nuff said

  • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Translation: “I’m terrible at business, and I’m making it everyone else’s problem”

      • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I had to search the euphemism to see if I was just out of the loop on the economics terminology, and if those legit were different concepts.

        On the downside, they’re not. On the upside, Musk is setting a great example for how to stop getting accused of hoarding wealth

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    On the other hand, I think the people at Tesla/SpaceX are probably very happy that Elon has his hands full with Twitter right now.

  • randomTingler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    • Your Google search result redirects to Twitter
    • you click and open the link
    • Twitter asks you to login to see the tweet.
    • You close that tab and move on to next search result.

    Best way to avoid traffic to your site, then complain about revenue loss from advertisements.

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

      medium started doing the same shit, sometimes it has interesting articles I’d like to read, but then they started putting in behind registration so I just no longer open medium links.

    • traveler01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly my wild guess is that he’s trying to make Twitter profitable from subscription based services and not so much from ad revenue.

      Can’t really have free speech if platform depends on advertisers and investors.

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

        Perhaps. But a rather large issue arises when your content is generated primarily by users who wouldn’t want to pay for a service.

        There is also the issue where if you are having to pay to get around interaction limits is it really free speech? Or just limited to those that can afford to pay?

        • traveler01@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think these limits were increased to a point where they are not really bad or they were removed. The point of them was to prevent scraping to train AIs

            • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d argue it’s a poisoned dataset. You can’t validly train an AI based on content that contains a non-trivial percentage of bot-generated content.

  • RouxFou@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    With the way he’s running this, I’m a bit confused as to why he didn’t just buy Truth Social directly. Wouldn’t have cost him nearly as much.

        • Arakwar@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Twitter could have 200% more users, if no one want to show them ads, then ad spots will be dirt cheap. Printing 5 millions of 1cent ads vs 1 million of 10cents ads is not the same. Both on income and expenses…

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

            This, so much this. I also find it rather coincidental that fb cam out with threads soon after the twitter implosion. Opportunistic feasting on a dead carcass perhaps?

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

              Twitter has been on the outs since musk bought it. If Facebook was smart they’d have started right then.

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

                  According to Adam Mosseri, IG had been working on Threads in various forms since 2021. Apparently they struggled to make it a native part of IG, then started working on the stand-alone version in 2022. So if he is to be believed, Threads development predates Twitter’s sale to Musk.

              • dragontamer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Threads still doesn’t have #hashtag searching IIRC. It’s missing a huge number of features. It’s clear that they only came out as early as they did because they saw an opportunity to eat Twitter’s lunch.

                They really needed a few more months of dev time.

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

                  Bluesky is the same way. There are a lot of features there that still need to be implemented.

                  I’m glad Masto at least has hashtags and video and gifs and editing. For me right now it has the best features and the best experience. I’m pretty happy with it.

        • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That saw an overnight 50% drop in activity. People were kinda pissed to find out that Meta created them a Threads handle from their Facebook/Instagram and immediately deactivated their Threads accounts. I don’t know what it means, but I like it

            • Acat114@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You don’t have an account unless you activate it, but they do hold your Instagram handle if you were to sign up that would be your Threads handle. The 50% drop in activity is because the app is lame as hell, and once people saw it they were done. No chronological sorting option, not even an option to only see threads from the people you follow.

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

                not even an option to only see threads from the people you follow.

                lol then what’s the fucking point of following anyone

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

      Dude could have created his own Mastodon insrance for practically nothing. Is he somehow even dumber than Trump?

    • Moohamin12@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Let’s be honest Elon doesn’t care about Twitter.

      He bought it with money he doesn’t have. He only increased in net worth since the takeover and has successfully done what he wanted to, destroy an organization he thought was problematic and now everyone gives even more data to Facebook.

      Everyone of them won.

      • JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think part of it is his own hubris through. His head is so far up his head by now that he though he knew better. It’s the same reason why Super Heavy destroyed itself on first launch. He thought he was smarter than his engineers and forced them to go without a proper launchpad.

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

      The biggest obstacle to spreading far-right propaganda has always been finding a platform.

      Before the internet, when neonazis tried to shove racist leaflets into peoples pockets at punk gigs, they’d be immediately run out of the venue, despite “angry, dissaffected, young people” being exactly the kind of vulnerability they were looking for.

