Skip To Content


Scott Galloway@profgalloway

Published on April 8, 2022

Desperate to recapture a delinquent attention cycle that’s wandered off to war, Elon Musk announced Monday he is the largest shareholder in Twitter, with a 9.2% (correction: 9.1%) stake. @elonmusk has trolled me (i.e., called me names on … Twitter) before … but this feels like cosplay.


I’ve been taking activist positions in companies (i.e. participated in $800+ million worth of investment and advocated for change at a publicly traded firm) for the better part of two decades. I’ve served on the boards of seven public companies. In December 2019 I took a stake (approx .03% the size of Elon’s ownership) in Twitter and wrote a public letter to the board, highlighting the company’s lack of innovation and weak shareholder returns, and calling on them to replace part-time CEO Jack Dorsey. I received no response. Shocker. Although the chairman’s son tweeted at me that I shouldn’t be so harsh on Sheryl Sandberg. So … there’s that. A few months later, Elliott Management, a large activist fund, called me and said they were signing my letter with a $2 billion pen. They bought a significant stake in the company and secured two board seats in record time, as the directors realized they’d been acting like sycophants vs. actual fiduciaries. Once Elliott had representatives on the board, @jack was gone. It was just a matter of optics and cadence to make it appear as if it was his idea — ego still drives the majority of decisions around corporate governance. (And war.)

Elliott has done Twitter’s shareholders — and corporate governance — a service advocating for the crazy idea that the CEO should work full time. @jack is a great CEO of Block, but he was a shitty absentee father at Twitter.

The Song Remains the Same

Twitter’s fundamental problems remain, however, and by early this year its shares had retreated back below $40. I began (again) meeting with funds to discuss taking a position and advocating for change. My pitch: Twitter is among the most important products in history (real-time news source, global communications platform), yet it remains a lackluster investment.

The company flounders in a cesspool of ad-supported media, sacrificing quality for attention in the pursuit of profits it will never realize. Twitter defines the term “subscale” in a digital landscape where three giants command 80¢ of the digital dollar: Google, Meta, and Amazon.

Twitter’s inability to monetize is reflected in its valuation. In late January, before Elon started buying, the stock was trading at a significant discount to Meta and Snap.

What to Do

Twitter should move to a subscription model (#fuckingobvious). Corporate users and users with large followings would pay for a fraction of the value they receive. I have long advocated for this model; by shifting the company’s revenue source from advertisers to users, subscription aligns economic incentives with user experience, rather than user exploitation. This leads to a myriad of benefits, which is why recurring-revenue businesses register greater growth and retention and bigger valuations.

Nothing better illustrates the value of Twitter to its users than Tesla. The carmaker spends almost nothing on advertising (GM spends $2+ billion per year), yet it has built the best brand in the industry. This is a function of performance (outstanding products, exceeding targets) multiplied by reach. The reach is a function of Elon’s 80.9 million PR agents (i.e., his Twitter followers). The social network could charge Mr. Musk $10 million a month and — after making a series of ad hominem attacks on the board/company/CEO — he would pay it. Nearly every Fortune 10,000 company and A/B/C list celebrity who uses the platform as a real-time communications tool would pay fees scaled by follower count.

In addition, ad-supported media is what drives the enragement cycle, the bots, and the misinformation plaguing Twitter. Cleaning that up would be good for business, and for the commonwealth. False stories on Twitter are 70% more likely to be retweeted than true ones — and spread six times faster.

On the basis of this pitch, I had soft-circled substantial capital. We were working through this crazy thing called SEC rules and regulations. How would we structure the special purpose vehicle? What were the Hart-Scott-Rodino requirements if one capital source provided more than 50% of the investment? Would my background advocating for change mean we’d need to file a 13D (active) vs. 13G (passive)? You know, “the law.”

By early April we’d spent the better part of a month sorting through these issues. But TWTR was suddenly on a tear, up 20% in two weeks. The market had perceived the shape of a whale moving beneath the surface. My team speculated that another big activist fund was accumulating a position and we updated our models. Then the whale breached.

