Put Up or Shut Up Time for Elon Musk: Does it Matter?

by Stephen Lendman

On Monday, Twitter, Inc. announced the following:

The company "entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by an entity wholly owned by Elon Musk, for $54.20 per share in cash in a transaction valued at approximately $44 billion." 

"Upon completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a privately held company."

According to company chairman Bret Taylor:

"The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon's proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing." 

"The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter's stockholders."

Musk said the following:

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated."

"I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans." 

"Twitter has tremendous potential."

"I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."

Musk has been outspoken about changes he'll make to Twitter's platform as company owner.

It remains to be seen if his claim about wanting Twitter to be "a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive" is hyperbole or whether he intends to transform the company in other ways — notably with maximizing profits in mind.

Under its current leadership, Twitter censors truth-telling on vital domestic and geopolitical issues — in cahoots with US dark forces, serving their interests, not the platform's users.

A previous article asked whether Musk could reinvigorate US speech and media freedom as dominant Twitter owner? 

Until the rubber meets the road, it remains unclear what he intends and is able to accomplish.

Does he, in fact, want Twitter to be a platform for free and open expression or does he have other aims in mind not disclosed?

Throughout US history, the nation's best, brightest, well-intentioned, and noblest of individuals never changed the nation's dirty business as usual wicked ways.

Even with his super-wealth exceeding $250 billion, even if Twitter's platform becomes more open to freely expressed views, there's virtually no chance for positive change in the US with Musk as its owner.

And if it appeared that he could push things in this direction enough to matter, a JFK, RFK, MLK fate would likely await him.

That said, MSM are hostile toward him as Twitter's owner — notably the NYT, an imperial mouthpiece against what just societies hold most dear.

Following Monday's announcement by Twitter's board, the Times bashed Musk as follows, saying:

He "slime(s) his critics, body-shame(s) people, def(ies) securities laws and relentlessly hawk(s) cryptocurrencies (sic)," adding:

He "has not been a responsible caretaker for the companies he already oversees: Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and the Boring Company (sic)."

Surprisingly, the Times didn't claim that he amassed unmatched super-wealth based on luck, not skill.

The notorious lying machine slammed him for "thumb(ing) his nose at" hellish flu/covid mandates — with mass-extermination and destruction of remaining freedoms in mind.

The Times dubiously accused him of "racist abuse, discrimination and sexual harassment (sic)," adding:

Musk "won't make Twitter a better place. (He'll) make it far more toxic (sic)."

"And the whole world should be concerned that (he) might reinstate Trump('s)" page (sic).

The Times lied accusing Trump of "us(ing) Twitter to whip his followers into a frenzy (sic)."

Suspending Trump from Twitter and Facebook was a flagrant First Amendment breach.

Not according to the Times, disgracefully saying:

"The company rightfully barred Mr. Trump from Twitter (sic)."

And this from WaPo on Musk as Twitter's owner:

"Twitter workers face a reality they've long feared: Elon Musk as owner (sic)."

CNN — the most reviled and distrusted name in television propaganda masquerading as news — claimed that Musk's ownership of Twitter "raises big questions about how (his) proposed changes, including loosening content restrictions, will take shape (sic)."

CNBC asked what "Musk mean(s) by free speech" — falsely claiming:

"Free speech for a private corporation doesn't have to mean what it does in the First Amendment (sic)."

In contrast to MSM criticism, technology entrepreneur John Meyer said the following:

"I think there is nothing better for Twitter than Elon Musk buying it and ideally replacing the board…" 

"Musk has the track record that he can do the impossible."

His takeover of Twitter is subject to approval by company shareholders.

They'll benefit hugely by a significant increase in the firm's share price if OK the deal.

If reject it, the share price will likely plunge.