Elon Cleaning House

Now Tesla boy thinks that users are going to pay $20/mo. to stay verified. He's delusional.

 

I hope Twitter is gone by 1/1/25. Hopefully, other social media platforms will suffer this same fate.

 

That’s actually cheap for people who use it as PR or grifters who use the platform for $$$. But probably kills off a bunch of users who just post bs for no reason or don’t have huge following, including (possibly) bots which I guess is what this would be aimed at. Problem is the platform basically doesn’t exist without people posting bs and bots pumping up engagement numbers.

 

Although it probably won't be gone, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Twitter could be replaced by Jack Dorsey's Bluesky platform as the dominant social media platform of its kind by January 2025 especially if Musk relaxes the moderation to the point where it becomes a "digital cesspool". Said it using somewhat different language in a previous post in this thread, successful entrepreneurs tend to get in trouble when they overstep their areas expertise which in the case of Musk is innovative tangible technology. A social media platform is qualitatively different than a company manufacturing innovative electric vehicles and storage batteries or a company based on providing space launch services and manufacturing satellites.

 

They have been investors since 2011

 

Yep, and now the Kingdom has grown more oppressive and hateful as has Twitter leadership, such that they proudly proclaim their role, perceiving aligned values

 

ANTI-globalist MAGA’s awaiting guidance on this…

 

I an Actually less bothered by this, only because the corporate governance model of the board as a check on CEO power, or the power in itself, like you are taught in business school, really doesn't exist anymore. The Board is just a rubber stamp and way to reward cronies

 

That's actually the least dumb thing he has done so far. Not sure it will work (it is risky in that it could make people leave the platform, which, outside of media sources, has never proven to be that valuable to companies), but it has a pathway to success, unlike a lot of this other stuff he has proposed. Businesses and media sources may be willing to pay for this.

 

I may be wrong about this, because I don't follow these issues that closely. But isn't the blue check supposed to be a benefit to the reader, so that they know that they are viewing content generated by the individual who is named? I know celebrities enjoy a that it's less hard to impersonate them, but the ultimate benefit is to the reader. It feels like making that more difficult only promotes fraudulent content

 

It is, which is the risk here. But it certainly benefits the organization as well (as they don't have to deal with fakes as much). The customers certainly won't pay for blue check marks, but the companies and employers might be willing to pay for them. $20 a month sounds too high, probably, and without data, I can't say whether the revenue generated would out-weigh the anti-customer effects, but it at least makes some basic sense, unlike much of what he has discussed. As I said, Twitter isn't a great platform for companies (compared to Instagram, TikTok, or Facebook), so it might not work. But it at least isn't dumb in theory.

 

Pretty much how I see it. I don't follow the financial the technical angles, just the policy angles. And I would add that the summary understates the threat, because it doesn't seem to address international issues on foreign policy and the fact that Musk is so friendly with tyrants

Musk isn’t preserving public space. He’s using his vast resources to seize control of a publication because he didn’t like its editorial line. That’s not an example of free speech unbound. It’s an example of how the very wealthy can silence criticism and bury the public in propaganda.

Twitter made an editorial decision; it didn’t want to use its resources or its platform to promote violent insurrection. Elon Musk disagrees with that editorial stance; he thinks Twitter should allow people to organize violent insurrection using its resources and its platform. He thinks it should be a place where bigots and conspiracy theorists like himself reign supreme and can defame political leaders targeted for assassination by the far right.

Twitter isn’t a public forum. It’s a media institution, which, one way or another, expresses the values and the perspectives of the people who own it. Or, in this case, of the one person who owns it — Elon Musk, reactionary billionaire.

At $44 billion, the voice of Twitter is the opposite of free. Musk can afford it. For the rest of us, the cost is high.

 

Twitter's mobile site and app are almost indistinguishable. People will just use a mobile browser version.

 

So Dorsey, the guy who cant make money with Twitter is going to basically start from scratch to compete against Twitter?

My guess is that PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX and now new Twitter guy isnt that worried about old Twitter dude starting another Twitter.

 

These tech company guys pay themselves huge salaries with investor money …then they can apparently sell their creation for $44 billion even if it rarely turns a profit… what’s the downside?

 

Good point.

 

None. I think its brilliant. Just dont think Dorsey will make Twitter 2 beat out Twitter 1.

 

So what you thinking, only $15 billion this go round? 10?

 

This is not really true. For example, Twitter is often a sports reporter’s outlet for breaking news. It’s a way to get news out there and take the cred. This is no different for world news, politics, business and finance. Twitter has been a great method over the years to get breaking news or scoops out at lightning speed. A big reason Twitter exists. Not to mention the verified users / celebs who engage the masses on Twitter. Just admit Twitter does some things really, really well. Got to take the good with the bad, in some cases, but it’s the best platform to push out real-time info to the masses.

 

Not sure what you are saying is “untrue”. I was opining that the reporter with the big following WOULD pay. $120 seems pretty cheap and is essentially a business expense. Just like celebrities, I would put both news reporters and celebrities in the “use it for PR” category.

There is also the grifter class, the “fake news” propagators who might also be motivated to pay *if* the platform is useful to their grifting. Sadly, it probably is. The question is what happens if content is not from a “verified” user. Doesn’t sound much better if people can just pay $20 to spread bs and that’s automatically elevated content because they are “verified”.