It doesn't mean anything. Fidelity is required to tell people that have money in the fund what they think the asset is worth, but they own such a small stake that they aren't going to have particularly different information than anyone else.
Fidelity employs competent investment analysts. They have determined that twitter is worth less than half it was at the time Musk purchased it. This means Fidelities stake is worth less by the same percentage. None of this has anything to do with the size of Fidelities stake.
Note that I'm not arguing that Twitter is worth more (or less) than they say it is, I'm arguing that they likely don't have access to information that makes their valuation particularly useful.
$44 billion was more than it was worth (ever) and the value has absolutely plummeted since ol' Musky took control.
What is your process for figuring out how bad Fidelity is at valuing other private companies, given your personal insight?
edit: Dyslexia fix
I don't have a process, I just don't think they are spending a huge amount of time on a 0.02% holding. Like hey, maybe they do have special insight and are not just acknowledging a disaster by hugely marking down their estimate.
I used to be part of a two man analyst department and even we’d have made time for this. :)
Wait, you don’t have any opinion about Twitter’s value, you’re just here impartially to say that you’re aware of Fidelity’s inner workings and are confident that they are likely wrong about Twitter’s value?
Do you care to share your personal insights into any blunders by Fidelity that don’t involve Twitter?
Can you share how you gained this confidence?
The meaning is in the fact that Fidelity has people well placed to use public info to make good guesses about the market value. We can safely assume they're better at it than most of us.