Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Cthulhu 2020]

Judges view the actions in contrast to possible legal violations. I don't afford them particular insight into concerning but not illegal or touching on illegal action. I don't generally afford judges (as a class) particular insight into cultural or political issues involving ordinary citizens, tech companies, and the government. I'm rather taking this to be an appeal to authority.

So your claim is that that the Biden Administration reporting Hunter's dick pics is a CULTURAL OR POLITICAL ISSUE and thus concerning? And here you were posting for tens of pages as if their correspondence was illegal or unethical! Thanks for clarifying that it was simply all just political theater that you disagreed with.

[Breccia]

I never thought there was anything meritorious to claiming Twitter had done something unconstitutional or illegal in their actions.

Nor have you denounced such a claim. Since it is your side arguing that Twitter broke the First Amendment, and you have not spoken out differently despite being asked, it is completely valid to assume you, too, think Twitter broke the First Amendment.

You're free to specifically and directly refute that by simply saying "No, Twitter did not break the First Amendment". Until you do, I and everyone else will go with the evidence that you think they have, by virtue of siding with people who believe that, and not speaking out otherwise. I mean, surely you would have voiced such an opinion when directly asked by now?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There's probably an intern at a law firm whose job is to watch Musk's tweets 24/7.

It's probably a full department.

[CastletonSnob]

Most of the people who left Twitter for Mastodon or some other site will probably come back sooner or later. And not because I think these people are unable to quit Twitter, or because I think Elon Musk will magically learn how to run a social media platform.

It's because Twitter has a near-monopoly on the kind of social media platform it is, and what kind of services it provides. It's the same reason why people put up with YouTube's bullshit.

[Breccia]

It's because Twitter has a near-monopoly on the kind of social media platform it is, and what kind of services it provides. It's the same reason why people put up with YouTube's bullshit.

Your theory makes no sense! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm putting another Amazon order together, then drinking Starbucks.

Okay in all seriousness you're probably right. Some people have left for morals/ethics and will stay offline. I don't think they're the majority of who you're talking about.

However (and even South Park said something about this) part of the reason a company gets that big is their product is actually acceptable. Starbucks coffee doesn't suck. Amazon's products/prices/delivery don't suck. McDonald's burg*cough* their fries don't suck.

Twitter might realistically fall into "your product sucks" territory if they keep charging for what used to be free features, becomes more adds than Tweets, and they keep disconnecting. You can draw a line from pre-buyout to now that will extend to "Twitter is unusable" in a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still siding with you like nine parts out of ten. But there is the possibility, based on current evidence, that Twitter will get so bad that other services actually pick up. Or, far extreme case, there might not be a Twitter to return to. This thread is 187 pages, the majority of which is "the owner of Twitter says it's bad and is making it worse on purpose".

[Endus]

Your theory makes no sense! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm putting another Amazon order together, then drinking Starbucks.

Okay in all seriousness you're probably right. Some people have left for morals/ethics and will stay offline. I don't think they're the majority of who you're talking about.

However (and even South Park said something about this) part of the reason a company gets that big is their product is actually acceptable. Starbucks coffee doesn't suck. Amazon's products/prices/delivery don't suck. McDonald's burg*cough* their fries don't suck.

Twitter might realistically fall into "your product sucks" territory if they keep charging for what used to be free features, becomes more adds than Tweets, and they keep disconnecting. You can draw a line from pre-buyout to now that will extend to "Twitter is unusable" in a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still siding with you like nine parts out of ten. But there is the possibility, based on current evidence, that Twitter will get so bad that other services actually pick up. Or, far extreme case, there might not be a Twitter to return to. This thread is 187 pages, the majority of which is "the owner of Twitter says it's bad and is making it worse on purpose".

The problem is that with most of these, Youtube and Amazon and Twitter specifically, the "monopoly" is the draw. Twitter's not successful because it lets you broadcast short messages, it's successful because everyone uses Twitter. Same for Youtube. Same for Amazon; you can buy nearly everything there, way more successfully than any other single site.

