Yes, I imagine it would have been the same on Instagram. And yet he posted it on Twitter and they put a ruling on how he had to get approval before tweeting specifically. I imagine that ruling would still apply if he were to own Twitter but I see it as a potential escalation: "You're telling me I can't say whatever I want on my own platform that I just bought with ~$40B?"

Maybe I'm wrong and he'll still abide by the law (which, apparently he wasn't doing very well anyways), I just see it as possible escalating conflict between a private business and a government agency.

Actually yes, it doesn't matter if he paid $50B for Twitter. It's still a violation of SEC rules regardless of whether he owns the platform or not. This argument makes no sense.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a violation of the SEC rules. I'm saying that if he is alleged to have violated them already when he didn't own the platform, there may be a chance he violates them more if he does own it.

I don't think he's that incomprehensibly stupid, really. The only question is whether the SEC has the authority to actually create pain for someone whose wealth is so outside of the norm.

I don't think he'd be as bold-faced about it, however, he does have a tendency to mock people on Twitter, including his tweet of "SEC, three letter acronym, middle word is Elon’s."

> The only question is whether the SEC has the authority to actually create pain for someone whose wealth is so outside of the norm.

I assume they should have the authority to make such rulings regardless of how wealthy someone is. Now, will they actually enforce those rulings to create that realized pain? Maybe that depends on how much regulatory capture one can muster.