Given the dude paid $44B for a site clearly worth significantly less than that, and then promptly ran it into the ground, your "tinfoil hat time" answer honestly seems like the only rational answer. It checks out on more levels than any of his actions have.
Yes, it seems plausible. It was also funded in large part by the Saudis, American banks, and other wealthy individuals who are all strongly incentivized to hinder activist communication networks. Now everyone who used Twitter has to re-form their networks elsewhere. Mission accomplished. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-hol...
Why is this downvoted? It makes a lot of sense, and it's not some outlandish conspiracy theory (it's very inlandish) as we've seen rich people do similar things before, more than once, and dictators do it very frequently.
