• Vlyn@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    273
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because he’s doing everything to make it fail and destroy the platform, isn’t it obvious?

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      166
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, you don’t throw away $44 billion just for shit and giggles, not even if you are as rich as Musk. Musk is (probably) a narcissist who thought he could make it work in his delusional mind.

      He wanted a mouthpiece for the MAGA crowd, and he probably thought the desire in the population for it, would make it succeed, if he made the platform embrace that. He probably envisioned himself as a great liberator, who would be celebrated for bringing free speech back to America.

      Musk has been losing it for a long time, and it seems to only get worse.

      • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who could of forseen brands not wanting to advertise over hate speech that would turn off half their customer base? I’d love screenshots of my companies products floating around next to seasticas and racism.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes that’s so strange, think of all the extra attention the controversies create!! I bet he planned to double the prices for advertising.

      • steltek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, I don’t think a narcissist would intentionally and publicly humiliate themselves the way Musk has done (Not a psychologist).

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Absolutely true, being humiliated is just about the worst thing for a narcissist.

          An example of that, was when Elon Musk called the diver who actually rescued 13 children in Thailand a pedophile. Imagine that, calling the hero of the day a pedophile because you are butthurt!!

        • crate_of_mice@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No they definitely don’t like to be humiliated, they probably feel that a lot more deeply that non-narcissists. But at the same time, they lack the self-awareness that would help them avoid getting into situations that would lead to humiliation.

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think a lot of “hardware” people underestimate software. Historically, hardware was way more complex but the hardware problems have kind of been solved. There’s only so many ways to design a phone or laptop. Software, meanwhile, has only become more complex and challenging.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree, but I don’t see the point in this context?

          The software to build and run Twitter, is probably not worth much besides for running Twitter. No Twitter means no value in the software for it either.

          • Intralexical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, but I don’t see the point in this context?

            I think they meant Musk thought managing development of the Twitter software would be easier than it was, given his prior… Involvement with Tesla and SpaceX.

            I think a lot of “hardware” people underestimate software.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah yes, I can see that could make sense. But I think Musk considers himself as much a software guy as hardware, because he works with AI for Tesla. Putting him somewhat on the cutting edge of software too. Twitter should be child’s play by comparison.

              Of course Musk has managed to bring Tesla from a competitive position to be way behind the main field, with just a few very stupid decisions. Mercedes, GM and Waymo are now way ahead of Tesla, and Nvidia and MobilEye are probably ahead too.

              Of course Musk is now attempting to slow AI development overall, because he is way behind. With suggestions like preventing AI development until we have better regulation and understanding. He is trying to repeat how he stopped investments in public transport with hyperloop. Only this time with AI, because he is losing that battle badly.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s being bankrolled to keep it up and running for the next election. It will be interesting to see if the money runs out.

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, you don’t throw away $44 billion just for shit and giggles

        Why not? Elon Musk is famously on ketamine, ambien, and a whole slew of mind-altering substances.

        Given how the contract was written, and given how much Elon Musk fought against the contract, it was obvious that he made a short-term decision (likely while high on some substance), and then quickly regretted buying Twitter. Within a week or two, he started a court case to NOT BUY TWITTER, despite signing an ironclad contract.

        In my mind, its really fucking obvious what happened. Elon Musk partied a little bit too hard with some mixture of ketamine+ambien+alcohol, it mixed weirdly in his brain and he made a bad decision. A few days later, when he sobered up a bit, he realized how shitty of a decision he made but it was too late to roll things back.


        Everything else Elon Musk has done is just… shitty reputation management. He’s trying to convince the world he’s still got it, despite making a bad (possibly drug-induced) decision

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          He made a huge mistake, either because he was under the influence, or because he is delusional. That doesn’t mean he actually intended to throw out $44B just for shit an giggles. Obviously he didn’t when he sobered up.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t see the conspiracy.

        My assumption is the investors immediately got what they wanted. They are not stupid.

        Money men don’t hand over money to these front men based on promises. This isn’t a Hollywood movie. There was an immediate pay off.

        They got SpaceX stock.

        • aricene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          ·
          1 year ago

          Investors will absolutely hand over money to front men making bad, even obviously insane, promises, though. People are always more easily manipulated than they like to believe, but people who’ve convinced themselves they’re infallible titans of industry are even more vulnerable to it. (Especially the ones who think that they see through the scam and won’t be left holding the bag.)

