I guess you already know that Elon Musk presented an offer to take 100% of Twitter. It is not certain that it will go through, because 39 billion dollars to be paid to the current shareholders are a lot even for the richest man in the world: Musk has assets of over $ 200 billionbut largely invested in other stocks, most notably its Tesla.
Furthermore, in the letter informing him of his intention to buy all of Twitter, after having bought 9.2% of it a month ago, Musk stated that he does not want to do so. putting money out of his own pocket, but through a bank loan. Which, however, is not very easy for him at these levels and for a fundamental reason: despite its exceptional relevance as a source of information on the facts of the world, Twitter does not produce profits, or produces very few. She has not never found a business model: Banks should finance the acquisition of a company that does not make a profit. Not very easy.
Even because the first things Musk said after the offer was announced clearly show that he does not intend to do this to make money: “I don’t care about the company’s economic data,” he said. And she added that she wanted to make Twitter a bastion of freedom of expression. This is why the story, however it will turn out, is important: because it forces us to ask ourselves about the limits of freedom of expression which in recent years, also due to the pandemic, have been greatly compressed. “If someone you don’t like can say something you don’t like, then it means there is free speech, “Musk said. Is this thing right? Or should fake news from No Vax (for example) and Donald Trump be banned? We are talking about this. About the limits of free speech in a social world.