Getting together a group of owners with 3% ownership by value or 3% by voting rights both seems do-able, and I'm sure would be done of there was a serious case of mismanagement.

> The Google founders are, lets say, more reliable than Musk when it comes to making sound business decisions.

I've no idea about that and I won't opine. But every time I see that sort of statement it seems likely motivated by the whole Twitter acquisition. Perhaps that was just a toy or vanity project for him, one he could afford, so even if you think he's running X terribly it might have nothing to do with how he's run or would run any other companies that are not related to social media. In other words, what I read into such statements is "I don't like the politics he's brought to Twitter!", "the board should rein in the guy whose politics I don't like!!". It's like saying Bezos is bad at business because he owns the Washington Post -another vanity project- and you don't like the Post.

Do people not get bored of that sort of take?

Tell me he makes bad business decisions all you want, but in the context of everyone-hates-his-acquisition-of-Twitter I'd like to hear about his other businesses. Tell me something useful, not something political.

And, sure, politics at some point bleeds into business. Maybe Trump is out to get Bezos over Washington Post coverage, or maybe the next Democrat President will go after Musk for his politics. It's possible that X will eventually cost him dearly and personally, and it's a solid argument for these billionaires and trillionaires to stay out of politics. Or maybe it's a good argument for them to stay in because maybe by demonstrating electoral influence and power they can make the POTUS-of-the-day fear them enough to not go after them too hard. But if you made any such argument it still wouldn't say tell me anything about the rest of these billionaires' businesses.