The question of ownership or stewardship is a deep question of worldview.  
But the number of banks that are along for this ride is pedantic when the point is, Musk isn't in this alone.  Regardless of if one or two or ten commercial banks are in this with him, the plays he is making affect the fortunes of at least a few others.  Even if you think its possible for a mortal to truly be an unaccountable owner, here Musk is a steward.

The question of ownership versus stewardship may be deep for you, but it's fairly simple for the rest of us.  

There are clear and distinct differences between the two, with varying legal and fiduciary responsibilities.   For the purposes of this discussion (and so many others), perhaps it would be best if you just accepted the definitions recognized by everyone else on the planet.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595...GNpdA&s=19

---

The question of ownership versus stewardship may be deep for you, but it's fairly simple for the rest of us.  

There are clear and distinct differences between the two, with varying legal and fiduciary responsibilities.   For the purposes of this discussion (and so many others), perhaps it would be best if you just accepted the definitions recognized by everyone else on the planet.

Are you completely unable to verbalize your thoughts?  What are you trying to say, that Musk doesn't understand business?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Are you completely unable to verbalize your thoughts?  What are you trying to say, that Musk doesn't understand business?

He definitely knows how to run rocket companies and electric car companies. Maybe he knows how to run a social media company.  Maybe he doesn't.
I'm not making an argument from criminal law or administrative law.  Legal and fiduciary requirements have nothing to do with it. 
"Is it good?"
That is the question. Go back to post 211. Simple question.
It's an ethical or moral question.  Not a legal one.
"Well he owns it..." is a totally inadequate answer, even if he didn't have to take out loans to get it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Are you completely unable to verbalize your thoughts?  What are you trying to say, that Musk doesn't understand business?

He definitely knows how to run rocket companies and electric car companies. Maybe he knows how to run a social media company.  Maybe he doesn't.
I'm not making an argument from criminal law or administrative law.  Legal and fiduciary requirements have nothing to do with it. 
"Is it good?"
That is the question.
It's an ethical or moral question.  Not a legal one.
"Well he owns it..." is a totally inadequate answer, even if he didn't have to take out loans to get it.

In case you haven't looked around much and noticed, ethics and morals took a back seat, a while ago.. Ethics and morals used to be common practice in business, and now heading into extinction. Ethics and morals are now just opinions, and lots of opinions differ.

---

Are you completely unable to verbalize your thoughts?  What are you trying to say, that Musk doesn't understand business?

He definitely knows how to run rocket companies and electric car companies. Maybe he knows how to run a social media company.  Maybe he doesn't.
I'm not making an argument from criminal law or administrative law.  Legal and fiduciary requirements have nothing to do with it. 
"Is it good?"
That is the question.  Go back to post 211.  Simple question.
It's an ethical or moral question.  Not a legal one.
"Well he owns it..." is a totally inadequate answer, even if he didn't have to take out loans to get it.

Is it ideal for the owner of a company to troll people who get bent out of shape over everything? No. Happy? What did you accomplish there?

Now, compare that to the previous owners censoring opinions they disagree with... you justified that by their ownership. Justified it. So, yeah... if we are going to have to deal with trolling or censorship, I'd happily take the former. Then again, I'm not a tool that's easily manipulated by the press. So, I can see where you're struggling.

---

Introduction to philosophy.
There are many ways to define "good". Roughly, you can base it on rules regardless of consequences, or on how the consequences add or subtract to total human happiness, or on the character (virtues) of the actor, or on the "rights" of all involved.
The "rights based" system of ethics is useful for telling us which actions are wrong, and Musk hasn't violated anyone's rights, however, it's rarely able to tell us which actions are "right" or "good." From a rights based perspective, all we can say about Musk owning Twitter so far is "not bad" or "not wrong". We need one of the other systems of ethics to decide if it is right or good.

---

He definitely knows how to run rocket companies and electric car companies. Maybe he knows how to run a social media company.  Maybe he doesn't.
I'm not making an argument from criminal law or administrative law.  Legal and fiduciary requirements have nothing to do with it. 
"Is it good?"
That is the question.  Go back to post 211.  Simple question.
It's an ethical or moral question.  Not a legal one.
"Well he owns it..." is a totally inadequate answer, even if he didn't have to take out loans to get it.

