If Musk "steps down" as Twitter CEO, per his latest bogus "poll", some things to remember:

1) He'll still be in control. The owner sets the policy the CEO carries out. The owner decides in the end.

2) He lies incessantly. Nothing he says can be trusted, ever.

3) Big Journalism will breathlessly cover the charade as if it meant something, and will continue to support a man who loathes honest reporting and has contempt for genuine freedom of expression.

@dangillmor - Well, there is, in theory, some friction between majority shareholder and CEO. There's the board of directors (largely named by major shareholder). But we know how the Chicago economics nutz trained boards to kow-tow to large shareholders in the name of very short term "shareholder value".
@karlauerbach @dangillmor It's a privately owned company. Musk can operate it as he likes.
@chemoelectric @karlauerbach @dangillmor subject to the terms and conditions placed upon him by his lenders..
@sir_j @chemoelectric @dangillmor Yes indeed, Twitter creditors have a say in things - but mostly only when and if the debt comes due and is unpaid. However, as I understand it Twitter itself is the security for several of the loans. Thus Musk may be at risk for destroying the value of that security. The agreements may (and probably do) allow creditors to act when the security for the loans is being damaged.
@karlauerbach @sir_j @dangillmor Those are margin loans, right?

@chemoelectric @sir_j @dangillmor - They could be, but if I were making a big loan I'd want the corporate assets, not the stock shares, to be the security for the loan.

It's the difference between buying a car in which the car is the sole security for the loan and buying a car in which the car *and* your other assets server as recourse to secure the debt. As a borrower you want the first, as a loan maker you want the second.