"Over the weekend, a glitch on the platform meant that the site removed pictures and links on posts made before December 2014. The posts showed broken links instead of the pictures and videos that were previously there.

Several users noticed the glitch, with the technologist Tom Coates among those pointing it out. Coates referred to the glitch as “epic vandalism by Musk” and suggested it could be a cost-saving exercise."

  • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    Take a somewhat successful company, pay way more than it’s worth and then run it into the ground through kack-handed incompetence fueled by unlimited arrogance. Only a true business genius could do that.

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        At best, I think it could be an actual plan of his, he was pissed when he was forced to buy Twitter after backing out, real pissed.

        Maybe now he’s intentionally destroying it as a way to destroy the accomplishments of those he was forced to buy it from, but he’s doing it in a way that won’t land him in legal trouble for intentionally destroying it.

        I would believe it if it turned out to be true, but at the same time, he could simply be an extremely incompetent, super ultra mega wealthy idiot. I dunno.

        • Venutianxspring@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No idea, they think he’s some king of genius meme lord. I take every opportunity to make fun of them for it when they start talk about him.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Another lemmer commented on a similar post and got me thinking… Who paid for Twitter, really? It was not all Musk. I have to wonder if he got marching orders from those bankrolling him to run it into the ground. Also what got deleted? Arab Spring.

      Edited for link and more better words

      • whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Out of 46.5 billion total cost, 27 billion was out of Musk’s pocket. 13 billion were bank loans, most as a leveraged buyout so technically Twitter owes the banks, but the banks do not own shares. 5.2 billion, only a little more than 10% came from other sources. The biggest is 1.89 billion from the Saudi Prince, but those are just his previously owned shares that he decided to keep. It wasn’t a new investment. He obviously has influence (same as he did before the acquisition) but I doubt he’s giving marching orders with less than 5% stake. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-is-financing-elon-musk-s-us-44-billion-deal-to-buy-twitter-1.6100579?

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

          You’re thinking like a shareholder.

          A very rich friend helped out a very rich man, who now owes him a favor…

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

      It’s like someone who feels like there are some communication issues with their spouse go to marriage counseling and it somehow ends up with their house blown up. There was some struggle, but somehow the help turned it into a mess of an entirely different scale.

  • Savaran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    He must be incredibly shocked that nothing else he’s tried has caused it’s complete collapse yet. I guess just deleting it is all that is left.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      He MUST have some ulterior motive.

      Nobody could fuck up this comprehensively by accident, even roling dice to make his decisions he would have to roll the random good idea.

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

        His other companies literally have “handlers” for him so he doesn’t fuck everything up, redirect his attention, etc

        Twitter doesn’t, so when he spouts a stupid idea they just start doing it

      • 1bluepixel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” —Robert J. Hanlon

        More likely, Musk drank his own kool-aid and makes snap decisions believing he’s a genius that will invariably succeed, and no one is able to talk him out of his own hubris.

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

          But surely he would have to make atleast 1 excellent snap decision. Even if it was an accident.

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe…

            But there is a “flavour” of “stable genius” that is really just being arrogantly contrarian.

            And, if you’re surrounded by people around you giving you generally good advice, and your schtick is to say “when the crowd zigs, I zag”, then you’re doomed to be making generally bad decisions.

      • Mechaguana@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        He probably wanted to make space for more data by simulating an “accident” to avoid paying for more memory.

      • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what happens when you’re so powerful that you only have bootlicking yes-men around you that applaud every stupid of your ideas. At that point everyone trying to tell you that you’re wrong in some way looks like the weird one.

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

        Unlike his other ventures, Twitter was already in decline. Trump and his outrage machine was the only thing propping up the aging, relevancy-challenged platform. And in the rest of his endeavors he had competent people managing around him - an isolation and filter layer - that he’s decided he doesn’t need or want at X.

    • scribs
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue is that a lot of content which was hosted on Twitter long before any of this is being deleted…

  • whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    What in the fuck is a technologist? Is that what journalists are calling themselves now because they realized how embarrassing the journalist title has become?