The richest man in the world has made some sweeping claims about this week’s spontaneous approach. The shareholders, he promised, would “love” the rich premium it offered. It would bring back freedom of speech to one of the most important social networking sites. And it would reform the management of a company that had lost its way. With a typical advertising campaign, he even made his offer as a benefit to humanity. “The cultural risk is diminishing as much as we can increase Twitter’s confidence as a public platform,” he said in an interview at a TED conference, hours after his approach was unveiled. In all cases, the claims have fallen far short. Even before the Twitter board revealed its opposition early Friday by adopting a defense against the takeover of the poison pills, shareholders had cast their own vote of no confidence. Shares of Twitter fell nearly 2 percent after the news of the offer, as a sign of Wall Street’s low confidence in its success. “I would be very surprised if Twitter’s board were willing to drop to $ 54, given that the stock was just six months old,” said Ritz Greenfield, an associate at consulting firm LightShed. Of poison pill. Musk’s emergence as Twitter’s largest shareholder (a position he lost to Vanguard this week) led to a 38% rise earlier this month, hoping it would be a catalyst for change. But its supply is still 26 percent below the 12-month high. If Musk’s proposal was intended as a sniper rifle, then it left many investors unsure of how serious it was to follow – especially given his once false claim that “funding” had been secured for Tesla’s privatization. Fostering skepticism, Musk smiled as he took to the TED stage shortly after his offer and then reopened the “securing funding” controversy, insisting he had the money ever since. He settled only one complaint from regulators, he claimed, because he was backed into a corner where Tesla was facing bankruptcy. Announcing a hostile approach to Twitter before it received funding or discussed it in depth with the board was an “extremely unusual” move that did not make it easy for people to judge its true intentions, said Ann Lipton, an associate professor. in Business Law and Entrepreneurship at Tulane University. Twitter executives were left to try to assess not only whether the price he offered was fair, but also whether he was still willing to pay it. Without funding, “it’s very difficult to believe it is,” he added. Musk’s attempt to wrap his candidacy in the banner of freedom of speech, meanwhile, has also provoked a skeptical response from many experts who have worked to keep the major social media platforms free of hate speech and misinformation. He said he wanted to end the secret system through which Twitter favored some tweets over others, and make users less likely to be banned. “Time outs are better than permanent bans,” he said. The statement drew applause from Republicans on the right, with the permanent ban on Donald Trump becoming a symbol of Silicon Valley prejudice. But some have questioned how far Musk could go by challenging the broader practice of content surveillance. “Trump’s return would be the ultimate stone,” said Jason Miller, a former senior Trump adviser. Without it, “everything is just a showcase,” he said – although he added that Twitter culture and the left-wing views of its employees would make it difficult to completely change morale. Among many experts, Musk’s claim that Twitter is stifling freedom of speech was dismissed as a naive claim that failed to take into account years of efforts to eradicate hate speech and misinformation. Twitter is battling a deeper problem caused by its advertising business model, which “rewards extreme speech,” said Roger McNamee, a Silicon Valley investor who has campaigned against Facebook. This forced her to try to deal with a wave of hatred and misinformation, which in turn provoked criticism for alleged censorship, he and others said. In another move that claimed to improve freedom of speech, Musk said he would publish the algorithm that determines what users see on Twitter. “Having a black box algorithm that promotes some things and not other things could be” quite dangerous, “he said. However, most digital services keep their ranking algorithms secret, and the revelation of Twitter algorithms could allow users to “play the algorithm and manipulate the content” that users see, said Greg Sterling, co-founder of Near Media and an expert in search and social networking. media. This could cause particular problems given Twitter’s role in the political debate and its use by some governments to release official information, he added. The promise of a stronger commitment to free speech on Twitter could also hurt the company’s business by making its site less attractive to brand advertisers, according to some advertising experts and financial analysts. “It’s not necessarily good for culture if inaccuracies are allowed to spread under the guise of freedom of speech,” said Arun Kumar, head of data and technology at the IPG advertising team. The advertisers “do not want to be associated with fake news or hate speech,” he added. Musk himself said this week that he was not investing in Twitter for financial reasons, suggesting he may not be affected by such concerns. One week ago, in a tweet he later deleted, he also claimed that his dependence on an advertising business model had exposed Twitter to “the power of companies to dictate policy”. However, experts warn that relying on other business models, such as revenue subscriptions, could reduce the scope of the service. “There would be much less discussion if it was a paid platform,” Greenfield said.

Expressing a widely held view, McNamee said all doubts surrounding Musk’s offer indicated that it could be more of an attention seeker than a concerted effort to control Twitter. However, Musk never followed the conventional path, and his vast personal fortune and stated goal of gaining control of the company made it difficult for even most critics to reject his uncontrolled approach. With Twitter digging against his foreground, Wall Street can soon see if Musk really has the desire – and the patience – for a long fight.