It is a conspiracy hypothesis, and it goes like this:
Elon Musk isn’t destroying Twitter because he’s an ignorant, willful man-child (although that helps). Elon Musk is destroying Twitter on purpose, at the behest of one or more foreign actors.
Data point one: When Musk took Twitter private, the second-largest shareholder, after Musk himself, decided to not only stay in for the ride, but increased holdings. That is Prince Alwaleed bin Talwal, founder of Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company and a member of the country’s large royal family. Even in the run up to the sale, when Musk’s statements regards his intentions became less coherent, the Saudi fund manager, not known for being a starry-eyed dreamer of an investor, stuck with him. (www.nydailynews.com/… )
Data point two: While Xi’s China banned Twitter in 2009, the country embraced Tesla, allowing the electric car company to be the first foreign company to wholly-own its in-country manufacturing. China is the single largest source of parts for Tesla, and it’s second-largest market. This influence has led both financial analysts and government regulators to worry that China could exert undue influence in Musk’s “town square.” (www.forbes.com/…)
Data point three: This fall, Musk posted a tweet urging Ukraine to accept negotiations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, whose armed forces currently occupy and terrorize Ukraine. Last month, Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, claimed Putin himself told Bremmer he had spoken with Musk about Ukraine immediately before Musk’s “peacemaker” move, a claim which Musk denied. (www.cnn.com/… ) This month, Musk tweeted to encourage voters to elect Republicans, Putin’s favored US pets, who vowed to stop military aid to Ukraine. (www.politico.com/… )
Yes, these points are few and, by themselves, hardly convincing. This is a hypothesis, not a theory. But it is a solid hypothesis, one which plausibly answers the question, “Why?”
Why would the leaders of authoritarian governments wish man-child Musk to destroy his new, $40 billion toy?
Because this toy has proved a dangerous weapon when wielded against authoritarian governments, allowing opponents rapid communication and coordination and highly effective messaging. Killing that little blue bird would be high on any nouveau fascist’s wish list.
As I say, only a hypothesis. But one I’d love to see more data thrown at it, to see if it holds up.
Update: Many commenters are going with the “Idiot Uber-rich Narcissist” hypothesis. They have a point.