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        the only not-on-purpose piece was him having to buy it. idiot was forced to buy twitter, and then turned it into a “lets burn down a bastion of liberal speech” amongst his friends. he knows he wont suffer in any conceivable way, the saudis who fronted a huge chunk get what they want.

        this was all setup shortly after he was forced to buy it. every step he has made since is in the playbook of “ruining your business”, including mistakes he has personally made before.

    • notapantsday@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know. The way it’s going down, it really makes him look like an idiot. He could have just flipped the switch and turned it off as a massive demonstration of power.

      Instead he’s making one mindboggingly stupid decision after another, showing the whole world how utterly incompetent he is.

      The most logical explanation for me is the easiest one: if he’s making stupid and incompetent decisions, maybe he’s just stupid and incompetent.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s obvious to everyone. But, if you’re claiming he’s doing it on purpose… That’s just some next level batshit conspiracy theory.

      • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it? He’s either a moron or he’s doing it on purpose. There is simply no other explanation.

        At this point it’s just too many dumb decisions, if he had done absolutely nothing after taking over he’d be better off than he is now.

        • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          Delusional rich guy who’s nowhere near as smart as most people thought he was is the most simple explanation. He’s obviously got some kind of god complex and thinks he’s right about everything.

          • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean he has been called a real world Tony Stark for the last decade. Maybe that went straight to his mushy brain and he is still on that high. Back in the day he listened to experts, now whenever he’s at SpaceX they employ “Elon handlers” who just nod to every suggestion and then try to get rid of him.

            He got too much positive press and lost it.

            • Cabrio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              God knows how a wannabe Steve Jobs who bought into all of his companies ever got compared to Tony Stark.

            • zurohki@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              He looked like a real world Tony Stark when he was surrounded by teams of smart people doing all the hard parts and PR for him.

              What we’re seeing now is pure unfiltered Musk. He was probably always like this, but now he’s off the leash.

      • jungle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not sure I agree. I think it would be totally in character for him to want to destroy Twitter just because they forced him to buy it. He’s a petty troll and can afford to lose that money just to show them.

        • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How does destroying it hurt “them” he already bought it? They cashed out way over the value of the company. If I was any major shareholder of Twitter that he bought out Id be gleefully laughing at him running it into the ground now that I’m no longer invested.

    • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because he’s doing everything to make it fail and destroy the platform, isn’t it obvious?

      It is tremendously obvious, I agree. At one point it felt kinda hyperbolic to say, but not for awhile now.

      I’m not knowledgeable enough to be able to speculate what’s in it for him, but it’s 100% obvious that’s what’s being done.

      • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        He might call him self pro free speech, but he actually hates it (as long as it’s not his own free speech). Getting rid of Twitter is a massive blow to free speech. One less platform where he and his companies can get outed and criticized on.

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s less nefarious than that. He wants to be a championed business leader. He’s just a fuck up who was forced to buy a platform that he never actually intended to buy (except for maybe a couple of days when he first suggested it). Sure, it will help his side when he runs it into the ground, but that’s not his intent despite being the cause.

        • severien@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Twitter was becoming another walled platform (not being able to read the content without being logged in) even before Musk’s take-over.

          I’m happy for any walled platform to fail. IMO they have no place on internet.

    • chalupapocalypse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      People told me I was crazy when I said he bought it to shut it down. Look who he hangs out with, people with a fuckton of money who hate free speech. Very powerful people who control media empires and run oppressive regimes.

      He might be stupid, but the people pulling his strings aren’t.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s like saying “my car may fail after I poured sand into the gas tank and replaced the electrical with speaker wires”

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like others have said, bullshit. He’ll drive it into the ground and pretend that was his plan the whole time, like he’s some undercover genius three steps ahead of everyone, when really he’s just constantly playing catch-up with his narcissistic outbursts.

    • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I keep thinking there must be some high level plan here to destroy twitter for the good of humanity. I mean it’s that or Elon actually just is that stupid. At this point the latter seems the most likely …

      • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve got it back to front imo. Twitter was a useful tool for disseminating info, whether for protest movements, political movements, whatevs. Pre-Musk, there was a degree of control on twitter re disinfo, harassment, hatred etc. Now, it’s no longer a useful tool for leftwing people to gather and share their thoughts; it’s no longer a useful tool to disseminate information; it’s no longer a tool for rallying protestors.

