I'm under no illusion that Elon's decision was out of pure goodness. He's staked $44 billion on Twitter's success and secured his control over the platform. That audience of 205 million is waiting to see how he'll affect it, and they'll blame him if the user experience declines in quality.

Beyond that, why assume the current board makes better decisions than he would, or cares any more about the average person? To most dissidents, they're combating supposed misinformation by unilaterally removing content and banning accounts based on their own internal guidelines, extending to the silencing of a US president's voice to 80 million followers. Their impact on the political process and our governance is undeniable. It's done actively and in a biased manner, and they haven't been held accountable to anyone but their shareholders, who pressured them to accept the buyout. Dorsey himself admitted regret over Twitter's runaway censorship and supports a transition away from Wall Street influence by taking the company private.

Also bear in mind that Twitter is not a country. No one is ruled by them, only influenced. Their methods and policies, not their internal structure, will determine the extent to which they are authoritarian. Musk could gut the board, amends the bylaws, and declare himself sole director, but in terms of political power structure, the worst you could say is that he'll have overthrown an oligarchy, and none of those oligarchs were benefiting the causes I care about, nor defending free speech or representing the 99%.