The monopoly isn't a negative for customers, here; it's the entire basis of what customers actually want. Nobody wants to copy-paste the same communications to a half-dozen sites, they want to hit Twitter once and have everyone hear them. Same for Youtube; why struggle with listing to a half-dozen even shittier little sites when Youtube's both got a bigger audience and compensates you better because of that audience? It requires the individual to make more effort for less gain. So they choose the easier, better option.

I'm not gonna defend the choices being made, particularly with Musk and Twitter, but they're monopolies by virtue of customer preference, which is a vastly different thing from monopolies of resource restriction; if you own almost all the diamond mines, you can charge whatever you want for diamonds, and nobody gets a real choice. That's obviously all bad. Monopolies of choice, though? If they become bad, the choice changes, and there's no more monopoly. They have no restrictive control over their resources. The moment people go "eww, no", they're done. And I feel conflating that with classic resource-control monopolies just doesn't work, to the point that the term's actively misleading and we probably need a way to more-accurately describe them.

[Breccia]

The problem is that with most of these, Youtube and Amazon and Twitter specifically, the "monopoly" is the draw.

Largely true, yes. I'm just pointing out that, at some point, even Twitter could become so useless that it would bust its own monopoly.

We're not there yet, it's just a logical outcome from the current state of affairs. Musk is acting like he wants to burn $44 billion in public, but I don't think he actually wants to.

[ringpriest]

Largely true, yes. I'm just pointing out that, at some point, even Twitter could become so useless that it would bust its own monopoly.

We're not there yet, it's just a logical outcome from the current state of affairs. Musk is acting like he wants to burn $44 billion in public, but I don't think he actually wants to.

The relevant term is network effect.

Twitter is popular because everyone uses Twitter, because a combination of "right place, right time, right interface, right functionality" got enough people using it for the network effect to snowball. Twitter has no real monopoly in the classic sense. At present, it is running on degrading momentum. Once users stop using Twitter for almost everything, there will be a rapid slide to using Twitter for almost nothing.

Edit: I suspect this slide is already well underway, probably unstoppably. To quote B5, "The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."

[fwc577]

Your theory makes no sense! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm putting another Amazon order together, then drinking Starbucks.

Okay in all seriousness you're probably right. Some people have left for morals/ethics and will stay offline. I don't think they're the majority of who you're talking about.

However (and even South Park said something about this) part of the reason a company gets that big is their product is actually acceptable. Starbucks coffee doesn't suck. Amazon's products/prices/delivery don't suck. McDonald's burg*cough* their fries don't suck.

Twitter might realistically fall into "your product sucks" territory if they keep charging for what used to be free features, becomes more adds than Tweets, and they keep disconnecting. You can draw a line from pre-buyout to now that will extend to "Twitter is unusable" in a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still siding with you like nine parts out of ten. But there is the possibility, based on current evidence, that Twitter will get so bad that other services actually pick up. Or, far extreme case, there might not be a Twitter to return to. This thread is 187 pages, the majority of which is "the owner of Twitter says it's bad and is making it worse on purpose".

First off, fuck you. /s

A McDouble is amazing. How dare you.

Second, as far as "Twitter" is concerned, they don't produce goods in the same way as other examples (like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.)

Nobody "needs" Twitter and where they're going to suffer is a portion of the user base leaving Twitter and realizing they're better without Twitter. There are times where you're in need of a coffee or food and it's just the most convenient thing available to you at that time.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...r-study-finds/

In the months after Elon Musk’s takeover, antisemitic posts on Twitter skyrocketed, according to a report shared first with The Technology 202, which offers a new detailed look into the growing prevalence of hate speech on the site.

The study, which used machine-learning tools to identify likely antisemitic tweets, found that the average weekly number of such posts “more than doubled after Musk’s acquisition” — a trend that has held in the months after Musk took over.

The analysis found an average of over 6,200 posts per week appearing to contain antisemitic language between June 1 and Oct. 27, the day Musk completed his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. But that figure rose to over 12,700 through early February — a 105 percent increase.

