Largely stayed out of the debate about Musk vs Twitter. I don't know who deserves to win the case and who will prevail in the courts. I also don't think who owns Twitter will make a big different to the public interest.
It's striking to me, however, that most of those people who previously argued that it would be a great thing if Musk bought Twitter(e.g.- because it would inaugurate a new era of freer social media discourse) now side with him in the litigation arising from his effort to rescind the deal. And most of those who previously said a Musk-owned Twitter would be terrible (e.g.- because it would promote the spread of misinformation) now support Twitter in the case. Both sides should remember that, if Twitter fully prevails in the litigation, Musk would end up buying it - and owning it!
Of course, if the real issue is that you love Musk or hate him, then it makes sense to support whatever he wants to do (in the former case) or opposite it (in the latter). But then your position isn't really about the public interest. It's how you feel about Musk.
Maybe the opposing sides are actually basing things on their reading of Delaware corporate law. Thus, if you previously wanted Musk to own Twitter, you might say, "it's unfortunate that he won't now, but correct legal interpretation requires it, and doing otherwise would set a bad precedent for future corporate litigation." If you previously were opposed to Musk owning Twitter, you can similarly elevate legal considerations over policy.
But if you really think that's what's going on in the minds of more than a tiny fraction of the people opining about the case, I have some Potemkin Villages and bridges I'd like to sell you. I'll even throw in a degree from Trump university!