That's an excellent question. Having given the matter some serious thought, I think what I'd suggest would be to start by making Twitter better, rather than worse.
I'm not a business genius though so perhaps I'm missing something crucial here.
Honestly I think this point is understated. Twitter (executives at least - but that's how capitalism works in America right now) basically won by offloading a dying platform onto a sucker with more money then sense. If they'd spread the joy around so that everyone who worked there got a golden parachute to glide away on before Musk walked in with a kitchen sink I think I'd be singing praises of them as folk heroes - as it is they're at least assholes that managed to pull one over on a larger asshole.
Where did this meme of them being a cash incinerator come from (other than from Musk, hoping people didn't look into the public statements)? Last time I looked, they had a few profitable quarters on the books. Looking at the last annual statement, I see a 200M loss on 5B revenue, with them sitting on 8B in assets, 2B of which is in cash. That's nothing close to a cash incinerator.
As far as I can tell, tightening up that slightly and reasonably could have turned it profitable again. The only cash incinerator I see in this picture is bull-in-a-china-shop Musk who appears to have made the problem 100x worse.
Everything changed after mister "genius" operated a leveraged buyout of the company, which essentially means that it is now riddled with debt and zero assets that have not been pledged to pay the debt.
They don’t have a quarterly earnings report because they’re a private company now, and their revenue has dropped by 40% according to an email sent from a manager. Ironically, we can only really know their cash position pre acquisition, and the only source for their being a “cash incinerator” is Elon’s word, which to any reasonable person is worth exactly zero at this point.
I only need one example but I have dozens. The only one that matters is he banned journalists from the platform after promising to make it a haven of free speech. It’s objectively one of the more hypocritical things a public figure has done in recent years.
100x was rhetorical. It's not a public company anymore, so we can't know. But if the headlines reporting a 40% drop in revenue are true, that would bring the net loss from 200M a year to 2.2B a year, which would be 10x worse (though I don't even know if you were being that specific in your critique), but that also doesn't take into account whatever he saved from chopping headcount.