<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[Elon Musk will become Twitter's savior ?]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://usagag.com/2022/04/04/elon-musk-will-become-twitters-savior/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://usagag.com/2022/04/04/elon-musk-will-become-twitters-savior/</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2022 16:42:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
        <generator>https://usagag.com</generator>
        <media:content url="/uploads/2022/04/04/elon-musk-will-become-twitters-savior-2022-04-04-16-45-47.jpg" medium="image">
            <media:title type="html">Elon Musk will become Twitter's savior ?</media:title>
        </media:content>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Twitter shares jumped 25% in early trading on Wall Street today when news leaked that Musk had purchased a large portion of the company's stock. So far, he maintains that the stakes are essentially 'passive.' Well, maybe. In actuality, over $3 billion (&pound;2.3 billion) is a lot of money to spend on a "passive stake" in anything. And, with a total market capitalization of $30 billion (&pound;23 billion), Musk can easily afford the entire company. After all, he is one of the wealthiest individuals in history, with a fortune of $270 billion (&pound;206 billion) derived partly from Tesla's phenomenal success. He could buy the entire company without even recognizing the pressure on his money account.<br /><br />Despite the fact that most ordinary, rational people don't pay much attention to it, Twitter has become strangely influential over the last decade, producing a frenzied milieu in which political discourse is shaped. And there is no doubt that it is solidly on the left. Twitter timelines are much too often filled with self-righteous virtue signaling that is far more suited to socialist than conservative viewpoints.<br /><br />Musk, like other tycoons, does not hold any firmly held or particularly consistent political beliefs. To be fair, he's probably too busy building cars to spend his days re-reading Hayek and Rawls. Nonetheless, he is solidly on the libertarian right, having relocated Tesla's headquarters from high-tax, leftist California to low-tax, freedom-loving Texas. He has also proposed that his admittedly slightly utopian Mars colony be devoid of any sort of authority. Musk was quick to observe something significant about Twitter: it is frequently not on the same side as he is.<br /><br />'Given that Twitter functions as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech rules fundamentally weakens democracy,' Musk wrote in a tweet only a few weeks ago. 'How should we proceed?'<br /><br />We now have an answer to that question. It remains to be seen if he makes a full-fledged play for the company &ndash; and first reactions indicate that Wall Street now expects a takeover battle &ndash; or simply exerts control behind the scenes. The essential issue, though, is that if he takes control, Twitter may begin to offer libertarian and right-of-center viewpoints as much space as it does the woke radicals who currently dominate it. That would be a significant shift.</p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7CTmqV23_Ts" frameborder="0" width="600" height="315"></iframe></p>]]></content:encoded>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[USAGAG]]></dc:creator>
            </channel>
</rss><!--Time: 0.018970966339111-->