        Look at who invested (Saudi kingdom); look at when Musk took it over (mid-terms); it seems pretty obvious to me that the takeover was a very expensive purchase to make the actions of oligarchs & despots that much easier.

      • o_oli@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If he was destroying it for the good of humanity he would have to somehow destroy the concept of it rather than a single platform.

        Probably best spending 40 billion on education in the harm social media can do lol.

        I really do think he’s just delusional. I won’t call him an idiot because there is clearly intelligence and talent in his head, but he’s gone off the rails in some capacity whether it’s mental health issues or power crazed or who knows.

          • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            No he hasn’t. The management of the old x.com (the one that got bought by paypal) threatened to walk if Elon wasn’t removed from the office. He was always this incompetent.

          • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You answer jibes with what I have seen plenty of while working with and funding serial entrepreneurs in the Valley: micro-dosing, coke, molly, steroids, random herbal shit, off-label usage of pharmaceuticals, trendy nootropics, blood transfusions, ayahuasca, and Adderall.

        • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s my point. In theory Elon realized how toxic it was to public discourse and sought to destroy it.

          If you look at his actions and the actions of a competent person trying to destroy the platform, they are virtually identical

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was my original thought when he came on and immediately fired 75% of the staff. It’s not some savvy slimming down or cost-cutting. It was more like a wrecking ball.

      It was fairly clear that his overall desire was the make the platform less useful for liberals and more for conservatives. It seems like he is content to destroy it if he can’t achieve the latter.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by Dickless here.” — Ray Stantz, Twitter engineer

    • pgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      The nice thing about our economic system is that value is rarely completely destroyed, the money he paid for Twitter didn’t cease to exist, it went to former Twitter shareholders.

      They may be using it in more productive ways than he ever would.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        They may be using it in more productive ways than he ever would.

        They use it to reinvest and hoard. Because that’s what the investor class does, which is why they’re useless.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just to add a little explanation to those who don’t get it: the man-hours spent by people working for then Twitter now X as well as resources used, uktimatelly for producing no wealth, could’ve instead been spent for something that did produce wealth.

          Same amount of input money either way, but one produces wealth (in the economic sense of the word rather than merelly monetary) and the other just wastes manpower and resources.

          • pgx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There has been value generated by Twitter that will outlive it though.

            They established and refined an interface that other ventures like blue sky and mastodon are utilizing, and they delivered open source frameworks like Bootstrap will long outlive Twitter, and have brought value to the broader web development ecosystem.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I was just explaning the concept of a “broke window falacy” (funilly enough without using the actual example that gave the name to it) and how work merelly being done is not a gain and can actually be a loss because of the opportunity cost (i.e. the people and the resources could otherwise have been used elsewhere and actually produce something of worth).

              Also I was just thinking about the Musk-era Twitter rather than the entire Twitter timeline.

              As you correctly point out, Bootstrap is something of worth (I would be more hesitant on the “interface” side, as I worked in web interfaces back when they started and that stuff is just derivative and not especially great).

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Consider whether Twitter was stifling some other growth. If you buy and burn down an advertising billboard, letting light into a market garden–perhaps that is beneficial.

    • Rubanski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Definitely prefer the vanity projects of the past. Libraries, city halls etc

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. X makes various things named “Rockafeller” seem downright “not a dumpster fire” in contrast.

    • mPony@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      millions of wasted hours of effort. For nothing.

      aah, Social Media in a nutshell.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t work that way. Almost all of the money in the world is debt owed to someone else. Very few things are bought with cash. It is really credit on credit on credit on credit. And all of that depends on trust. My company gets product from your company today with the promise to pay in a month, your company does the same…

        When events like the Twitter buyout and burn happen it weakens trust. Which weakens credit. Which means the virtual money is gone.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could have just bought land in Kentucky and sat on it. Made a nature preserve. Give the beavers and deer a place to chill for a century or more. Pretty lazy way to do charity but it still would have been better.

    • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hyperloop, boring tunnels, sending cars to space, etc

      Stop me when you’ve heard enough to believe this guy has obvious disdain for all of us.

    • MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      1 year ago

      It also wasn’t really successful before he came in either. It rarely was profitable and usually operated at a loss.

      I mean Musk has seemingly made every bad move imaginable, I can only imagine the ideas he’s been talked out of.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was losing money, but not much. They could have made some minor changes to make it profitable. However ~8000 people were making good salaries working for them, and tens of thousands of people and businesses benefited from the platform. Now it’s much smaller, less useful, and still not profitable.

      • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was barely profitable but had some one time write offs that pushed it down. It should have returned to barely profitable. But a barely profitable company can become ok profitable with small changes.

      • kaitco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Twitter’s success wasn’t monetary. The success came in allowing ordinary people their soapbox at a global town square.

        Look at what happened to the price of insulin with a single tweet made back when all the blue checks were in complete free-for-all. A single tweet, made by a random person, thoroughly changed the shape of that one industry. Twitter gave “power” to the people, and those like Musk weren’t comfortable with that.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ugh. This “global town square” nonsense needs to die.

          Twitter’s business was selling ads. They don’t give a flying festerooni about fostering a healthy public discourse. Nearly every part of the technical and UX design was actively hostile to “the people” being able to express themselves in a meaningful way— The entire premise was a character limit that while fun also made it literally impossible to provide meaningful context or nuance to anything, and whether you were just scrolling or trying to reply to people, you never got to see anybody else’s honest opinions either but instead you were fed a carefully algorithmically curated drip of out-of-context ragebait and feelgood fuzzies designed only to keep you stimulated enough to keep on scrolling so they could report a higher number to investors in their next quarterly report and sell you to more ads.

          The entire place was always an artificial environment designed to prey on and monetize your attention span; Unless you were replying to somebody you knew, it was never a place for any kind of authentic interaction, much less some kind of grandiose “global town square” that “gave power to the people”.

          Twitter may have given certain individuals the tools at some points to trigger positive change. The insulin example was probably the best-case-possible outcome from Musk’s fumbling of the verification system, but it was an accident. And in the meantime, when Twitter does get used deliberately, it has spawned a terrorist group that has murdered and enslaved thousands of people, turbocharged the decline of the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world towards either autocratization or polarized paralysis, and fueled many, many actual full-blown civil wars. (This is what happens when your revolution isn’t built on solid foundations.) Plus, you know, all the harassment, stalking, rape and death threats, political interference, privacy concerns, mental health effects, and actual bots used by malicious actors (which reputable sources tend to estimate at tens of millions in number).

          Twitter’s a corporation. They never cared about being a “town square”, only about being seen as such by users so they could line their own pockets. And Elon Musk is just an idiot. He’s not some scheming genius (though he clearly tries to be); he’s the same as any rich idiot discovering the hard way that no amount of ego will make up indefinitely for lack of competence.

          It’s just the way they are, no silly conspiracies or battle between good and evil required. Twitter’s amoral, rather than immoral, and Musk is immoral, but it’s in a flailing self-destructive way rather than a conniving Machiavellian way. They’re acting out their nature, and we get caught up in it.

          How many actual terrorist groups were we going to let this corporation create in their pursuit for profit before finally admitting that maybe the entire idea was bad from the start? Currently, the immoral idiot is destroying both his own credibility and also the amoral corporation for us all, and really, this is probably almost the best possible outcome.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        i was no fan of twitter, but it was on a path to achieve some financial stability. It had plenty of value as a mechanism to distribute emergency (or other) information quickly. was and had being the operative words here.

        • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, I agree. Investors want explosive exponential growth but there is great value in stable, slightly profitable companies that produce social goods. For example,.Twitter was unique in getting emergency information out; in real.time reporting; in sending out traffic and commuting alerts; in directly and quickly communicating issues with private companies.

    • mishimaenjoyer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      twitter was still operating on a hail mary for years, musk just made it more obvious and his erratic handling of operations put a few more nails into the coffin. sadly, the fediverse won’t be the successor we all hoped for,

    • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there’s anything left to buy aside from tacky merch shirts. I’m sure the creditors will pick it clean and auction off the best bits to the highest bidder.

      • geno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        …I guess it was indeed a disaster because I can’t remember even hearing that name before.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bebo

        originally operated from 2005 until its bankruptcy in 2013

        It was announced in January 2021 that it would be returning as a new social media site the month after. By May 2022, it had once again been shut down, without having ever left beta testing.

    • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bingo.

      And since won’t get back all the staff he dismissed; they’re going to have to just slap the Twitter brand on a Mastodon instance.

    • yiliu@informis.land
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      This take is exhausting. It’s like the political version of narcissism: here’s how everything that happens in the world is actually a conspiracy against me!

