Wow - I know this is not a fresh comment (6 days old, now), but, too many points to pass up writing something.

I'll start, for some semblance of "full disclosure", by writing that I was never a fan of Twitter, and I quite dislike Musk in recent years for a Thai-cave-system-sized set of reasons. Nevertheless:

1) It was the money. And, to your point about capitalism, it was "brilliant" within that context. "Free money" wasn't going to last forever, some were already beginning to prepare (more actively) for inflation and interest rate changes, Twitter always had significant trouble with the whole VC and ad-based model* and had continual challenges with profitability and "expectations", etc.

No one ever had a great plan for turning Twitter into the kind of economic power that comparable companies, in terms of a certain importance to the information ecosystem of the net, were. A particular challenge in the kind of gray area occupied by a social media company so dependent on the writings of experts, journalists, etc. that led to importance and power yet created serious "conflict of interest"-like challenges (beyond those of systems where user fame and economic power and such were directly coupled to that of the system etc.).

So, "exit strategy", particularly in the context of the very "pump-and-dump" (and pyramid-esque, in outcome if not exact implementation) economic model "Silicon Valley" enabled**, was of significant interest to people with that mindset who still had "capital" 'trapped' in Twitter [1].

As for how former execs might be feeling, most are represented by this clip here: https://youtu.be/0Z2JTPalv_s

Some, like Dorsey***, are probably actually mildly unhappy about events. But, even people who were trying to run that company - when Musk walked in with a sink like the class clown on the first day of junior high school - felt more relief to be freed of the burdens, after the initial shock and unpleasantness of the lead-up wore off.

2) Other factors involved in the mess likely include Saudi Arabia (nice chunk of money from them), and their sadistic authoritarianism (looked up - Saudi dissidents twitter - and similar terms for info), China and their continuing work to have more of a say in global affairs, various billionaires annoyed at journalists who depended on the platform (including Musk), etc.

3) Capitalism often does work. It works incredibly well, crucially WITH adequate regulation. There is no way we have the kind of material and other wealth (distributed far too unevenly, but existing and distributed nonetheless) without "capitalism". That written, it undeniably has every bit the potential for harm, corruption, etc. as just about every other system, technology, etc. we've come up with or discovered with similar reach and power. I loathe numerous aspects of it, yet, have no better system to offer - and that is primarily because it isn't systems, technologies, ideas, or anything else really, that causes problems. It's people, and no system, technology, etc. can fix that underlying problem.

* More so than most other comparable companies in terms of name recognizability, "importance", etc. & with origins somewhat clustered in an "era" of opportunity within the "internet framework"

** Motto: "This ain't your grandfather's 'Gilded Age'"

*** It was his baby, if it was anyone's, in more recent years

[1] Recent article on exactly what anyone with some degree of brain power and hanging around "Wall Street Bets" and its more curated and expert offshoots has known for years: https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-ant...