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.

---

(11-23-2022, 09:57 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(11-23-2022, 09:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: 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.

---