Is it ideal for the owner of a company to troll people who get bent out of shape over everything? No. Happy? What did you accomplish there?

Now, compare that to the previous owners censoring opinions they disagree with... you justified that by their ownership. Justified it. So, yeah... if we are going to have to deal with trolling or censorship, I'd happily take the former. Then again, I'm not a tool that's easily manipulated by the press. So, I can see where you're struggling.

Musk is still censoring stuff he disagrees with, in underhanded and unaccountable ways.  The landscape of this argument hasn't actually changed much.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I hope you are responding to Winger there, because I don't need an intro to philosophy. I answered your baseless question and responded with an example of your hypocrisy. You can't change Elon's trolling. You can change your hypocrisy.

---

Taking the 'road less traveled' nowadays has stops on Ethics Street and Morals Blvd. Used to be the other way around.

Went out the door with tolerance..

---

"Good" is a matter of perspective. Mikesez thinks he's the Good Guy and can't conceive that people think his Deep Thoughts are balderdash. Then he pretends that he's qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions. It's hilariious.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

"Good" is a matter of perspective. Mikesez thinks he's the Good Guy and can't conceive that people think his Deep Thoughts are balderdash. Then he pretends that he's qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions. It's hilariious.

Are you qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions?
If so, why you and not me?
If not, how can you give moral judgement on me as a person if you can't give moral judgement on how I use my possessions?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Introduction to philosophy.
There are many ways to define "good". Roughly, you can base it on rules regardless of consequences, or on how the consequences add or subtract to total human happiness, or on the character (virtues) of the actor, or on the "rights" of all involved.
The "rights based" system of ethics is useful for telling us which actions are wrong, and Musk hasn't violated anyone's rights, however, it's rarely able to tell us which actions are "right" or "good." From a rights based perspective, all we can say about Musk owning Twitter so far is "not bad" or "not wrong".  We need one of the other systems of ethics to decide if it is right or good.

---

Is it ideal for the owner of a company to troll people who get bent out of shape over everything? No. Happy? What did you accomplish there?

Now, compare that to the previous owners censoring opinions they disagree with... you justified that by their ownership. Justified it. So, yeah... if we are going to have to deal with trolling or censorship, I'd happily take the former. Then again, I'm not a tool that's easily manipulated by the press. So, I can see where you're struggling.

Musk is still censoring stuff he disagrees with, in underhanded and unaccountable ways.  The landscape of this argument hasn't actually changed much.

How and who is he censoring, and for what?

---

"Good" is a matter of perspective. Mikesez thinks he's the Good Guy and can't conceive that people think his Deep Thoughts are balderdash. Then he pretends that he's qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions. It's hilariious.

Are you qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions?
If so, why you and not me?
If not, how can you give moral judgement on me as a person if you can't give moral judgement on how I use my possessions?

I'm not judging you, I'm mocking you. Well, I guess in a way I am, I've judged your work here and decided that the proper response is derision. Unlike you I don't care what you think about me, and even less about whether Elon Musk is good or bad for using his platform how he wants. Whether that makes me "good" or "bad" is up to some dead philosopher I guess.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Introduction to philosophy.
There are many ways to define "good". Roughly, you can base it on rules regardless of consequences, or on how the consequences add or subtract to total human happiness, or on the character (virtues) of the actor, or on the "rights" of all involved.
The "rights based" system of ethics is useful for telling us which actions are wrong, and Musk hasn't violated anyone's rights, however, it's rarely able to tell us which actions are "right" or "good." From a rights based perspective, all we can say about Musk owning Twitter so far is "not bad" or "not wrong".  We need one of the other systems of ethics to decide if it is right or good.

---

Musk is still censoring stuff he disagrees with, in underhanded and unaccountable ways.  The landscape of this argument hasn't actually changed much.

How and who is he censoring, and for what?

Musk has refused to tell us who or why, but he has confirmed that shadow banning and throttling continue. Already been discussed in this thread.

---

Are you qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions?
If so, why you and not me?
If not, how can you give moral judgement on me as a person if you can't give moral judgement on how I use my possessions?

