. It just was.
But now it has definitely become a thing spurring lots of hate again. And it saddens me. We had this covered. Only trans wasn't really a thing when I was young but queerness was. I think it was more just not a thing because the medical options weren't as advanced as they are now.
I think polarisation of society has played a big part in this. I think religion also plays a role as many religions frown on this. In the 90s our society was really 'done' with religion, young people were completely disconnected from it. But it has made a comeback for various reasons.
I've done a lot of thinking about this. People point to religion or society or statistics, but I believe that those are mere fig leafs to justify their hateful gut feelings.
I think it's an offshoot of homophobia. Some men are simply terrified that other men are looking at them the same gross way they or their acquaintances look at women. By the same token, I believe that the disgust felt towards transwomen by some men is that it's "tricking" a man into being gay, and that some women perceive transness as some sort of "stolen valor."
If you truly care about the well-being of kids and teenagers, don't get between them and their doctor.
He debt financed the buyout. While he had to put up a non-trivial amount of his own money he also borrowed a non-trivial amount of money. Part of Twitter's problems today is paying an extra billion dollars a year in interest payments on those loans.
I don't think buying twitter was a very good business decision, but it was certainly calculated.
The value he got from owning the public discourse platform is enough for someone who is a billionaire and doesn't really need money anymore.
Is there a particular reason to believe that he's doing so? Recall that he didn't voluntarily make the purchase; he was forced to by a lawsuit. And, given that the persona he presents publicly is childish, spiteful and petulant, I think it makes a lot more sense to take his actions at their face value and conclude he has no intention of running Twitter well (or, in the long term, at all).