Luckily your stating something with no actual argument points to support your statement doesn't hold any weight whatsoever to whether it has any truth to it or not.

You want argument points to support the idea that Twitter is relevant to society?

It is the fourth most visited site on the internet. It has well over three hundred million active users. It was one of the main methods of communication for the last sitting president of the united states. It is worth more than three billion dollars. It is currently what this subset of society in this thread is discussing because we find it relevant.

My bad, I was thinking of your "and [Elon buying 10% of Twitter is] awful for society" comment - unless I misunderstood what you that was awful for society.

Well, the definition "awful for society" is fairly anecdotal, so my reply won't be able to be built upon hard facts.

But in my opinion, Elon Musk is a very smart man who not only sees, but has reaped massive value from Twitter. He is notable for tweeting misleading information to affect the stock price of his companies. These actions resulted in a lawsuit from the SEC in 2018.

The ripple effects of stock manipulation are hard to directly tie to the concept of "awful for society". But it certainly feels like when money is given one place, it is taken from another. When that transfer of money is based on misinformation, it creates pain. I personally am doubtful that the billionaire feels any of it, but someone else will.

I also don't believe that Musk has learned any lesson from the lawsuit either. He is currently trying to fight the tweet pre-approval stipulation in the courts. Putting a financial investment into the company to me personally, looks like someone who has found, or is looking for a loophole.

So I'm curious then what you think about short sellers who can bet against Elon Musk, and therefore they're financially incentivized to generate negative press (whether factual or not), and that Elon is very vocal against that practice?

I presume you're primarily referencing his "Funding secured" tweet - which arguably with Elon's pretty solid judgement, he may have well had funding secured - say through verbal agreement - just perhaps not through official legal channels?

It's also arguable as to whether what he's said is misleading or not, and which what he says, what the SEC wants him to do vs. what the Constitution gives him the foundational right to do seem to be at odds.

Because you didn't give any specific examples of his supposed misleading, it's hard to actually argue you further.

You also haven't tied anything you said back to how him buying ~10% of Twitter is awful for society though?

You must also dislike Bitcoin then because the vast majority of what people see, that hypes them up to buy into Bitcoin, is shallow propaganda/is highly misleading - and those people ultimately will lose their money once the blockchain designed to mimic MLM-Ponzi schemes collapses?

Yes, the idea of short sellers using nefarious methodologies to provide value for themselves is also "awful". This is essentially the crux of my argument about Elon's usage of twitter. I'm of the mind that more than one awful thing can exist in society at the same time.

I'm sorry that I didn't base my argument on what "he may have well had". But when I think about it that way, sure, he may have well had never done anything wrong. The courts disagree, but they also might not being taking into account what he may have well had.

I tried my best to elaborate on why I felt that him purchasing a stake in twitter was awful for society in my last comment. I am sorry that you didn't find it meaty enough for you to argue on, but perhaps that is for the best.

and yes, I also believe bitcoin and MLM ponzi schemes are also awful.