Alledgedly, he was given the option to joint the board if he limited his stock in the company to 14.9%.
Since he currently only owns 9%, and could join the board at no penalty, this suggests that he's planning to go over that limit.
And if he's going over 14.9%, why would he be going for anything less than 51%?
If the board/shareholders can't effect the kind of changes he wants (unbanning people, removing censorship) then who does? That's the person getting replaced.
Alledgedly, he was given the option to joint the board if he limited his stock in the company to 14.9%.
Since he currently only owns 9%, and could join the board at no penalty, this suggests that he's planning to go over that limit.
And if he's going over 14.9%, why would he be going for anything less than 51%?
If the board/shareholders can't effect the kind of changes he wants (unbanning people, removing censorship) then who does? That's the person getting replaced.
The reason being floated is that being on the board limits the amount of ownership a person can have in the company.
I think he just bought a stake to prevent himself from getting banned.
I think the theory that being on the board limits his ability to speak out is the most likely. Because he could always get shares in his kids names.