Enter Elon

To be clear, there’s a lot to like here. Elon correctly saw the opportunity and seized it. Twitter was dramatically undervalued and should be better. And the board was smart to embrace him and give him a seat. The easiest way to silence an activist is to make them an insider. Corporate governance is out of fashion in an era of dual-class public stock and a dangerous diminution of government. But Twitter is 2 for 2 in recent months, showing Jack the door and putting a large shareholder on the board.

In addition, Musk is a genius. He leads two companies that are simultaneously revolutionizing important industries. Tesla makes the world’s best cars and has accelerated industry adoption of electric vehicles by years. The same day he disclosed his Twitter stake, Tesla announced record shipments. But in my view, Tesla isn’t even his most impressive company. SpaceX’s reusable rockets are fundamentally changing the economics of space hauling, core to our future infrastructure. In sum, we have the preeminent entrepreneur of his generation, who’s taken a seat on the board of a company that needs to command the space it occupies.

Glass Half Empty


For starters, Musk’s track record is mixed when it comes to errant distractions from the businesses he’s responsible for. Over the past several years, he’s been reckless, toying with companies, cryptocurrencies, and technologies that captured his fleeting attention only to move on when the next shiny object caught his gaze.

To date, Elon’s stated objectives for Twitter are vague, and clearly bullshit. His main beef with Twitter, it appears, is there’s too much moderation.

Where to begin? Some basic law: Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy, but free speech is a protection from government limits on speech. Free speech doesn’t limit Twitter … it protects Twitter. Rigorous adherence to the principle of free speech means Twitter shapes its own voice, which, if it decides, is not amplifying hate speech, false speech, or speech calling for insurrection. Users who want that content can find it elsewhere, such as 4chan, or Truth Social (not really … DOA). Free speech principles are government principles, just as censorship is government action. Everything else is competing speech.

Moreover, Twitter is an important space for communication, but “free speech principles” and “democracy” do not require or even suggest that Twitter let anyone say anything. On the contrary, they militate for reasonable moderation. An unfettered forum is not free, it’s an invitation to mob rule. If Twitter is the “de facto public square,” that’s because the site moderates content, not despite its efforts to do so. Almost nobody wants unfettered speech on Twitter. Imagine your email inbox but with no spam filters … times 280. Moderation is why 4chan gets 20 million users per month, while Twitter gets 217 million users per day.

In practice, Elon’s interest in “free speech” has been mostly about intimidating journalists who wouldn’t be stenographers for his unfounded claims. His solution was a website where people could vote up or down on journalists, where the magic of crowds would fix media. He wanted to call it Pravda. Today, Pravda, like so many Elon missives, is long forgotten, and Elon’s answer to the problems facing Twitter is: “Somethingsomethingopen source.”

This echoes a long-standing interest by @Jack and others at Twitter, including new CEO Parag Agrawal, in a future version of Twitter that’s “decentralized.” A web3 Twitter, if you will. Specifics are absent — it’s easier to vomit a buzzy word salad. Users will be able to configure their own moderation, no centralized authority, all the same crypto-web3-decentralized BS that has resulted in few real products or services, but has secured billions of dollars for VCs and (other) grifters. The notion that hundreds of millions of Twitter users are all going to tinker with their personal moderation algorithm is as likely as people connecting directly to the blockchain with their handheld phone.

Opening Twitter to outside parties could be powerful, and there’s potential for a new architecture that would let different flavors of Twitter evolve. That’s the idea behind Bluesky, which Twitter created and funds. But a) Twitter is already pursuing this, they don’t need Elon on the board for it; and b) there’s no commercially viable version of Twitter without moderation. Whatever emerges from Bluesky, it will still need centralized entities that filter content and make judgment calls, or the system collapses into chaos.

Wild West

Musk’s call for a Wild West version of Twitter isn’t surprising, as it’s consistent with an emerging Valley ideology I label “takerist.” Takerists view the commonwealth as a hunting ground for personal enrichment and amusement vs. a community invested in mutual prosperity. The great taste of community — roads and charge stations, EV tax credits, air traffic control for Gulfstream 650 ERs, public universities that graduate engineers — with none of the calories — taxes, laws, the basic comity of man.