      When the internet did come along, initially things weren’t much better. Sure, there were sites like Stormfront, but nobody went there. So instead they’d “raid” other forums to spread their shitty views, getting instantly banned because they hadn’t figured out how to be a Nazi with plausible deniability yet.

      When they finally nailed that, it was a big moment for them.

      Historically, mainstream media also never gave a fuck what the opinions of Nazis were. But the moment they rebranded to “alt-right”, the psycopathic, for-profit, neoliberal media companies saw a way to make some quick cash without having to openly admit they were functioning as a mouthpiece for people with swastika tattoos.

      From there, the “mask on, hide your powerlevel” stategy was codified. 4chan and far-right Discord servers openly stategized about how to do it best, such as presenting their dogshit opinions as popular, moderate beliefs and blaming progressives for their asshole personalities.

      By the time Charlottesville’s swastika-waving parade and domestic-terrorism-finale happened, it was too late. Key figures in the far-right funnel had settled into social media like bedbugs at a two-star hotel.

      Whenever a platform tried to get rid of them, they’d slip away through cracks in the walls. They would get banned and create new accounts that were slightly toned down, searching for that sweet spot of “as far-right as we can get away with”. They’d move to another major platform (or somewhere else on the same platform), because there was no coordinated effort to remove them for good.

      But despite the slow, uncordinated response from social media sites, it was starting to work, especially on Twitter. By the time you’d hidden how far-right you were, you could no longer spread your message. Nobody was fooled by the dog whistles, fake engagement and flowery misrepresentations of “freedom of speech” any more.

      Intially, they tried their own mask-off Twitter with Truth Social (who conspiciously aren’t being sued by Musk for being a Twitter clone). But the numbers were dogshit. It had a fraction of the traffic and everybody there was already far-right. You could keep them frothy, but you couldn’t breed more of them.

      So Musk bought Twitter. Ideally, he wanted to just hand one of the big three socials back to right-wing reactionaries ane extremists but he also has no problem just killing the platform.

      The only thing that mattered was that the deplatforming stopped, before people realised that it works and makes sites 1000x better.

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

      He wanted to prove he doesn’t care about money and is fully willing to throw away $44 billion dollars on a shitpost

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

      I’m still convinced there is money coming in from an outside influence that is paying him to destroy Twitter, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing is happening to Reddit as well

      • someguy3@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think he thought the “Twitter files” were real and wanted them so he could be the saviour of democracy and the right wing.

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    50% is just what he’s admitting to. Not sure how easily that number can be verified, but if someone told me that the actual numbers were much, much worse… I wouldn’t bet against them.

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

      My brother is in the space program in the army & has worked with SpaceX on several projects. He says Elon is the master at smudging numbers to make things appear they are better than they are or not as bad as the true numbers would suggest so I guarantee the same applies here. I’m sure the actual figures are much, much worse.

  • eoddc5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember the 50% number is just what he was comfortable with publishing to the public

    We have no reason to believe his public statistics

    • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      100% of the ads I see on Twitter today are dropshipping scams, while in the pre-musk era they were highly targeted to my job and interests to the point that if there wasn’t the “ad” tag I couldn’t distinguish that.

      They can’t cost the same for the advertiser, a generic dropshipping scam that targets everyone must be cheap

    • traveler01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What does he has to gain in lying anyway? It’s not like he cares about what investors think since Twitter is now a private company owned by him.

  • Bdi89@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s impressive how quickly and severely he fucked up what was once a successful tech giant!

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. Twitter was already going under even before he took over. In fact, it was doomed from the beginning as one of the uber era “grow valuation, think about revenue later”, hoping to exit someday by selling it to some rich megalomaniac, and actually, they’re the ones who succeeded.

      • esty@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        and now he’s doing the same grift with bluesky

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        well, it was actually about ready to start breaking even, and even paying off some debt. there was a path to profitability with twitter, but it was tenuous at best.

        king of the idiots was forced to by it, saddling it with so much dept that that profitability dream was over the moment he became involved.

      • JuliusSeizure@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think twitter is artificially ‘failing’ because of meddling by influential special interests. It is being shunned by some advertisers because he won’t bend the knee to the ESG tyrant bankers.

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

      Other then a website…what technology does twitter actually do? I do not consider websites to be tech giants.

  • rusticus1773@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, the white supremacists and Nazis that he caters to aren’t making up the ad revenue? Well I’ll be!