I'm not judging you, I'm mocking you. Well, I guess in a way I am, I've judged your work here and decided that the proper response is derision. Unlike you I don't care what you think about me, and even less about whether Elon Musk is good or bad for using his platform how he wants. Whether that makes me "good" or "bad" is up to some dead philosopher I guess.

At least you're funny.  Completely unserious and void of logic, but funny.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How and who is he censoring, and for what?

Musk has refused to tell us who or why, but he has confirmed that shadow banning and throttling continue.  Already been discussed in this thread.

---

I'm not judging you, I'm mocking you. Well, I guess in a way I am, I've judged your work here and decided that the proper response is derision. Unlike you I don't care what you think about me, and even less about whether Elon Musk is good or bad for using his platform how he wants. Whether that makes me "good" or "bad" is up to some dead philosopher I guess.

At least you're funny.  Completely unserious and void of logic, but funny.

Lol, you're on a [BLEEP] message board bloviating about "serious", seriously.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595...onrZg&s=19

---

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595...RNh1g&s=19

Pretty cool to see the place finally being cleaned up..

---

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595...RNh1g&s=19

Pretty cool to see the place finally being cleaned up..

---

Are you completely unable to verbalize your thoughts?  What are you trying to say, that Musk doesn't understand business?

He definitely knows how to run rocket companies and electric car companies. Maybe he knows how to run a social media company.  Maybe he doesn't.
I'm not making an argument from criminal law or administrative law.  Legal and fiduciary requirements have nothing to do with it. 
"Is it good?"
That is the question.  Go back to post 211.  Simple question.
It's an ethical or moral question.  Not a legal one.
"Well he owns it..." is a totally inadequate answer, even if he didn't have to take out loans to get it.

Once again, you're wrong.  The question is neither ethical nor moral, it's simply business.  If it results in increased viewership, which translates into increased profits, (the company's ultimate purpose) it's good.  If it has the opposite effect, then it's bad.  Either way, it's a business decision and not unlike any others made by major companies every day.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Introduction to philosophy.
There are many ways to define "good". Roughly, you can base it on rules regardless of consequences, or on how the consequences add or subtract to total human happiness, or on the character (virtues) of the actor, or on the "rights" of all involved.
The "rights based" system of ethics is useful for telling us which actions are wrong, and Musk hasn't violated anyone's rights, however, it's rarely able to tell us which actions are "right" or "good." From a rights based perspective, all we can say about Musk owning Twitter so far is "not bad" or "not wrong".  We need one of the other systems of ethics to decide if it is right or good.

---

Musk is still censoring stuff he disagrees with, in underhanded and unaccountable ways.  The landscape of this argument hasn't actually changed much.

How and who is he censoring, and for what?

We don't know who he's censoring, but the rumor is that he put them on double secret probation.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

He definitely knows how to run rocket companies and electric car companies. Maybe he knows how to run a social media company.  Maybe he doesn't.
I'm not making an argument from criminal law or administrative law.  Legal and fiduciary requirements have nothing to do with it. 
"Is it good?"
That is the question.  Go back to post 211.  Simple question.
It's an ethical or moral question.  Not a legal one.
"Well he owns it..." is a totally inadequate answer, even if he didn't have to take out loans to get it.

Once again, you're wrong.  The question is neither ethical nor moral, it's simply business.  If it results in increased viewership, which translates into increased profits, (the company's ultimate purpose) it's good.  If it has the opposite effect, then it's bad.  Either way, it's a business decision and not unlike any others made by major companies every day.

The idea that the highest good of business is profit is an ethical postulate.  But at least you acknowledge the possibility that Musk's actions will end up bad, which is my point.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Once again, you're wrong.  The question is neither ethical nor moral, it's simply business.  If it results in increased viewership, which translates into increased profits, (the company's ultimate purpose) it's good.  If it has the opposite effect, then it's bad.  Either way, it's a business decision and not unlike any others made by major companies every day.

The idea that the highest good of business is profit is an ethical postulate.  But at least you acknowledge the possibility that Musk's actions will end up bad, which is my point.

Whether it works out fabulously, or ends up in flames it’s still his company and he can do whatever he wants. Which is the point everyone else but you seemed to grasp rather easily.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???