      If Musk was a plant to sabotage Twitter on the behalf of the 1%, why would he have done it slowly with a series of increasingly bad decisions that caused a mass migration to distributed open-source platforms? Why not just flip the switch and kill it in one go? Or: why not start a program of bots to talk about how awesome Teslas are, and make Trump seem cool, while shadow-censoring criticism of Musk’s friend’s companies or governments?

      You think They are competent and dastardly enough to plan a takeover of Twitter, but then too bumbling to make better use of it than slowly discrediting it with a series of half-baked ideas from a deranged and detestable front man?

      • Jentu@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Control is the game for people with money and power whether it is graceful or not. Some of what Elon has done seems like he wants to control the narrative around his jet. Some of what Elon is doing seems like he just wants to keep testing the waters to see how many people still use twitter after crippling the system. Like some sort of “I slap them in the face and they ask to be hit harder- that’s how much power I have over them. People are obsessed with me”.

        I don’t think his goal was to kill twitter. His goal was to remain on everyone’s lips without his jet being mentioned. And if that’s at the cost of organizational tools being destroyed, so be it- in fact, destroying twitter has had more people taking about him than ever.

        • yiliu@informis.land
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I think that’s more or less right. Musk has gone off the rails, and is using his fortune as a cudgel in a fit of pique.

          It’s our own fault that our “town square” was so easily taken over by a rich bully, though. I was warning people back in 2007 that depending so heavily on Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, was a bad idea. People did not want to hear it. It’s hard to picture now, but people used to love those companies, and couldn’t imagine them doing harm. But like…it was inevitable.

          We need to build on things like Lemmy, Mastodon, Diaspora, whatever. If you hand control of the town square to a corporation, they’re gonna control access and charge fees, and they’ll happily sell it to someone who wants to turn it into a mud-wrestling pit. That’s not the fault of the corporations–it’s our fault.

    • Intralexical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Twitter helped create ISIL, and also POTUS45. When actual autocracies see people even trying to organize on Twitter, they simply ban the whole site anyway. And it also played a major role in the Arab Spring, which while originally talking about high ideals like democracy, liberalisation, and human rights, is these days mostly notable for having ruined several countries for a generation.

      In fact, that seems to be the trend: Twitter is very good at making its users feel like they’re organizing and making changes in the world, when in reality all that is being accomplished is/was inflating their own stock price and throwing outrage around with neither factual context nor a long-term plan to turn it into meaningful positive change. People were able to effect social change before Twitter, but they didn’t do it because they saw somebody’s sarky hot take for five seconds right before getting their dopamine hit with the “Like” button and then scrolling past it; they did it because they got sick of the way things were. The public-facing data should be kept around for historians and the rest of the curious, but Twitter was always primarily a predatory ad marketplace that gained relevance by being useful for propaganda, and we’ll all be better off with it gone.

      EDIT: Musk, surely, did buy Twitter for the power and attention he thought it would give him. But he’s done it as a petulant, self-destructive manchild, not as some scheme to stifle public discussion— Twitter was already stifling public discussion, just because of what it is.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Musk, surely, did buy Twitter for the power and attention he thought it would give him.

        DIsagree. He was trying to do one of his many pump-and-dumps and he fucked around and got found out.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair. He talked about buying Twitter for the power and attention he meant to get from talking about it, both from the cryptobro fans and also any shady financial shenanigans. But he didn’t actually mean to go through with paying for it.

    • Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      For real!? I cannot think of a worse cancer than twitter/X and the horrific abomination that it is cannot whither away quickly enough.

      What possible benefit has Twitter ever offered mankind?

  • turbonewbe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    1 year ago

    Took over Twitter. Ruined it. Then : “The sad truth is that there are no great ‘social networks’ right now,”.

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Twitter used to be in much better shape financially before musk took over but implying that it was ever “great” is a bit of a stretch

      • notatoad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        twitter may have been a shithole in general, but it was great compared to what it is now.

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. Twitter was profitable in 2019. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000141809120000037/twtr-20191231.htm

          Ctrl+F for “Net Income”, which will take you to the $1,465,659 (thousands) figure somewhere in its charts. Net Income is the bottom line: after all revenues, costs, etc. etc. of the year were added up.

          Musk took it over with a so called “Leveraged Buyout”, meaning Twitter borrowed $13 Billion to allow Elon Musk to buy it for $44 Billion (meaning Elon Musk only paid $33 Billion, the random +2 Billion to wipeout all the old debt).

