The flamboyant billionaire — Elon Musk — took over the global microblogging website Twitter in a single masterstroke, also putting an end to his longstanding and recurring rift with the platform over his particular tweets. All this is done with the stated objective of "realizing the full potential of Twitter as a platform providing free speech." One may wonder why the richest man on the planet is so concerned with free speech and democracy that he decides to invest USD 21 billion of his personal fortune for taking over the platform. Musk is a promising entrepreneur and his move certainly is not a mere act of philanthropy; he means business and eyes profit, and rightly so. He has proven competence as an entrepreneur. The way he pumped in an elixir of sorts in Tesla in 2008, almost pushing himself to the edge of bankruptcy, is a testimony to his willingness to take risk as an 'investor'. And, again, this was not an isolated instance — there have been many. But saying Musk has decided to take over Twitter to make huge profits would be understating his ambition of rising as a public celebrity figure. Musk is not from the breed of entrepreneurs who would silently act with finesse to build their fortune. For him, fortune appears to be only a tool — which he has mastered over the years — to serve his ambitions of active public life. The Twitter takeover is not a mean thing and neither can Musk's ambitions be taken lightly. It would be interesting to observe what interventions the entrepreneur will make to realize his ambition of making Twitter an 'absolute free space'. His actions will impact the experience of around 400 million Twitter users. The idea of free speech is not as simple as it appears. One would recall that the rise of big social media platforms was based on an idea of ensuring an ecosystem for free speech. The idea did sell globally but its realization on the ground still remains highly debatable. Lately, after facing heavy backlash from governments worldwide, social media companies have been resorting to content moderation in order to make the idea of free speech truly meaningful. The problems of allowing absolute freedom have come to the fore, leading to the mushrooming of misinformation and hate speech. Owing to lack of moderation, dominant ideologies and powerful institutions have managed to create domineering eco chambers that undermine the free speech capacity of marginalized sections. Capital and ideological dominance of certain sections of society and politics can create a hierarchy of sorts, where even if less-dominant sections are speaking, they may be heard less. Can it be said that by advocating — with now the power to act — Musk is taking the Twitter-space back to square one? It appears so. Further, the idea of free speech is envisaged differently in legal frameworks of different countries. It will be interesting to see whether Musk's notion of free speech sits well with that of individual nations, particularly India. One must also reflect on which of the two factors dominated in deciding the Twitter takeover by Musk — greater competence of the entrepreneur in managing the little bird or the failure of the advertising model of the platform that led to shrinking of its revenues. Notably, the market capital of Twitter has grown far more slowly than other companies like Facebook and Instagram. In this light, it can be said that Twitter needed a better managerial hand but the fact remains that the company's board had to cede to Musk's proposal after financial advice from lenders. It can be safely said that Musk will be in charge of the company more because it failed to earn the money it should have, rather than Musk's flowery promise of realizing the full potential of Twitter as a free space. Nevertheless, one thing is for sure, Musk will redefine the rules of the game in his own peculiar way, and his capacity in doing so is not to be doubted.