"Even if so, this isn’t Twitter, and it may not work." Is this person under the impression somehow that what Elon did to Twitter _did_ work?
Does this mean X is a good place to frequent? No, it does not, just like Twitter wasn't a good place to frequent. I only ever used Twitter passively and I only ever use X in the same way. I do not post and I have no interest in doing so, I do however like that X now allows different viewpoints. While I do not like the increased amount of spam, shitposts, crypto scams and other nuisances which came with the opening up of the platform I see this as a temporary problem which can be solved just like spam on email no longer is a problem - I have been self-hosting my mail since the early 90's and saw the rise of spam as well as its current defeat (which may be temporary due to the ascent of generative AI but that is another story for another time) on my own server.
So, yes, X mostly works, at least for me. I only use it by following links in articles, I never use the site directly, only through a self-hosted Nitter [1] instance, I do not log in nor do I respond to anything. Maybe things are different for those who live on the platform but... maybe that is not a good thing to do anyway?
Twitter was trying make money, X is doing much worse at that than Twitter was. Musk may not care about that and may be fine with the significant drop in valuation since his purchase (he may have had other goals).
Is it the case that we want the government to become much less effective at current goals, with the possibility that it transforms to effectively serve other goals? Of course if you just say that the government is bad, it's easy to argue that making it less effective is good, but "it's bad and needs to change" is not an articulation of an interesting argument.
To come back to your original premise it also remains to be seen how X can end up with a sustainable business model. The same was true for Twitter so this is not a new thing. There is an organised advertising boycott against X which was spearheaded by those who are angry that what they considered to be "their" medium was opened up to the "bitter clingers, garbage, deplorables and irredeemables* (to use but a few of the terms bandied about by the old guard when referring to those who do not abide by their ideology) which will eventually peter out so that is one of the potential avenues. Additional revenue streams may be found by extending X - which in itself is a rather simple and low-bandwidth service - with features like video streaming etc.
Will I use such a service? Most likely not, I never used Twitter and I do not use X since I dislike the format. I also prefer decentralised services over centralised ones so I self-host nearly all services I use. Why then do I not support 'Twitter alternatives' like Mastodon or Threads over X? Threads is connected to Metafacebook which I shun like the plague so that is out just like any other service run by that abomination is. Mastodon is a collection of fiefdoms run by petty tyrants who wield the ban hammer like the old Twitter regime dreamed they could do. I do self-host a number of 'fediverse' services (Peertube, Pleroma, Pixelfed, Lemmy - only Peertube sees any real use, the rest is purely experimental) but I do not see these as alternatives due to their limited reach:
person A posts something on fediverse site B which will never be seen by those who use fediverse site C since that site is run by a petty tyrant who bans everyone on fediverse site B because that site *did not ban* fediverse site D where someone once posted something which the petty tyrant running fediverse site B does not like.
For example, if the transformed government were to fail to reasonably protect the Great Lakes from contamination with industrial byproducts, I would consider the transformation a failure and a bad outcome.