          Note that $13 Billion in loans costs somewhere between 10% to 14% right now, depending on how much of the loan was fixed and how much of it was adjustable. At 10%, this means that Twitter took on $1.3 Billion/year in interest payments as Elon Musk bought the company. There’s pretty much no hope for Twitter to ever be profitable again, they’d have to execute as perfectly as 2019 despite losing 80% of their staff (Elon Musk also fired everyone when he took over the company).

          The company was “barely profitable” in 2019, and “just barely losing money” in 2020, 2021. But add on a $1.3+ Billion/year loadstone, and its just… not… going to ever be profitable again.

          • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            The funniest part, though, is that the $13 billion in debt to Twitter is held by lenders who would be first in line to get any payout from a Twitter bankruptcy. If the enterprise value as a whole drops below $13 billion, then Musk would get nothing out of the bankruptcy, and would lose his entire $30b+ investment with nothing to show for it. Unless, of course, Musk decides to put good money after bad, and pony up a new investment of even more money, that the lenders would agree to take.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            As much as I’m happy to see both Twitter and Musk fail, your comment reminds me yet again that leveraged buyouts are fundamentally fucked up and ought to be illegal.

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How did he ruin it though? I hear that all the time but I myself haven’t noticed any changes. Well, except for a logo but that’s very minor

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For a product the logo and brand recognition are not minor. Twitter was so well known and ubiquitous that the word “tweet” was included in dictionaries around the world. He threw that away and replaced it with a generic X, and no one can figure out how to call posts on that platform now.

        But other than that, he has a very particular stance on moderation and free speech. He thinks hateful comments are just fine, as long as they aren’t strictly against the law. But he also doesn’t apply the same standards to himself, removing stuff he doesn’t like even though it would be ok according to his own rules. He also gutted the Twitter/X staff, particularly the tech departements, leading to numerous outages and technical problems. All this has made it an even worse platform for civil public discourse, and it wasn’t all that great before he took over imo.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for the explanation. For me none of that, well, except for content moderation, really matters. I just didn’t understand why people blame Elon when the platform has already been overrun by bots way before he took over. Whenever I look at it, It’s all crypto and political spam. Who cares what logo looks like, or how many people work on it, when there’s no good content to begin with?

          • DogsShouldRuleUs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re being extremely disingenuous. Those things exist on that platform and every other social media platform. If that’s literally all you’re seeing, you are not using it right… in fact you have to be going pretty far out of your way to make that the entirety of the content shown to you. It wasn’t hard at all to find quality posters and filter out the bullshit.

            • drathvedro@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right now, I opened twitter, and out of 16 trending topics, 7 are crypto spam, 3 are political spam, 2 are just spam, 2 are generic words, and the remaining two I have zero interested in. Today I also got a “trending tweet” notification that was in some foreign language I don’t know. Went on a homepage and every third post is some kind of spam, so I had to block like a couple dozen accounts just so they never pop up again. I have no idea how you are supposed to find good creators when spammers are gaming the system so easily. And it’s been like that for a few years already. No other social network has this problem, I would’ve quit internet if that was the case.

              • DogsShouldRuleUs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right now? Probably. Musk has super-fucked it and I won’t have anything to do with the guy or his projects. You argued it’s always been this way, though. It was not if you took a moment to use it correctly and follow people you like and ignore those you don’t. I give my friends shit (jokingly) for using “X” and the answer is the same “It’s the best way to keep tabs on my favorite creators.”

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Think about this. Staff soon may not have a place to work if they don’t work from home. Musk hasn’t been paying vendors or rent on Twitter offices for some time now. His failure to pay server costs caused outages and a scramble from what staff remained to move that info off google servers he didn’t want to pay for and onto servers he owns. This kind of thing may not effect all users on a daily basis, but imagine if your landlord just decided not to pay the utilities bill out of your rent. Eventually the city or municipality would shut off the electric or water. You can’t have a domicile that doesn’t have electric and water. The place would be condemned and all renters would be out of their homes. That’s basically a very similar scenario to what’s happening at Twitter.

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I myself haven’t noticed any changes

        So you haven’t noticed the 80% reduction in staff leading to incredible amounts of Twitter Downtime, the rise in hate-speech due to the firing of the moderators, the loss of mainstream advertisements, and the replacement with ridiculous low-quality advertising because the mainstream advertisers have grown concerned about the hate-speech?

