The Volatility Of Musk Exposes Poor Governance Of Twitter
The past track record of Twitter is as rich in ‘plot twists’ as a ‘soap opera.’ However, the short-lived episode of Elon Musk joining the council and his subsequent decision not to join exposes the poor governance of Twitter. Musk resigned, merely a few days after agreeing.
Musk announced that he had bought 9% of Twitter on the 9th and agreed to serve on the board. He promised not to have more than 14.9%. An identical 2020 agreement between Twitter and the Elliott activist fund ran 14 pages. The three-paragraph agreement deliberates the speed with which they draft.
It is a mystery how Musk will currently relate to Twitter. He could attempt to attain command. He could also remain the biggest shareholder. He wanted to be a persistent critic or lose interest and walk away. A new SEC filed and said that he could express his views on the firm online. If he had an obligation to execute the responsibilities of a counselor, it would have been more difficult for him to do so. The board’s poor decision-making is clearer. Musk has had his share of purchases with regulators. He entered into a settlement in 2018 with the SEC. The settlement required the lawyers of Tesla to authorize his tweets about the firm after he tweeted that he was considering ‘delisting’ it. He submitted the recent statement about his involvement on Twitter late.
His exercise on the networks should have been another ‘red flag.’ Before their invitation to Musk to the council, he had publicly questioned whether Twitter had any commitment to free speech. Further, he wondered if he should create an alternative service. After being appointed, he publicly questioned whether the network was dying because featured accounts posted little and asked if his headquarters should become a homeless shelter.
Perhaps the council hoped to neutralize Musk by bringing him onto the council, and he rebelled. But he has built his career, wealth, and personality around breaking the rules. Making Musk, a counselor should have required more careful deliberation and haste demonstrates exposes poor governance of Twitter.