True to Form

We found out Elon was Twitter’s largest shareholder on Monday morning, because that’s when he disclosed his holdings to the SEC, as required of anyone who acquires more than 5% of a public company. Only Elon filed the wrong form, and he filed it nearly two weeks late. He filed the form for “passive” investors — and if you’ve been talking to the CEO for the past few weeks about joining the board and changing the product, you are not a “passive” investor.

Elon filed the correct form (Schedule 13D) the next day, but it requires more fulsome disclosures, which revealed he had crossed the 5% threshold on March 14. Meaning he’d been obligated to disclose his stake back on March 24. By illegally concealing his stake for 11 days, Musk was able to continue buying shares from sellers who didn’t know he was accumulating a huge position. Had he disclosed his shares properly on March 24, TWTR would have shot up 25% then, instead of on April 4, and the shares he bought subsequently would have garnered selling shareholders approximately $150 million more. That’s fraud, and while I have increasingly less confidence in the SEC, Congress has recently beefed up its power to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains for securities law violations. Shareholder lawsuits may also be in the offing.

Even if the SEC acts, $150 million is immaterial to Elon. On a relative basis, his entire $2.5 billion investment in Twitter is about the price of a MacBook for the average household. A $150 million fine is buying an extra charger. Takerists such as Elon are exempt from the law — they can buy their own. The rest of us would be left with a Musk-flavored Twitter, which would look similar to the replies to his announcement: a septic tank of crypto scams, far-right blather, and screeching wokeism. For all his complaints about “free speech,” Elon has always been able to speak his mind. Or if not, what hasn’t he said?

What’s Next?

Whatever we think of Elon’s move, he’s made it, and the future of an increasingly important media company is increasingly up to him. He “only” owns 9%, but his influence far exceeds that. Even on a strong board (vs. one that would tolerate a CEO on permanent safari), a mega-billionaire celebrity will command outsized influence.

As with all things Elon, it’s the Elon show (unless/until he gets bored and moves on to the next shiny object). Pop quiz: Name somebody else who works at Tesla, SpaceX, or The Boring Company.

Elon bumped the stock, but he’s also likely removed any takeover premium. His antics and wealth make him a human poison pill — neither a financial buyer nor a strategic acquirer wants to deal with the chaos and unpredictable behavior he brings. And Elon himself signed away his right to buy more when he joined the board. The market sensed these issues and, after its initial explosive gains, the stock began to check back.

Prediction: Even the flaccid SEC has to do something here … and that will be an unwelcome distraction for the Twitter board.

Inner Child

20 years ago I joined my first public company board. I was obnoxious, constantly heckling from the cheap seats and more concerned with getting credit for change than increasing stakeholder value. Two decades and seven boards later I’ve finally (I think) embraced what it means to be a fiduciary: to represent the interests of others. Elon is the most brilliant product engineer of this, and likely the last, century. A fraction of that brilliance could transform Twitter. The risk is that his takerism, constant punching down, and cold take on the First Amendment could push Twitter further off course.

Twitter’s future now comes down to one question: Can Elon Musk’s inner child develop an outer man?

Life is so rich,

P.S. Two of our most in-demand sprints are closing early next week: Platform Strategy and Storytelling. Sign up before they close.

P.P.S. If you like our newsletter, please consider voting for us at the Webby Awards. We just got nominated for best business newsletter. Vote HERE — closes April 21.



  1. Only The Lonely says:

    And you want to rant unchallenged yourself, don’t you?

    I saw your CNN- rant on CNN’s site. Very few lonely young men are dangerous, but your bigotry and stereotyping will lead to all of them being treated terribly. That makes you more of a danger to society than they are. It’s sad that someone with a bully pulpit like you wants to use it in a way that could cause a lot of young men to be bullied, not just interpersonally, but by society. I don’t think there’s much chance you ever will improve, but try to be a better human instead of the stereotyping, callous bigot you are.

    Thank you for making the imminent demise of CNN- into joyous news.

