The Supper Club - Logo

What does Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter mean?

Let's be honest, while here at The Supper Club we know a lot about founders and their journey and experience, and about how to use our support networks to help them through the tougher parts of that journey, we're not experts on tech and can't begin to understand what the world's richest founder plans to do now he's chucked a chunk of his fortune onto the table and walked away with Twitter.


So, rather than outlining our fears, hopes and dreams for social media, free speech and the future of democracy, or asking whether Musk might not have created a more positive social impact by focusing those many billions of dollars on his previous plan to end world hunger, we have instead rounded up the best analysis and commentary from those who do know what they are talking about.


The Guardian's Alex Hearn was pretty clear that Musk was bluffing when he announced plans to buy Twitter. Here, having swallowed a slice of humble pie, he presents 25 Tweets exploring what the deal means now it has happened. CNBC also did a stand-up job of answering some of the most-common questions about the deal.


Before the deal was confirmed, the FT's John Thornhill wrote about the purpose and value of Musk owning Twitter. In this comment piece, he explores some ways that Musk could help Twitter other than by getting involved in its approach to free speech. The FT did a predictably strong job of analysing the deal itself and how Musk pulled it off, as did Chris Stokel-Walker for Wired magazine.


FT writers have also explored what the takeover means for employees, many of whom have until now been rewarded in part with lucrative stock plans. The Guardian examined more specifically what it means for co-founder Jack Dorsey, as well as board members, senior executives and employees (in summary, big pay outs). The FT also ran this interesting comment piece by barrister Jamie Susskind, author of The Digital Republic, on how government's not tech moguls who should set the terms of the debate on free speech.


Progressive academic and former secretary of state for Labour in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich, offered a profoundly sceptical take on Musk's motives, decrying his claims to be concerned with free speech at all.


Over at The New Yorker, Isaac Chotiner had a lengthy and revealing conversation about Musk's purchase of Twitter with Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine, who has been following and reporting on the story as it has developed.


In a comment from its editorial board, the Wall Street Journal took the stance that the deal may be good for Twitter in the sense that Musk would challenge its existing "monoculture", and may even go some way to shaking up what it dubbed "Silicon Valley's culture of progressive conformity".


There's a lot to be said and written on this deal, including an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of taking such a business out of a public listing and back into private hands. No doubt we'll all return to the topic in the days and weeks to come.