> This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business. That's a legal perspective. Nobody cares about legality here. Wheth

> This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business. That's a legal perspective. Nobody cares about legality here. Whether or not twitter is a private business or run by the government has fuck all to do with what utility it provides to society and, by extension, with the outcome of any possible changes made to it. > I don't fear that musk will ruin an investment for giggles or for self centered reasons, no. This makes no sense whatsoever unless you think your interests are aligned here. Ultimately, Musk will want twitter to make him money. How he thinks he has to handle the platform for it to earn him as much as possible, and whether that's better or worse than how twitters current management interprets things, that is the important part here. > Your third paragraph is one of them logical fallacy things isn't it. Their third paragraph is really just spelling out the negative of what they already said. If you believe all of these things, you should have this conclusion. If you do not believe all of them, then you don't need to have this conclusion. I don't see why you're calling this a fallacy.