  2. IAN MUNRO says:

    ‘Twitter shapes its own voice, which, if it decides, is not amplifying hate speech, false speech, or speech calling for insurrection.’

    Twitter should not permit speech which is not protected by the 1st amendment. Period.

    The problem with extending that to e.g. ‘false speech’ is simply, who decides what constitutes ‘false speech’?

    All too often, ‘false speech’ is simply speech with which someone or some entity (government, Twitter leadership) disagrees. That is not acceptable.

    Must has not called for a ‘Wild West’ version of Twitter and I think you know that. He has called for a version of Twitter where competing voices can be heard.

  3. El Ahr says:

    Well, today’s news of the takeover offer just made this more interesting.

    Professor Galloway, your business acumen far exceeds mine, but I think you dismiss the importance of the open forum issue, and the comparison with 4chan is a straw-man. The complaint isn’t that there are rules at all, it’s that they are routinely found to be disparately enforced with a detectable politically bias and are often framed in vague language. Twitter has potential because it has legions of users who are open to read and post at a free tier, which are eyeballs both for ads AND the large follower paid account type reach you’re angling for. Musk may oversimplify the free speech issue himself, but free speech is NOT just “a protection from government limits on speech”. If it were that cut and dry, you wouldn’t have had Section 230 for example, or the several challenges to it.

  4. Dizzy says:

    Free Speech isn’t just meant for Democrats and Woke Ideologues. Your content is good when you don’t shove your political agenda down peoples throats.

  5. Peter Winter says:

    Two braggart douchebags going at it. Unpleasant. Let’s move this convo to Twitter…

  6. New Drinking Game says:

    Find the “I usually appreciate your take but….” comment on any given Scott Galloway post. The latter half is always something to the tune of “… what about my right wing viewpoint?!”

  7. Icarus says:

    Scott, I usually appreciate your insights but you have two fundamental blind spots. You have too much faith in Government and the people who work in Government, and you made up your mind about Musk a while ago and all new information is funneled through that lens. I’ll keep listening/reading/watching but your opinions on the above two items are often poorly considered and I don’t feel it is possible for you to be objective or clear headed. For example the argument you have written here: you open by saying he did what you wanted to do but beat you to it, then cobble together a poorly reasoned argument that he will lose interest based on crypto when any objective person viewing the arc of Elon’s career and investments can find many examples of what might be best described as single-minded even myopic focus and a willingness to bet everything if he is committed – see 4th spacex launch, 2008 and 2018 Tesla. You then suggest Elon’s plan for Twitter is misguided, despite it being broadly more popular with the actual users of twitter. Your own plan as outlined on Pivot meanwhile is basically ‘hello popular person, that is a nice Twitter following you have there, would be a shame if anything happened to it.’ Please take a step back when entering the above topics, particularly the proper scope and power of the government and think more objectively.

  8. Christopher Gibbs says:

    This article reminded me of the old joke about the two main newspapers in the former Soviet Union that there is no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.

  9. JS Hamil says:

    TL;DR…I was trying to buy large share of Twitter and someone beat me to it.

  10. Rebecca Paguio says:

    @Elon i request more rewards for all miners…🤗

  11. Kent says:

    Interesting Scott, but you miss the mark with your views on freedom of speech. Twitter should be an open platform rather than a subjective forum which decides who receives a voice and who should not. When that occurs political viewpoints always override an open platform.
    I am very interested to see the impact that Elon can have on Twitter.

    • Devin says:

      Actually, you miss the purpose of civil society.

      Twitter needs to be public square.

      Not a shit hole.

  12. Daniel says:

    You do know that Dems lie on Twitter all the time, unchecked? You worry about Elon giving access to the other side arguments but have zero worry about what’s happening on Twitter in its current state? Lol

  13. John Lloyd says:

    I think Twitter has become too insular and navel gazing like all organizations do over time and it needs a bold reformer like Musk to shake it up. It might make people like me, who are completely indifferent to Twitter, think about signing up or at least exploring it to see if it’s got something engaging to offer.

