He often doesn't do things "by the book" and will not wait for what he thinks is unnecessary red-tape. He will skirt around regulations and taunt the process the entire way. We've seen it many times before, and it's always purely in the benefit of whatever company he's helping at the time.
He has no problem throwing people/money/etc. at the problem to get the result he wants and if someone so much as says the opposite, they are removed from the equation (fired, publicly ridiculed, etc.).
I personally don't see what benefit he can bring to Twitter other than shaking up the culture. Who knows, he may even come in, take over, and claim to be a founder of Twitter, just like he did with Tesla.
> He has no problem throwing people/money/etc. at the problem to get the result he wants and if someone so much as says the opposite, they are removed from the equation (fired, publicly ridiculed, etc.).
Not just fired or ridiculed, Musk and Tesla have also tried to have a whistleblower murdered by accusing them of being a mass shooter and having them SWAT'd[1].
> Early on, according to Gouthro, a company lawyer told him that the previous head of security at the Gigafactory, Andrew Ceroni, had left after a bitter dispute. The lawyer said Ceroni had spied on a union meeting on Musk’s orders and then threatened to tell the world about it when he left the company.
Considering where Tesla was when he joined and what they have become, I’d say it’s fair to call himself a late-joining founder. This would obviously not be true of Twitter.
> I personally don't see what benefit he can bring to Twitter other than shaking up the culture. Who knows, he may even come in, take over, and claim to be a founder of Twitter, just like he did with Tesla.
He didn't "come in", in as much as he "made the company". The company was "two guys and some incorporation papers" before Musk's involvement. The company, for all intents and purposes, did not exist before Musk's involvement.
Whether that made him a founder is irrelevant, but it's important to not imply that he just "bought" a company that already had a product. There was no product.
It's only useful if the shit that is "gotten done" is actually an asset to the company and its bottom line or service to the public. Change for change-sake is almost always a bad thing.
