> Musk said last week that he doesn’t care about the economics of the deal and is pursuing it because it is "extremely important to the future of civilization."

> Musk said last week that he doesn’t care about the economics of the deal and is pursuing it because it is "extremely important to the future of civilization." Fine, but who anointed Musk to decide the future of civilization? Who anointed the previous board? Every criticism leveled at Musk by the author applies equally to the current owners of Twitter, Facebook, and many others. Except the bizarre observation that Musk won't be constrained by shareholders - this must be the first time shareholders are invoked as guardians of societal responsibility. All the stranger because the author follows it with: > They pushed America from stakeholder capitalism (where workers and communities had a say in what corporations did) to shareholder capitalism (where the sole corporate goal is to maximize shareholder value). Inequality skyrocketed, insecurity soared, vast swaths of America were abandoned, and millions of good jobs vanished. The author also states Musk's goal is to be unconstrained by "laws and regulations". He does not explain how owning Twitter makes one less beholden to laws and regulations - presumably the law still applies, even if Twitter is privately owned? Ultimately it's nakedly obvious what's happening - the same actions tolerated or applauded when done by my friends, are strongly condemned when done by my enemies - The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. It's embarrassing how many words the article spends poorly trying to disguise this, and even more embarrassing that some will take the article at face value.