  14. Christine Mrugala says:

    Dearest Scott, Thank you for sharing your ‘ eyes wide open ‘ perspectives. Elon is the guy who made billions pulling the wool over our eyes that his EV ‘s will save the planet – which then gave him capital to destroy Earth with his fossil fueled frickin’ spaceships ( just a toy for the boy).

  15. Gavin McMahon says:

    What I love about the analysis of Scott Galloway is that it starts from the premise that ego is at the heart of corporate decision making. It’s absolutely true, but no other “voice”/ strategist/ opinion leader ever mentions that. I wonder why.

  16. nekkoya says:

    “Free speech principles are government principles, just as censorship is government action. Everything else is competing speech.”

    The main complaint of conservatives and people on the right is that Twitter and other tech companies make up arbitrary rules then DON’T ENFORCE IT TO BOTH SIDES EQUALLY. For example if trolls were attacking Michelle Obama on Twitter then there would be tremendous effort within Twitter to ban those trolls with some combination of “racism”, “misogyny”, “death threats” and “harassment” thrown in as explanation to why its was terrible and needed to be stopped urgently but when it the same type of trolling/abuse happen to someone like Candace Owens or another black female conservative or female conservatives like Ann Coulter or Marjorie Taylor Greene (never mind a white man) Twitter doesn’t care, nothing is done and the media spins it as not being harassment but extremely unlikeable people being rightfully dunked on and dragged. Not a equal application of Twitter’s rules but arbitrarily enforced rules based on how the leftist mob on Twitter and their more influential counterparts in the media feel emotionally. Its totally subjective moderation. There are a million examples of this.

    “Moreover, Twitter is an important space for communication, but “free speech principles” and “democracy” do not require or even suggest that Twitter let anyone say anything.”

    This is a strawman nobody is arguing we allow people to say anything. Even on 4chan there are rules, you can’t write anything you want. Usually people bring up the most extreme examples such as a call to violence or rape, which has happened to many controversial figures on the right especially women and nothing is done about those tweets btw, the most infamous bannings on Twitter are nothing even close to things like that. Also there is nothing wrong with shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater if there is indeed a fire. But we live in a country (and planet) where people live in two different realities where we can’t even agree there is a fire.

    “On the contrary, they militate for reasonable moderation. An unfettered forum is not free, it’s an invitation to mob rule. If Twitter is the “de facto public square,” that’s because the site moderates content, not despite its efforts to do so. Almost nobody wants unfettered speech on Twitter. Imagine your email inbox but with no spam filters … times 280. Moderation is why 4chan gets 20 million users per month, while Twitter gets 217 million users per day.”

    Another strawman. I can’t believe you use spam as a actual example of the type of speech being debated. Babylon Bee satirically tweeting that Rachel Levine is their “Man of the Year” because USA Today made Rachel Levine one of their women of the year is not equivalent to spam or unfettered speech or mob rule. Then there’s a whole debate over “truth” and “science” when things like the NY Post’s story on Hunter Biden’s laptop was labeled misinformation and the NY Post’s Twitter got suspended for posting their story on it but now its being reported as a fact by the rest of the mainstream media. Did the truth change? Or just maybe Twitter and the tech giants or even the US government can’t be trusted to pronounce what is fact and truth and what isn’t with absolute certainty like they’re God? Wouldn’t US atrocities in the Korean or Vietnam War (My Lai) have been labeled misinformation by Twitter as communist propaganda if it was around back then due to pressure from the US government? Also that brings up the point of why you think there is a neat dividing line between tech companies like Twitter and the US government? There is a lot of cooperation between the US government and big tech companies.

    And lastly 4chan is heavily moderated it just doesn’t ban people for saying things that polite society in current year doesn’t allow. While 4chan can be vulgar and repetitive I’ve seen some absolutely brilliant posts, memes and jokes that would not be allowed on Twitter or any other mainstream social networks which is exactly its appeal and free speech at work.

    • Mike weaver says:

      Excellent and well thought out !

