His problem wasn't offering the deal, his problem was saying yes after they called his bluff

He like.. actually legally agreed to it before he looked into it at all. What a fucking dumbass

It was never about making money. It was about controlling dialogue.

X, the Formerly Known As Twitter App
Blaze your Tweets/Xs or whatever they're called

No, Xitter.

Yeah sure, Elon totally intentionally obliterated his own image among progressives and liberals to prevent another Arab spring because he is a very stable 10D chess master who’s always a trillion steps ahead…

Nothing was intentional. He has no clue. He bought Twitter because he’s a pissy little man-baby on adderall who can’t keep his mouth shut.

And he’s ruining everything because he has no idea what he’s doing and he fired the persons who knew.

I really can't believe that Elon is willing to make himself the heal and devalue his "brand" for this wild conspiracy theory shit. He's just a narcissistic, autistic, wealthy, douchebag. It's the obvious and most reasonable explanation. He's so delusional he didn't realize how horrible his ideas are.

Do you have, like, evidence of this, or is it just plausible sounding vibes?

I imagine Twitter being pretty left-leaning was one factor, but I think you also have to consider things like Elon simply being the world's biggest egotist and also very stupid, and most banks being able to see that this would be a terrible investment.

He named it X because he's a puerile man child that wanted PayPal to be X.com before Peter Thiel forced him into being a billionaire, kicking and screaming, and he's never really gotten over it.

Guy dead names his kid, might as well dead name his company.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, but Elon really isn't that smart and he certainly isn't a genius. Elon has a BA in Physics from a school known for business degrees. He also got a BS in Business, but UPenn and Wharton are known more for how hard it is to get in than how hard the classes are.

The website CollegeVine says UPenn is known as the "Social Ivy" and "UPenn’s admissions is highly-selective, but students applying to the UPenn College of Arts & Science (CAS) will find it less academically competitive than schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford (although exceptional academics are still a must)."

By the way, he started college in 1990, transferred to UPenn in 1992, and states he graduated in 1995, but UPenn refutes that saying he graduated in 1997. This is a school where 96% of those who are accepted graduate within 150% of the degree time (4 year degree within 6 years) (https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/215062/university-of-pennsylvania/graduation/).

Musk of course says he completed the courses in 1995, but there was some sort of mixup with an English and History credit that delayed the degree by 2 years.

I'm typically not one to judge what degrees someone pursues or how long they take to finish those degrees, but when people start calling someone who loses $40 billion a genius the gloves come off.

Ego! He is absolutely convinced he's a genius and smarter than everyone else. People sniffing his farts and praising him are not helping either. There's only one thing Musk is good at and that's riding top of the Dunning-Kruger wave.

Some guy whose daddy owned an emerald mine in Apartheid South Africa

Musk is a shitty businessman and an even shittier person. But those valuations are all nonsense and mostly based on potential growth,

Did you read the article? They estimated the valuation by their ad revenue, comparing before and after the take over. It's still a shitty valuation, but it's not like there's a lot else to go by.

not current fundamentals.

What do you mean by current fundamentals? It's a private service provider, there's not enough source material to evaluate for a fundamental analysis.

When interest rates go up, investment dries up and estimations of potential growth plummets

Right, but that's static across the market. You wouldn't have a situation where interest rates would drive the valuation of a single service provider compared to others in the same market.