The world's richest man once opened up about what really drove his controversial Twitter acquisition. Money wasn't the motive—he knew the backlash would be brutal. What pushed him forward? A gnawing sense that civilization itself was at a crossroads, and someone had to act. The purchase wasn't a business play. It was something far more personal, almost like a moral imperative he couldn't ignore.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
10 Likes
Reward
10
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
Gm_Gn_Merchant
· 12-09 02:19
Well...sounds nice, but who would believe it? After all this, isn’t it just about wanting to control the narrative?
View OriginalReply0
NFTregretter
· 12-09 00:06
Uh, this "civilization is on the brink" line... Is it for real? It sounds like an excuse made up after the fact to cover themselves.
View OriginalReply0
retroactive_airdrop
· 12-09 00:02
Here we go again with the "saving civilization" talk, seriously bro?
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHunter007
· 12-08 23:54
It's just moral posturing; they still just want to control the discourse.
View OriginalReply0
Deconstructionist
· 12-08 23:50
It's just moral coercion. To put it nicely, it's a sense of mission; to put it bluntly, it's about wanting to control the discourse.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidatedThrice
· 12-08 23:40
Well... that sounds nice, but who really believes their true motives?
The world's richest man once opened up about what really drove his controversial Twitter acquisition. Money wasn't the motive—he knew the backlash would be brutal. What pushed him forward? A gnawing sense that civilization itself was at a crossroads, and someone had to act. The purchase wasn't a business play. It was something far more personal, almost like a moral imperative he couldn't ignore.