> and the sizable chunk of Tucker Carlson's audience which seems to have followed him to Twitter. I see the tucker carlson rebrand as a reaction to the decline of effectiveness of broadcast media. The MSM has been aware of this and adapting for years now. Tucker rebrand was in response, not an organic event. > I suspect most of the big socmed services have been unprofitable for a long time now Twitter has literally, literally never posted profits ever. Not a single time ever since its inception. That is beause twitter is, and always has been, a tool of the elites. It was started with CIA money and has been so funded ever since. Social media is not about being profitable. It's about information control. > He appears to act in his own rational interest. I disagree. When elon went tot the various banks to secure loans to purchase shares of twitter stock from other banks (commonly called the "twitter acquisition"), he sold several billion of his Tesla shares in order to put it up as collateral against the loans he took from the banks. The following day, Tesla stock tanked some 125 billion, significantly devaluing his remaining stock in tesla, and causing elon to lose about $30 billion off his net worth. All so he could borrow bank money to buy shares from banks in a social media company that has NEVER ONCE made a profit. That is not a rational move.