Elon Musk and Twitter: Contracts Also Apply to Tech Bros

In the dispute with the tech billionaire about its takeover, the platform justly prevailed.

It was a drama in three acts. First, Elon Musk wanted to join Twitter’s board of directors, but then he didn’t. Then he submitted an offer to buy the social network and make it private — only to try and later renegotiate the price or withdraw from the deal that he himself had engineered and signed. But Twitter insisted on sticking to the deal. Just before a court was set to clarify the matter, the Tesla boss caved.

Much Strife, Little Substance

People aren’t all that surprised, as many observers thought the court wouldn’t grant Musk a way out. Musk was the one who would have been responsible for conducting due diligence before submitting his offer. After all, the amount he offered for the takeover was $44 billion. Instead, he was content to subsequently accuse Twitter of massaging its user numbers and misstating the number of bots — accounts not operated by humans — on the platform.

Naturally, he was unable to back up this assertion. Instead, he tried to further discredit Twitter by tweeting his 108 million followers. Statistics experts tore apart the rough calculation Musk used to try and prove there was a high number of bots. Recently disclosed text messages from Musk did not paint a picture of a businessman who makes reasoned decisions. Instead, the messages gave the impression he was an impulsive, easily offended individual who tends to make far-reaching decisions and move vast sums of money on a whim.

From a Beacon of Hope to a Tech Bro

The texts also partly explain how Musk transitioned from a visionary focused on tech to an “enfant terrible” on Twitter who increasingly attracts attention with edgy memes and headstrong comments about the state of the world rather comments about the genuinely exciting advances Tesla and SpaceX are making. The beacon of hope who at one time occasionally offended has become a “tech bro.”

The fact that Musk is justifying his decision to back down by saying he now wants to make Twitter the “everything app” is a good indicator of how he acts on impulse in making decisions. Nevertheless, it’s good that he has now confirmed he will close the deal. It demonstrates that ultimately, even rich CEOs must stick to agreements and can’t always do what they want, at least not when the other party has the resources to stick to its guns. We can only hope this sets an example.