The claim was that Twitter would experience some kind of total collapse- that Musk had no choice but to capitulate to demands of a disgruntled work force, many of whom were incensed that the platform would no long actively censor the speech of huge numbers of people.
As it turns out Musk mostly didn't need them, and firing them didn't harm his interests to any tangible degree.
No it wasn't. And if Musk's actions aren't harming his interests, that's only because he says he doesn't mind losing ~$20 billion. I do not believe that he is going to be able to grow it into a $200 billion company on the back of frog Twitter.
None of this about money, though is it. It's about control.
The ones who are most upset about this have an ideology that is a house of cards that has to be shielded from all interrogation, mocking and critique, lest it implode under the weight of its own internal inconsistencies.
These people know very well how to distinguish friend and enemy, and Elon is decidedly not a friend.
To lose this castle to an enemy like Musk is a huge problem for them because of its strategic importance, hence the fire-storm of consternation.
In the wider world, the ones who are upset about this are vastly outnumbered by those who just want to have fun and express themselves on the Internet, so if Twitter can become that kind of a place it will do very well.
As it turns out Musk mostly didn't need them, and firing them didn't harm his interests to any tangible degree.