"Over the weekend, a glitch on the platform meant that the site removed pictures and links on posts made before December 2014. The posts showed broken links instead of the pictures and videos that were previously there.
Several users noticed the glitch, with the technologist Tom Coates among those pointing it out. Coates referred to the glitch as “epic vandalism by Musk” and suggested it could be a cost-saving exercise."
Take a somewhat successful company, pay way more than it's worth and then run it into the ground through kack-handed incompetence fueled by unlimited arrogance. Only a true business genius could do that.
At best, I think it could be an actual plan of his, he was pissed when he was forced to buy Twitter after backing out, real pissed.
Maybe now he's intentionally destroying it as a way to destroy the accomplishments of those he was forced to buy it from, but he's doing it in a way that won't land him in legal trouble for intentionally destroying it.
I would believe it if it turned out to be true, but at the same time, he could simply be an extremely incompetent, super ultra mega wealthy idiot. I dunno.
I think that might be giving him too much credit, bit who knows. I don't think he'd willingly throw away that much money when he's been trying to build his brand around X for decades.
Could he get in legal trouble for intentionally destroying it? It's no longer publicly traded but a private company owned by Musk. I think he's within his rights to just lay everyone off and shut it down.
Another lemmer commented on a similar post and got me thinking... Who paid for Twitter, really? It was not all Musk. I have to wonder if he got marching orders from those bankrolling him to run it into the ground. Also what got deleted? Arab Spring.
Out of 46.5 billion total cost, 27 billion was out of Musk's pocket. 13 billion were bank loans, most as a leveraged buyout so technically Twitter owes the banks, but the banks do not own shares. 5.2 billion, only a little more than 10% came from other sources. The biggest is 1.89 billion from the Saudi Prince, but those are just his previously owned shares that he decided to keep. It wasn't a new investment. He obviously has influence (same as he did before the acquisition) but I doubt he's giving marching orders with less than 5% stake.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-is-financing-elon-musk-s-us-44-billion-deal-to-buy-twitter-1.6100579?
It's like someone who feels like there are some communication issues with their spouse go to marriage counseling and it somehow ends up with their house blown up. There was some struggle, but somehow the help turned it into a mess of an entirely different scale.