and these Parler people are scamming him - that's an interesting point I hadn't thought of. My first thought on hearing this news was so what? I don't care about Parler or Kanye West, but if Parler is taking advantage of Kanye's mental decline then that's next-level awful. Like I said, I'm no fan of Kanye, but that's horrible to take advantage of people like that.
I really wish people understood this more. Anecdotally, I'll never forget the time I was around him and some of his people. This when he was just coming up as a rapper but well known to be a producer. Just a little club appearance, and there was some odd technical issue.
I've never seen a human being who more obviously "sought the approval of others." He has this weird negative charisma; like there are some people who light up the room by being in it. It's not that he darkens the room -- but it's that he needs the light from others. It just felt like he needed everyone to really like him, and I could so easily see how someone could take advantage of that.
Glib, but I've heard it said that narcissism is a prerequisite for the job. What rational human actually believes that they are qualified to be the most powerful person on Earth?
That said, most presidents have had qualifications other than narcissism.
I think everywhere requires "capacity" to enter a contract, and Delaware does have this on the books:
> 6 DE Code § 2705 (2019): Any person who has attained 18 years of age shall have full capacity to contract; provided such person has not been declared legally incompetent to contract for reasons other than age. Any person who has attained the age of 18 years shall become fully responsible for that person’s own contracts.
So I'd presume it would come down to what Delaware's Court of Chancery expects for someone to be "declared legally incompetent to contract." I'd imagine that's not something done lightly.
I understand this sentiment, and my only concern is Kanye's acquisition legitimizing anti-semitism and pushing vulnerable fans into radicalization via that platform.
If they commit a crime, a judge and/or jury, informed by the testimony of medical experts, determines whether someone was cognizant of right and wrong. This is not uncommon in the criminal justice system.
Now, responsibility on the larger scale is indeed murky. We societally at once say addicts are and aren't responsible for their behavior (depending upon one's point of view and what acts took place): a drunk driver is treated differently than a homeless addict living under a bridge. Is Kanye 'addicted' to manic states? Should we look down upon him because he won't take his meds? I'm not sure.
This is no where near the same situation. When Elon originally put is offer to buy Twitter, Twitter didn't even want to sell. Then the market crashed and all the sudden Elon's own offer was almost double of the "fair market price" for Twitter.
Elon would be insane if he made the same offer today.
Twitter clearly took full advantage of his irrational hard on to get a signed deal. Not “being scammed” in that Twitter very nuch did not seek out the deal, but they certainly fully leveraged his willingness to toss out preconditions any sane purchaser would demand.
> Having a celebrity owner increases the value.
As a mascot, maybe, unless they are polarizing and their area of negative appeal overlaps with the product’s market and their positve appeal doesn’t; but owners are also decision makers, and celebrity’s are going to be all over the map in that role.
Twitter didn't want to sell to him in the first place. Musk's buyout offer took place in the context of a months-long drama about Musk being on the board. It's hard to look at the Musk/Twitter situation and say that it was driven forward by anyone other than Musk.
(I have no particular reason to believe Musk is in anything less than full control of his faculties.)
