Maybe there should be a bias towards those who benefit from the continuing viability of the company and maybe not.

But in this case, I suggest it's moot just because the damage to longs appeared to be significantly greater than the damage to shorts and it doesn't counterbalance anyway.

The penalties seem arbitrary to me. Transferring several million (or billion) dollars around as they are doing doesn't seem to rectify in any way the purported injustice to shorts. The whole episode drove down the stock quite a bit, so longs have suffered a lot, shorts have suffered somewhat, and the government collected a commission. Nobody has had wrongs rectified, and it's unknown whether prying Musk away from Tesla is a net gain.

Personally, I was neither long nor short TSLA at the time of the tweet, and I don't think short sellers are inherently illegitimate. However, I think the existence of a public company generally serves a social purpose and long investors are not quite symmetric with short investors. If, in general, there is a dispute where you can apply long investors' concept of fairness, or you can apply short investors' concept of fairness, it kind of makes sense that what damages the company less is probably the right answer, barring something like Theranos that shouldn't exist at all.