[liamwestray]

You don't seem to understand the basic concepts of free speech, securities laws, or what Elon Musk is actually doing. Your question is irrelevant. Accusing me of being intentionally stupid isn't helping your argument.

We have a free market, multiple social platforms exist. Ones that moderate certain content lose certain users. You can chose what level of moderation you want as a customer and platforms can choose what level of moderation they want a business. Moderation technology as a service exists already.

Elon is trying to short-circuit the basic principles of free speech because he lied in a way c-suite executives and directors are not legally allowed to lie as it runs afoul of anti-fraud laws. You may not yell fire in a crowded theatre and you may not use free speech to commit fraud or when you are subject to disclosure laws you may not use free speech as a defense for breaking them.

When you are a corporate officer or director of publicly traded company you agree to following securities laws, specifically not making false statements that may impact stock prices.

Elon's antics got him a twitter-sitter and now he wants to own twitter in some sort of byzantine strategy to get around rules he agreed to (and their consequences necessitating a twitter-sitter) and have helped make him incredibly wealthy.

His arguments about open-sourcing algorithms and protecting free speech are not the actual reasons for his bid to take over twitter, he has simply amassed enough money to try to own a media outlet for the influence he could wield with it. He probably also thinks he can skirt SEC/Judicial rulings about his behavior on twitter if he owns it outright. At Elon's level of wealth, the only thing left to buy is more influence.