Like many people who are active on social media, I’ve been watching the ongoing battles between billionaire businessman/investor Elon Musk and Twitter with keen interest.
Musk shocked a lot of Twitter users when it was announced a couple of weeks ago that he had brought shares in the popular social media platform, enough to make him their largest shareholder.
Along with that news came rampant speculation and panic on the left that Musk, who has long been a critic of Twitter’s suppression tactics when it comes to criticism of Democrats and Democrat pet agenda items, would bring changes to the platform that would balance it out and make it a more level playing field between conservatives and liberals.
The news was so upsetting to some on the left that there were Twitter employees who openly talked of dreading what they figured Musk had in mind. Some reportedly resigned (or at least threatened to) in protest.
Two days after news broke of Musk buying shares in the company, another announcement was made, this one being that Musk had been appointed to the board of directors. This upped the panic level big-time among leftists, especially when Twitter’s co-founder Jack Dorsey and its CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted that they were “really happy” and “excited” to share the news.
The following week, Musk indicated he was no longer interested in being on the board of directors. A few days after that, Musk declared his intentions to buy Twitter for $43 billion in what some have declared as an attempt at a “hostile takeover.”
In a letter to the higher-ups, Musk stated that he’d invested in Twitter “as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.”
Further, he noted that “since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form.” Which apparently was his reason for deciding he didn’t want to just be a shareholder.
He told them he believed Twitter “needs to be transformed as a private company” and warned that if his “final offer” was not accepted he would have to “reconsider my position as a shareholder.”
In response to Musk’s actions, Twitter’s board voted unanimously to adopt a “poison pill,” a shareholder rights plan which according to the New York Times is “a defensive strategy familiar to boardrooms trying to fend off takeovers but less familiar to everyday investors.”
In a press release, Twitter said that “the Rights Plan will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person or group gains control of Twitter through open market accumulation without paying all shareholders an appropriate control premium or without providing the Board sufficient time to make informed judgments and take actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.”
Perhaps anticipating the board’s move, Musk has also indicated that he has a “Plan B” but has not been specific on the details. Speculation is swirling that Musk is courting other investors go to in with him on the attempt at buying Twitter.
Whatever the case may be, those of us on the right who have long been subjected to Twitter’s one-sided censorship tricks (forcing conservatives to delete tweets they don’t like, suspending accounts that refuse to comply, etc.) are enjoying the heck out of Musk’s early efforts to turn over tables and kick down few chairs.
Why? Because it would appear that Musk, who was not born in this country, understands the concept of free speech and expression and the need for open forums for ideas to be expressed much better than Twitter’s brass, many of who were born and bred right here in America.
Media analyst Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym Sister Toldjah and is a regular contributor to RedState and Legal Insurrection.
