I get what you're saying but the whole "it's a conspiracy here is some unrelated thing I can't connect but I'm suspicious" thing is such an easy to do, the internet is full of it... I don't think it adds anything, or is even accurate.
And let's say somehow that thing with the investment doesn't happen.... I don't think that changes the story or the lessons from it.
To hear some other people talk, this is "conspiracy" territory now. But c'mon, we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company.
I'm not saying the two things are related. But I'm happy to say that if I wanted to unduly influence a company, buying a significant part of it would be one of the things I'd look at.
Evidence for ... the investment being irrelevant?
Can't prove a negative but there's nothing about the story that required any kind of investment to accomplish any of the events described.
I agree that nothing has come to light demonstrating that their was behind-the-scenes influence in aid of this. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Why should we believe that owning the single largest stake--one even larger than the Jack's--isn't relevant when discussing how they influence Twitter to get what they want?
So is the risk here some unproven ownership influence, or the something any given dude can just go and do if he can get a job?
And go ahead and quote my reply with the > and tell me awkshuwaly how wrong I am.
