Here's the thing. The mere thought that he's come to the conclusion that the platform isn't acting in a politically neutral way without pushing political biases is already disqualifying of the ability to operate a neutral platform.
To quote former Reddit guy's series of tweets:
"Both sides think the platform is institutionally biased against them."...... giving the examples that "All (of his) left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy"... and that "All (of his) alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda."
Read the thread if you get a few minutes, it really is enlightening on the realities around challenges in social media.... https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440
It's a lot like the "blame the ref" instinct in sports. Quite common in hockey when a couple of consecutive calls go against one "team" for that one team's fans to get caught up in group-think and rationalize that it must be because the ref is wilfully against them specifically. With how polarized politics in USA have gotten in terms of "teams," with how increasingly polarized they're getting here and how much social media is seen as the "arena" you're seeing that reflex come out more and more. In this case Elon hasn't liked a few of the calls and happens to have the means to buy the league because he feels he has a better definition of "neutrality" that the refs can do their jobs with.
As far as wanting to rid the platform of bots....
Any initiative to try to minimize bots sounds great, they're a real problem... but I have a feeling that it isnt that easy or it'd be done already. Requiring people to be identified sounds like a solution and it would absolutely solve some real problems, but what unintended consequences come with that? Can it be done in a way that doesn't rock the boat so much that it ruins legit ways that some use Twitter? Absolutely a lot of abuse comes from unidentified accounts, but so does so much of the humour that gives the platform some of its identity to many. I'd use the example of some of the investing/finance accounts I follow. Some of the best accounts are contributors that don't want to be identified, for reasons that aren't always malicious 100% of the time (possibly just a conflict with their day job). Another example would be some of the innocent spoof/humour accounts. Will these types of accounts still be allowed to be anonymous to the reader as long as they're identified behind the scenes to Twitter, and even so how many of them will continue doing what they're doing if they have to be identified?
If the thought that having everyone identified will get rid of the nastiness and the wilful spread of unchecked misinformation, take a minute to browse the comments of a local Facebook reply string that have gone off the rails. In large part those are people using their real names, using real profile pictures of themselves who aren't shy in sharing with you more details about themselves such as where they work when you click on their profiles.
Love to see improvements in some of the downsides of Twitter, but colour me skeptical that Musk fully understands what he's biting off.