    • bored says:

      Even if any of this is true, it’s not about “free speech,” it’s just your preferences don’t align with Twitter’s. You are welcome to engage over at Gettr, which is a carbon copy of Twitter but with different moderation principles. Twitter has no obligation to conform its moderation to your presences or anyone else’s.

      • Daniel says:

        Then you have zero recourse when Elon pushes for Trump to be re-given access, right? New Twitter has no obligation to conform to the leftists principles of its failing current state.

  17. Guy Areemen says:

    Excellent perspectives! There is a clear movement afoot from various members of the PayPal mafia – Thiel, Sacks, Musk, among others to advance this notion of winner-takes-all as the defining public policy posture of out time. They are all actively involved in the public and political square in addition to the commercial marketplace and would love nothing more than to abolish any boundaries, rules, laws that apply to them. They are each Trump fanboys too, and for good reason. I do give them credit for one thing – in a departure from 3 decades of fake, phony, BS corporate blather marketing masking outrageous private behaviors and positions, these folks are largely open and transparent about what they stand for. And I am free to choose to despise them for it.

  18. Chris says:

    Freedom only exists if you have nothing. Your concept of freedom is an adolescent fantasy. If you take ownership of ideas, you have no freedom, only responsibility.

  19. Chris says:

    one of the best posts I’ve read from you.

  20. BB says:

    Elon is literally a light year away from you. Elon resembles a child only in his imagination to improve the world in a meaningful/tangible way and you are behaving like an adult infantile who cannot accept a conflicting point of view from anyone.

    Absolute freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the free world – it is such a simple concept to understand. Your support for policing it hurts the fundamental integrity of the universe because you are looking to skew the reality in favor of your vision which YOU deem worthier. That is simply not freedom. Everyone should have the freedom of expression regardless of how offensive that might be.

    • Chris says:

      Freedom only exists if you have nothing. Your concept of freedom is an adolescent fantasy. If you take ownership of ideas, you have no freedom.

    • GD says:

      Elon is clearly on the autism spectrum. Hence he is a child. He has no filter. He has no empathy and no idea of what a consequence of one’s actions or words is. That is why he is a train wreck socially, he has no mores basically he has no idea what EQ is.

  21. James says:

    Elon saw the CEO void at Twitter and decided for $2bn to control a social network. As Zuckerberg ‘s Libra cryptocurrency was still-born due to his and Sheryl Sandberg’s lack of trust, perhaps Twitter can create its own currency. He can also get your free advice about going subscription. I do applaud someone like Elon who will engage with a Joe Rogan instead of canceling him for saying something the hive disagrees with.

  22. Joe says:

    “Can Elon Musk’s inner child develop an outer man?”

    Nope! It’s only going to get worse. It always gets worse.

  23. Stephan Heuler says:

    Well written! I couldn’t agree more….

  24. Sozy says:

    Hey Scott,
    Some prescient points about the value of moderation on Twitter. I wonder though, re: your early admission of Musk’s genius — are you aware of Musk’s history with almost all of the major companies with which he is affiliated? The relentless focus with which he drums creditable founders out of both the companies themselves and the narratives surrounding their foundation? The lack of meaningful input he had in shaping, for instance, PayPal and Tesla, as well as his complete incomprehension about what several of his companies — particularly Neuralink — actually do and are capable of?

    Because if you combine those ideas with the multiple observations you make about Musk’s activity record and stated intentions re: Twitter, Pravda and the rest, doesn’t it seem a little bit like he’s an amoral imbecile who combines all the worst aspect of a gerrymandering politician with the terrible good fortune of an emerald legacy, rather than any kind of genius at all?

  25. Dale says:

    Excellent way to explain to all who knew it would be a problem for Twitter to have Elon on it’s board (and as a largest shareholder) but did not know how to express it in words. You did it exquisitely. Thanks Scott.

  26. Angela Gyetvan says:

    I think you’re right about everything except any confidence that Musk will do anything good for Twitter. I think he’ll head for the next shiny object.