The report — conducted by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a nonpartisan think tank, and CASM Technology, a start-up that researches disinformation and hate speech online — also found a “surge” in the number of new accounts created immediately after Musk took over that posted at least some antisemitic content.

Researchers wrote that it represented a three-fold increase in the rate of “hateful account creation.” But critically, the researchers behind the study said the uptick in hateful content extended well beyond that initial wave of new accounts.

“We’re seeing a sustained volume of antisemitic hate speech on the platform following the takeover,” said Jacob Davey, who leads research and policy on the far-right and hate movements at ISD.

The study marks one of the most extensive efforts to date to quantify how Musk’s drastic makeover of the company has impacted the prevalence of hate speech on the platform.

According to the report, researchers trained a machine-learning tool to spot tweets that “plausibly” matched at least one interpretation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. The organization lists making “dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews” and “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews” as examples of antisemitic remarks.

Researchers then manually reviewed a smaller subset of the posts to compare it with their algorithmic sorting tool, finding that it matched with 76 percent accuracy.

“There are inherent challenges in training language models on as nuanced a topic as antisemitism,” the researchers wrote.

Even with the caveats, researchers say the findings paint a clear picture: Antisemitic tweets have become far more prevalent under Musk.

“We’re pretty confident that this is the most sophisticated attempt to map antisemitism on Twitter in the pre- and post-Musk era,” said Tim Squirrell, ISD’s head of communications.

Elon Musk, making Twitter antisemetic again!

In other news, I guess he updated the press email account at Twitter so it autoreplies to all emails with a poop emoji. The irony is not lost on anyone paying attention to how things have been going for the social media platform since his purchase.

[Benggaul]

I was banned from Twitter a couple years ago for calling Ann Coulter a heartless cunt when she cheered the deaths of immigrant children. Meanwhile she was allowed to continue Tweeting up a bigoted storm unimpeded, so I'm not going to pretend Twitter didn't already have pretty terrible problems before Musk decided he wanted to buy a new toy to break.

I do note, however, that all of the worst of humanity are having their Twitter accounts reinstated while mine is still banned because I called rightie a mean word.

[Breccia]

A McDouble is amazing. How dare you.

It is not, I have proof.

[ringpriest]

In other news, I guess he updated the press email account at Twitter so it autoreplies to all emails with a poop emoji. The irony is not lost on anyone paying attention to how things have been going for the social media platform since his purchase.

It takes a real genius to be able to accurately condense months of running a (formerly) $44 billion dollar company into a single emoji. (Or is it a free copy of his autobiography?)

[fwc577]

It is not, I have proof.

I didn't eat the entire day and had to run some errands tonight. I ate a McDouble. It was the best thing I ate all day. That's proof. Stop with the fake news!

[Sorshen]

Absolutely fascinating how Elon keeps making these bad decisions.

[Edge-]

I mean, is it bad if his goal is basically promoting mistrust and misinformation on Twitter?

Objectively yes and all but he obviously thinks this is fuckin aces. Dude has serious brainworms.

I look forward to the Twitter Checkmark Fiasco 2.0!

[Poopymonster]

Absolutely fascinating how Elon keeps making these bad decisions.

It starts April 1st?
Anyone else feel this is a joke?

[Belize]

It starts April 1st?
Anyone else feel this is a joke?

Nah, this whole saga has been one big joke, don't need to wait for April 1st

[Breccia]

Memes aside

NEVER!

So Musk is emailing his employees at 2:30AM, you know, as one does. I'm sure it's great for morale of his remaining five employees.

Zoë Schiffer, a managing editor at Platformer, tweeted: "Elon Musk sent Twitter employees an email at 2:30am saying the 'office is not optional.'"

The Twitter owner said in his memo that the company's headquarters in San Francisco "was half empty yesterday," per Schiffer's tweet.

However, Musk has fired thousands of employees since taking control of the company in late October with the total now thought to be about 1,300, per CNBC.

Musk has previously sent emails to employees in the middle of the night. In November, he sent one at 2:39 a.m. telling employees they would no longer be permitted to work remotely.

Musk began the memo by saying that there was "no way to sugarcoat the message" about the economic climate and its influence on Twitter, which depends on advertising revenue.

