Nothing to shill. A lot of his money is from shareholders. It makes sense in any acquisition, additional funding would be involved in every major purchase. It happens everywhere. Every merge every corporate investment.

Twitter itself was owned by shareholders. Look at the percentages involved in its purchase.

This article is suggesting what exactly? It makes exactly no difference.

How he runs his investment is speculatory, in regards to how the platform changes, but nothing that wouldn't change on ownership. Example on media, on corporate, sports, on any company. New owner means new ownership. They then change or run things differently.

Nothing to shill. A lot of his money is from shareholders. It makes sense in any acquisition, additional funding would be involved in every major purchase. It happens everywhere. Every merge every corporate investment.

Twitter itself was owned by shareholders. Look at the percentages involved in its purchase.

This article is suggesting what exactly? It makes exactly no difference.

How he runs his investment is speculatory, in regards to how the platform changes, but nothing that wouldn't change on ownership. Example on media, on corporate, sports, on any company. New owner means new ownership. They then change or run things differently.

Nothing to shill. A lot of his money is from shareholders. It makes sense in any acquisition, additional funding would be involved in every major purchase. It happens everywhere. Every merge every corporate investment.

Twitter itself was owned by shareholders. Look at the percentages involved in its purchase.

This article is suggesting what exactly? It makes exactly no difference.

How he runs his investment is speculatory, in regards to how the platform changes, but nothing that wouldn't change on ownership. Example on media, on corporate, sports, on any company. New owner means new ownership. They then change or runs things differently.

Nothing to shill. A lot of his money is from shareholders. It makes sense in any acquisition, additional funding would be involved in every major purchase. It happens everywhere. Every merge every corporate investment.

Twitter itself was owned by shareholders. Look at the percentages involved in its purchase.

This article is suggesting what exactly? It makes exactly no difference.