  27. John Zac says:

    you got this right

  28. Lynda says:

    Twitter for me, yes, a real time breaking news source. Hate the bots though. Thinking a subscription service handles some of this, so, hope to see it. Elon is about Elon, but editing button, if he gets that, great. Minimally though, would like to see a dislike button/click. Thanks!

  29. Paul Lubitz says:

    Scott, I love you….but as a musician, your use of the word cadence makes little sense? “A sequence of chords closing a musical phrase.” Think “Amen” at the end of a hymn. It’s all about ending something. Were you implying rhythm, or tempo or groove? Just trying to understand. Thanks, Paul

  30. Cary Grant says:

    Twitter has no speech of its own. They are a platform for other people’s speech and have been given special governmental protections which they in turn used that governmental protection to censor and stop speech they don’t like(anything that disagrees with the Democrat regime-Hunter Biden’s laptop, Democrat’s rigging the election. your insurrection comments are, of course, absurd. you can’t throw an insurrection with no guns and no shots fired at except for unarmed women by the Capitol Police whose murder is then celebrated by Leftists like you. The reason you got no response is because you have nothing to add unlike Musk. Twitter better watch out or it’s going to be a successful free speech platform.

  31. Luke The Duke says:

    Hey Scott your jealousy of Elon Musk and advertisements for CNN+ are not content I am interested in. I continue reading because I have found golden nuggets of information countless times. In the future, please do better articles than these past two…

  32. Woody White says:

    Sorry, you lost me at Twitter being a “real time news source.” It is no more a news source than Sesame Street.

  33. Nick Irabua says:

    How can we get elon to read this?

  34. Dean K says:

    Scott, your best post ever. Dead on. And many of the people commenting here are trying to bring politics into this. If I’m not mistaken, you’re simply trying to state how Twitter can increase shareholder value (with some comedy mixed in.)

  35. elford orr says:

    Love the humor,

  36. OK Groomer says:

    Can you comment on your decision to pull your Pivot conference out of Florida due to the Parental Rights in Education bill? If you read the bill and still stand against it, does that mean you advocate for children under 10 to be indoctrinated into gender theory without parental consent? A strong majority of Americans support the bill, and I’d bet dollars to donuts that 90%+ of Ukranian and Afghan refugees would too 😉

    • Davey says:

      Why do people like you start thinking about children and sex anytime someone says something that may have even a remote connection to sex. Sick minds.

      • CRT says:

        The Democrats are trying to indoctrinate children as young as possible into gender and race politics, while forcing masks and experimental injections that all civilized countries don’t recommend. But the republicans have unhealthy obsessions?

  37. Ryan says:

    Lets argue in good faith here Scott. Elon, and most making the free speech argument, understand the basis is about government protection – not corporate. But places like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, etc. have quickly become a modern town square, utility, whatever word you want – ubiquitous to our public discord. It’s also pretty clear these platforms have biases and these biases have expedited the eroded trust people have in one another, institutions, etc.

    Sure it’s easy to point to January 6th (again, and again, and again as you so frequently do) as an importance to moderate discussion. But what about ‘grey’ areas? Debating masking in school policies? Biases in policing? Trans athletes? It’s due time for you to spend a few weeks out of your Ivory Tower

    • Fake News Network says:

      Scott is shilling for the imploding CNN+ and its Karen audience, he is not capable of nuanced conversations outside of his ivory tower.

    • mdv59 says:


    • Michael says:

      Nice summary of how I feel about this article. His rants have become very myopic and stubborn. He is clearly also emasculated by alpha males like Musk and Trump and anyone more successful than him. If this was Twitter he would block you immediately as he has a very fragile ego.

  38. Ray says:

    One other person who works at SpaceX – Gwen Shotwell, a great CEO who stays off the radar and keeps the company humming smoothly.

  39. Yuri B says:

    Twitter is a cesspool of left-wing information and censorship. It coordinated with Democrat power brokers to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story and amplify Russigate. Head of Legal Vijaya Gadde openly advocates for political censorship. Elon should clean house, otherwise other platforms that stand up for free speech like Substack will continue to eat away at Twitter’s audience and market share.

Join the 500,000 who subscribe

To resist is futile … new content every Friday.