I read it, I know its not him. I was referring to how stupid he was for changing the name of an insanely popular household term. Absolute idiocy becuase of his ego loving the letter x.
Its like Kleenex changing their name to bleepoopy and demanding everyone now say get me a bleepoopy I have a runny nose. Utter idiocy.
I was referring to how stupid he was for changing the name of an insanely popular household term.
Okay. I un-downvoted, but I think you should consider rewriting, because right now, it reads like you’re calling the new Twitter a Musk grift. That’s not just me; the second-top comment seems to be referring to your comment but politely not mentioning it by name.
As for the grift part, it’s complicated, because on the one hand, it was a bald-faced grift going in where he meant to manipulate the stock market (his repeated attempts to back out prove that). But on the other, having to complete that deal meant he gained control of one of the largest social media networks in the world. And he’s clearly been using that to political ends that are hard to qualify but probably – given the extreme worldwide rise in right-wing authoritarianism – fairly successful.
(Assuming it made a difference getting Trump into office, that $44 billion is probably well paid off through political corruption alone.)
For context for future readers, current comment is just:
“Genius businessman” mmhm. Total grift. Idiot. In any other world he’d be living in a trailer park with trump flags all over his truck, working at Walmart yelling at brown people.
I read it, I know its not him. I was referring to how stupid he was for changing the name of an insanely popular household term. Absolute idiocy becuase of his ego loving the letter x.
Its like Kleenex changing their name to bleepoopy and demanding everyone now say get me a bleepoopy I have a runny nose. Utter idiocy.
Okay. I un-downvoted, but I think you should consider rewriting, because right now, it reads like you’re calling the new Twitter a Musk grift. That’s not just me; the second-top comment seems to be referring to your comment but politely not mentioning it by name.
As for the grift part, it’s complicated, because on the one hand, it was a bald-faced grift going in where he meant to manipulate the stock market (his repeated attempts to back out prove that). But on the other, having to complete that deal meant he gained control of one of the largest social media networks in the world. And he’s clearly been using that to political ends that are hard to qualify but probably – given the extreme worldwide rise in right-wing authoritarianism – fairly successful.
(Assuming it made a difference getting Trump into office, that $44 billion is probably well paid off through political corruption alone.)
For context for future readers, current comment is just:
Ah yeah I can see that.