I just want to remind everyone that Musk, as the owner of two companies, cannot possibly be in both offices at once. So he's a hypocrite.

But it's not just employees who aren't coming back. Advertisers aren't coming back, either. And the problem is Musk, both ways.

It’s been a rocky pairing since October, when Musk officially took over and many big-name advertisers paused spending on the platform. Almost five months later, the company’s standing with the advertisers that historically make up 90 percent of its revenue still hasn’t measurably improved.

More than half of Twitter’s top 1,000 advertisers before the acquisition have stopped advertising on the platform as of February, according to data from digital marketing analysis firm Pathmatics and shared with Vox. Out of Twitter’s top 10 advertisers pre-acquisition, only six still advertise on the platform, according to the firm.

The company’s revenue was down by 40 percent, according to a December report by the Wall Street Journal. Fewer people also appear to be visiting Twitter’s website where advertisers create ad campaigns: The number of users visiting Twitter’s advertising portal page was down 18 percent in February compared to a year before, according to data from digital intelligence firm SimilarWeb.

This is the WSJ article cited. I'm going with Vox because paywall.

Sources described a lack of confidence in Musk’s ability to keep his promises about stopping Twitter from turning into a “free-for-all hellscape,” high turnover in Twitter’s sales department, and confusion about the company’s policies regarding content moderation.

Chief among their concerns is a perception that Musk has turned Twitter into a place where people can post racist, sexist, or otherwise harmful speech without much consequence. Major corporations don’t want to jeopardize what they call “brand safety” by associating with offensive content. Musk has taken a lax approach to content moderation — such as allowing Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other controversial figures back on the platform in the name of free speech.

And Trump. Who is all of those, but deserves special mention. Musk specifically and directly put Trump back on.

Companies also worry about affiliating with Musk himself as he continues to post offensive tweets, including a recent one mocking a disabled Twitter employee (Musk apologized after facing widespread backlash). Making matters worse, some advertising executives say they no longer know who to talk to about their concerns because Musk has fired or laid off many key members of Twitter’s sales and brand safety teams. All of this, insiders say, has resulted in weaker trust in Twitter among a relatively small group of people who control major ad budgets.

In the end, Twitter needs advertisers more than advertisers need Twitter. Compared to Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram, Twitter has a much smaller, niche user base. Brands can easily shift their advertising budgets to the bigger players in social media. Whether or not Musk can win back brands — or figure out a feasible alternate plan to make money — will determine whether the company will ultimately go bankrupt. While Musk says Twitter is close to breaking even now that he’s drastically cut costs, he warned in November of the possibility of bankruptcy, and will see that risk increase if advertisers fail to return.

Yeah, the problem is Musk. People are leaving, including both customers and advertisers, because of Musk's changes. Adding costs to the people who stick around doesn't seem like it's going to be enough, and might also force people further away.

I also want to quote Musk verbatim:

What I’d say to advertisers and brands is: Use Twitter for yourself and believe what you see on Twitter, not what you read in the newspapers. Because what you see on Twitter is the real thing and what you read in newspapers is not

"I did say NEVER!"

Musk is a conspiracy theorist who is now telling people that only he holds the truth. Trump's rabid fanbase might go with that, I mean, if they're Trump supporters they're used to that shit being shoved down their throats. Generally speaking, multimillion-dollar advertisers are not. They saw Twitter had problems, they paused, they saw Twitter made more and worse problems, they are backing away slowly while maintaining eye contact.

Musk is cutting costs, by cutting employees and not paying rent. I don't think it's enough, and more importantly, neither does Musk, as we've just noted. Maybe Amazon or Wendy's will see $1,000 a month added to their advertising bill, shrug it off as chump change, and continue. Smaller businesses probably won't do that. Quite frankly, Facebook's business access is a lot better anyhow.

[Edge-]

"Trust me, the guy with a huge financial interest in keeping you spending money here because I'm an idiot, not the newspapers just reporting on reality"

Is Elom testing neuralink on himself and he forgot about it or something?