Except that’s not what they’re doing, so I’ve no idea why you think that a relevant argument. They’re working for a different public company while being paid by Telsa.
> They’re working for a different public company while being paid by Telsa.
Actually, it's worse than that. They're working for a different, private company, one which happens to be owned by the CEO of TSLA, who has a legal and fiduciary duty to the TSLA shareholders.
Why would a TSLA shareholder make a fuss? It is likely that Tesla will bill Twitter for the use of staff resources. Other than that, being on good terms with the owner of Twitter is a possible advertising opportunity/tie-in in the future.
