> The very public reasons he initially tried to take over Twitter were disagreement with some of the political censorship decisions they made. You're disingenu

> The very public reasons he initially tried to take over Twitter were disagreement with some of the political censorship decisions they made. You're disingenuously glancing over the fact that Elon Musk repeatedly said and did different things. As the Twitter thread I linked early clearly shows, Elon Musk was repeatedly giving assurances to marketing execs behind closed doors that he would continue moderating hate speech and extremist content on Twitter just as before. The marketing industry is not manned by fools, and once Elon Musk fired basically all content moderators then the industry called Elon Musk out on his bullshit and promptly yanked ad spending on Twitter, explaining quite clearly that cutting moderation was a major liability. It's amusing how people like you prefer to resort to puerile convoluted conspiracy theories to explain why ad companies stopped paying for ads on Twitter when the people who made that decision already stated in no uncertain terms how Elon Musk's actions turned Twitter into a liability.