“Elon Musk didn’t want to buy Twitter. The president of the US didn’t want Elon Musk to buy Twitter. Congress didn’t want Elon Musk to buy Twitter. Unfortunately, due to the unstoppable power of norms, it was impossible to stop Elon Musk from accidentally buying Twitter.”
Really?
Really?
Reposted from
Lizard
Again, under what law/regulation/established norms?
And how would the government justify blocking him from owning Twitter while still paying him gobs of money for SpaceX? "He's too evil to own Twitter, but NOT too evil to effectively control our access to orbit."
Would any judge accept that?
And how would the government justify blocking him from owning Twitter while still paying him gobs of money for SpaceX? "He's too evil to own Twitter, but NOT too evil to effectively control our access to orbit."
Would any judge accept that?
Comments
"Argument from Incredulity" is a classic logical fallacy.
I will keep asking: Identify the law, regulation, or precedent that could have been used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFsA25b9EY
Nonetheless, even had Biden just said “Nope!” it would have had to wind through the courts, and he’d have had to find some legal justification, and that still remains wanting.
"Character is who you are in the dark."
Musk DID try to use the law to renege. Courts ruled against him. Was this interpretation of the law incorrect generally? Or was it only incorrect because Musk was involved? I'm not remotely an expert in the relevant law - was it poorly applied? Should Musk have won, that is, be allowed to back out?
Republicans & oligarchs DO understand this and are using it as a deliberate weapon.
I don’t care whether it ‘technically’ falls under anti-trust, it is underlined by the same principle
Likening this to free speech is akin to the Citizen’s United theory of money = speech