It seems like the Elon Musk vs. Twitter vs. the liberal world of censorship has been raging on for some time now.
However, few people probably ever thought that we’d end up in a strange scenario in which Twitter was trying to force someone to buy them despite the two parties having antithetical views on censorship, freedom of speech, and the world in general.
In that world however, sometimes people forget that the phrase ”money talks” transcends even today’s divisive politics. In our opinion, one reason people do forget, is because so many people on one side of the divide have more money than the other side.
Musk’s recent moves and political views have someone offered a refreshing counter-offensive to that dynamic in the eyes of many, with his original attempt to purchase Twitter with the idea of toning down their overzealous censorship.
After Covid-19 bailouts however, the economy overheated and the Federal Reserve started jacking up interest rates in an attempt to push back on inflation partially caused by rampant government overspending.
This caused the stock market to slow down and the easy money spigot to tuen off for many. It’s easy to speculate that this contributed to Musk’s pulling out of the Twitter deal in addition to the bots and spam on Twitter.
When Twitter began it’s attempt to force Musk to buy them, the left’s narrative changed from them not wanting Musk to own Twitter, to them praising the situation because Musk had to sell off a lot of his Twitter stock as it fell with the broader markets.
If Musk does buy Twitter, he will overpay, and have to give up a big chunk of his own company at repressed prices in the new narrative, which gave the leftists in the popcorn gallery something new to root for.
This new idea was to make Musk lose a good portion of his wealth as the ”price to pay” for taking over Twitter simply to allow free speech in our view.
There are a lot more angles to this complex saga than some realize. Recently, former Disney CEO Bob Iger commented on Twitter, saying they may have bought Twitter in 2016. In addition to mentioning ”hate speech”, Iger said a ”substantial portion” of Twitter users were “not real”.
This lends credence to Musk’s bot theory, but some may argue that while Twitter has their issues, Musk didn’t do his diligence. Ultimately both sides could lose billions and a judge will need to decide which way all this ends.
