Every ridiculous thing we learned today about Elon Musk’s plan to take over Twitter

Illustration by Kristen Radtke / The Verge; Getty Images

This is the end of the first week after Musk made a $44 billion offer for the company. A detailed report from The Wall Street Journal sheds some light on the process that began with Musk accumulating Twitter stock back in January and what that might mean when he eventually closes the deal and becomes its owner. The picture starts to become clearer after additional information from The Verge and a new report from the news agency.

The Washington Post is adding more information about the ideas Musk pitched to bankers who will loan him money to buy the micro-blogging site. According to sources, he told bankers that he plans to develop revenue-growing features, and one of his examples is charging a fee when a third-party website wants to quote or include atweet from verified individuals or organizations.

The outlet notes that Musk proposed changes to the Twitter Blue subscription, such as banning ads, as well as reducing the reliance on advertising. According to a source, Musk won't make decisions on job cuts until he takes ownership of the company.

That doesn't add up to a lot that we know about the plans of the man who will take over. The plans for the company that Musk reportedly shared with bankers were not seen by executives.

How did we get here? The Wall Street Journal has some color to give there, citing a "shadow crew" that was egging on Musk's bid for Twitter.

Much of the article is focused on links between Musk and Jack Dorsey, despite the latter's decision to ban Donald Trump from the platform and Musk's choice to represent himself in a single tweet.

*it’s also crazy and wrong that individuals or companies bear this responsibility. As I’ve said before, I don’t believe any permanent ban (with the exception of illegal activity) is right, or should be possible. This is why we need a protocol that’s resilient to the layers above.

— jack⚡️ (@jack) April 29, 2022

Despite the fact that he tried taking a break from the site recently, Dorsey posted a thread of his own. We admitted that we were wrong and worked to correct it.

This sudden impulse to publicly take responsibility included a reply to a question about a New York Post story about President Joe Biden's son, where he now says we took that.

Two days later, the responsibility-taking arrives, after the messaging buddy of the prospective owner replied to a message that criticized the policy and legal head of the company. Dave Lee of the Financial Times points out that there was a wave of hate directed at Gadde.

Jack doesn't believe that a permanent ban is right, or should be possible, for reasons that may be buried deep in a text.