The problem is that it’s run by someone who overpaid badly and needs to come up with significantly more money to pay for the debt he saddled the company with, and then his actions seriously disrupted ad revenue. That puts him more in the PE playbook of cutting costs as deeply as possible even at the extent of long-term growth. Unlike his other companies there isn’t strong government support to drive business for Twitter.
He's going to sell Tesla shares to pay off his debts, he's knocked off $4 billion already, he'll be able to keep doing that, make offers to buyout stakes of Twitter from people that really don't want to be involved in this shit show. Twitter will operate at lower costs, and also not be profitable for him given current information. That's financially fine.
The banks probably took convertible debt at high interest rates, but who cares about high interest rates when it's only been one month. He probably has a clause for accelerated payments, because its debt, not shares yet.
(after a certain amount of time, or upon default, the debt would convert to shares. but it can be much more complicated, and onerous than that too. lending can be fun.)
Musk has been in a similar position before when he took over Tesla. At that point it was struggling to make the Roadster, they were facing having a marginal cost of manufacturing a car higher than the sales price.
Musk took over and made cuts. I don't think anyone could argue that those cuts were at the cost of Tesla's long-term growth. They were needed because of an imminent liquidity problem. Tesla has hired great people since then.