        And you haven’t noticed the increase in downtime as the website continuously crashes? The loss of the blocking feature? The inability to block Elon Musk specifically? (and how he keeps appearing on everyone’s feed even when you try to get rid of it?). The loss of API access?

        Comment quality and overall quality of discussion has declined significantly on Twitter as well, as Twitter has fallen from top10 on the App/Play store to #55 or later, because it turns out that Americans are too stupid to search for “X” rather than “Twitter”. There has been a precipitous decline in the already crappy quality discussion.

        Finally, Threads and Mastodon have sucked out many high-quality posters and sub-communities.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          “no, not really” is the answer to all of those, honestly. But I rarely use twitter, hence why I was asking. Just blocked Elon by the way, really curious if what you’re saying about blocking him is true.

      • Saneless@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you don’t notice the changes, you were part of the people he bumped up at all costs that turned it into a terrible service

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well, maybe, but then it’s a terrible bid, because I only use twitter to shit on brands. And I’m definitely not buying the check mark.

          EDIT: accidentally removed “not”

          • arglebargle@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is the one thing I am going to miss more than anything: Twitter worked for resolving issues with companies. It was the single good thing about it. Now that is going away, companies can ignore you.

            Seriously I have been on the phone, email, on hold, trying to get things resolved. One tweet and suddenly I am important and they want to help. A lot of companies have different support teams to monitor social media and that is where shit gets done.

          • dragontamer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And I’m definitely buying the check mark.

            So you want to show to the world that you’re a mindless Pro-Elon Musk simp?

            The blue checkmark is a death upon your online reputation. That’s why you’re allowed to hide the blue-check these days, because the internet has begun to realize that you LOSE reputation by buying that checkmark.

      • Vlhacs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        He had to inject his own persona into the platform by making inflammatory, discriminatory tweets and being a general troll on his platform, and then making unpopular decisions like forcing people to pay for a blue checkmark, increasing API costs, not banning Nazi posters, and of course, the nonsensical rebranding. It drove away people and advertisers who didn’t want to be on the same platform as literal Nazis and bigoted TERF people, and companies who couldn’t afford the ridiculous API pricing.

        Honestly if he had simply not used his own platform as his own bullhorn, he could have enacted some of the more unpopular changes to become profitable.

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry but if you didn’t get mad at every reply on any decently large post being filled with NPC- ass boomer tier memes and replies and attempts at self promo, you might be a boomer NPC.

  • orbitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So with wildfires in Canada there’s evacuation zones near me, but I can’t click on some announcement links from the main site that shows the evacuation zones because they go to twitter and you need to log in now. I think they show some on other pages on the site but they do the quicklink to the twitter announcement in the sidebar so you have to click around a bit to get to it. Yes I know the name but whatever. My point being is when the social media site that was meant for short bits of info isn’t good for emergency notifications where everyone can read, it’s shitty and potentially harmful.

    • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Governments should either be operating their own systems for this or, hell I don’t know, why not just spin up a their ready-to-go Mastodon instance or something else in the fediverse not subject to the delirious whims of a petulant muskrat born with daddy’s money?

    • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry - as someone who has done some work with disaster response, this was one of my main concerns. When they threatened to take away NWS access to API without huge fees, I was honestly horrified. Thankfully they reversed that decision, but a lot of what my organization did was scour Twitter for official information and also personal accounts of folks who needed help/the conditions on the ground.

      It is honestly a travesty that a resource such as this can be reduced to literal 💩 when people need it the most. I wish I had an answer, but I don’t. I hope more and more folks/orgs migrate to a suitable alternative(s) sooner rather than later, but the damage has been done. There’s always a percentage who never do, and you can’t fix that.

  • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    X? Can we collectively decide to forever call it “X, formerly known as Twitter” just to piss him off?

  • fne8w2ah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Best part was he tried to chicken out of his own deal but the feds obv wouldn’t allow him back off on his very own proposal to buy Twitter in the first place!

      • droans@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. He entered into a binding contract and agreed to bypass due diligence.

        That wasn’t even offered by Twitter, he just agreed without any prompting.

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes yes yes. But that binding contract was in Delaware. Because contract law is weird.

          In practice, most business contracts are enforced by the state of Delaware, not the federal government nor any national-level court. Yes, its a state-level court.