Twitter has to repay a $13 billion dollar loan at the very least.

Yes - if his investors want to ever have anyone trust them to invest money ever again.

I think you missed the point I’m trying to make, so I’ll rephrase:

Do the investors care in this specific case, or did they invest in this plan knowing specifically that his goal was to prefer free speech over profit?

Unless there is a rational, defensible argument (which I have not heard) of how a free speech platform can repay the investors (investors require more money back than they put in) I cannot see how an investor cannot care - legally. You have to remember that the money they are investing, in part or in whole, is likely other peoples. It would be naive in my opinion to think otherwise.

> You have to remember that the money they are investing, in part or in whole, is likely other peoples.

I think this is the crux of the argument.

I don't believe it is, in this specific case, other peoples money.

I don't have a full list of investment money sources or terms, but IIRC at least $26 billion of that is his personal cash and personal loans secured against his other Tesla shares, and he did have enough to do it all by himself if his goal was "screw the rules, I have money".

While he clearly isn't always aware of the consequences of his choices, it is at least possible that some investors (either in this case, whose names I don't have, or in general) did so equally unwisely just because of his Midas-like reputation, and they don't have such a restriction.

NYT article "Mr. Musk, who took on about $13 billion in debt to finance the deal for Twitter, must also pay lenders about $1 billion in interest payments annually."

He can do that without Twitter making a profit. Lender != investor.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree. Never said he was going to make a profit. In fact the opposite. What you are describing is not an Investor but a Donor. Take a look at these equity investors/donors - not lenders.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/who-is-financing-elon-mus...

Firms like:

Fidelity Management & Research Company DFJ Growth IV Partners Honeycomb Asset Management Sequoia Capital Fund

All these financial companies have accepted money from retirement funds, pensions etc on the assumption that they will get more money in return. Please don't troll me by saying they could have given him money without seeking returns. We both know that just isn't the case.

Thanks for the link! Nice to see the real list.

Given the headlines I'd seen, I was thinking more like "convinced Larry from Oracle" when hypothesising someone could have given him money without seeking returns.

I'd agree that isn't the case for many on this list :)