Elon Musk taking Twitter, tech deals, to a personal level
Forget about the endless drama, the bots, the abrupt reversals, the spectacle, the alleged risk to the republic and all we hold dear. Here is the most important thing about Elon Musk’s buying Twitter: The moguls have been unleashed.
In the old days, when a tech tycoon wanted to buy something big, he needed a company to do it. Steve Case used AOL to buy Time Warner. Jeff Bezos bought Whole Foods for Amazon. Mark Zuckerberg used Facebook to buy Instagram and WhatsApp and Oculus and on and on. These were corporate deals done for the bottom line, even if they might never have happened without a famous and forceful proprietor.
Mr. Musk’s $44 billion takeover of Twitter, which finally became a reality Oct. 27, six months after he agreed to the deal, is different. It is an individual buying something for himself that 240 million people around the world use regularly.
While he has other investors, Mr. Musk will have absolute control over the fate of the short-message social media platform.
It’s a difficult deal to evaluate even in an industry built on deals, because this one is so unusual. It came about whimsically, impulsively. But, even by the standards of Silicon Valley, where billions are casually offered for fledging operations — and even by the wallet of Mr. Musk, on most days the richest man in the world — $44 billion is quite a chunk of change.
Buying Twitter is also an overwhelmingly brash action — a belief that a communications platform that has defied all efforts to become
seriously profitable, and that has been ensnared in controversy about the limits of speech almost since its founding in 2006, can be fixed by one person.
Mr. Musk’s fortune comes from the electric carmaker Tesla. Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos are separately vying to re-create the space program, which in the 1960s was deemed too important and too expensive to be run by anything except the federal government.
Mr. Zuckerberg has changed Facebook’s name to Meta and reoriented the company to create a virtual world where people will henceforth “live.” Peter Thiel, who co-founded the payments firm PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, has become the midterm elections’ most prominent campaign contributor, pumping millions of dollars into right-wing congressional candidates.
Richard Walker, a professor emeritus of economic geography at the University of California, Berkeley sees a shift in the locus of power.
“In this new Gilded Age, we’re being battered by billionaires rather than the corporations that were the face of the 20th century,” he said. “And the tech titans are leading the way.”
Even people who have been watching the tech scene closely for decades are stumped for precedents for Mr. Musk’s buying Twitter.
“Most of the guys built great companies, retired and created giant foundations to give away their money,” said Michael S. Malone, who has written histories of Apple, Intel and other companies. “Nobody has done something like this.”
Mr. Musk didn’t respond to a message for comment.
Deals have always been a feature of Silicon Valley. Often they fail, especially when the acquisition was made for technology that either quickly grew outdated or never really worked at all.
Dealogic, a data firm, compiled for The New York Times a list of the top 10 biggest tech deals since 1995 by deal value. By that measure, Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter is No. 10. Microsoft’s $70 billion-plus acquisition of Activision Blizzard, which is pending, has garnered a fraction of the attention despite being No. 2.
Activision Blizzard is merely a video game company. Mr. Musk has maintained from the beginning that buying Twitter isn’t a trophy or a game or a scheme to increase his net worth. Instead, he has cast it in the grandest terms possible.
“Having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization,” the entrepreneur said in April after sealing the deal. “I don’t care about the economics at all.”