The dude has plenty of money and is doing this for shits. Don't concern yourself with him not making a return on his investment, the lulz he's experiencing right now are worth it to him alone.
And if you mean it's a waste of money in the "he could be giving it to charity" sense... I hope I don't have to explain why that's so dumb.
Nah, I'm done with charity. They've pretty much all been subverted by leftist grifters and the constant virtue-signalling everywhere is getting on my balls.
I was more thinking along the lines of that money could have been invested more wisely to benefit .... dunno ... political balance, freedom of speech, whatever.
I can't say I agree. How would you spend $43 billion to benefit free speech?
Twitter is the cheapest way to get a big platform with name recognition that people of all walks of life actually use. If you bring it back to free speech, not only have you made a large platform free speech focused, but if it is a successful endeavor and benefits the platform financially (as it surely will), you'll set a path forward for other companies.
Right now companies clearly believe that going woke is the only path to success. A lot of this is big investors who invest based on how woke a company is. We need to show that that can be changed.
And I suspect that a Twitter acquisition has far more potential than "owning" $43 bil of local governments. Neither give you full control of the thing you bought, by the way.
The dude has plenty of money and is doing this for shits. Don't concern yourself with him not making a return on his investment, the lulz he's experiencing right now are worth it to him alone.
And if you mean it's a waste of money in the "he could be giving it to charity" sense... I hope I don't have to explain why that's so dumb.
Nah, I'm done with charity. They've pretty much all been subverted by leftist grifters and the constant virtue-signalling everywhere is getting on my balls.
I was more thinking along the lines of that money could have been invested more wisely to benefit .... dunno ... political balance, freedom of speech, whatever.
I can't say I agree. How would you spend $43 billion to benefit free speech?
Twitter is the cheapest way to get a big platform with name recognition that people of all walks of life actually use. If you bring it back to free speech, not only have you made a large platform free speech focused, but if it is a successful endeavor and benefits the platform financially (as it surely will), you'll set a path forward for other companies.
Right now companies clearly believe that going woke is the only path to success. A lot of this is big investors who invest based on how woke a company is. We need to show that that can be changed.
He could pull a Soros and buy the actual real-world government from the local level up.
Not with just $43 bil he couldn't.
And I suspect that a Twitter acquisition has far more potential than "owning" $43 bil of local governments. Neither give you full control of the thing you bought, by the way.