The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Werewolf said:
Yes, Musk is an idnvidual.

He's also pretty much in sole charge of Twitter and it's policies, at the moment he is basically the one who decides what Twitter is doing and when, so what he does and follows on his "personal account" is of relevence.
Especially as he's also got rid of pretty much every other way for people to interact with Twitter, by his own actions he is now not only the head of twitter, it's owner, it's face, and it's entire PR department and the only person who seems to be authorised/able to give comment officially which means how else are people to judge the direction Twitter is going other than by what he is saying and more importantly what he is doing.
Click to expand...

I spend hours on Twitter reading and following up on the accounts i like and i dont ever see Musk or his tweets. :confused: Are people using Twitter correctly if you're constantly seeing him, i don't know. It's like two different worlds.
And at the end of the day, he's not going to want to lose 40b is he? You've got to assume that stuff he is doing and wants to do in the future is for the survival of Twitter
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
I spend hours on Twitter reading and following up on the accounts i like and i dont ever see Musk or his tweets. :confused: Are people using Twitter correctly if you're constantly seeing him, i don't know. It's like two different worlds.
And at the end of the day, he's not going to want to lose 40b is he? You've got to assume that stuff he is doing and wants to do in the future are for the survival of Twitter
Click to expand...

I don't have a Twitter account and only browse occasionally. Usually links from news etc. I see Elon and catturd in nearly every time at the bottom as recommend

Maybe if I had an account and blocked him they wouldn't show up
 
mattx4 said:
I don't have a Twitter account and only browse occasionally. Usually links from news etc. I see Elon and catturd in nearly every time at the bottom as recommend

Maybe if I had an account and blocked him they wouldn't show up
Click to expand...

Hmmm, if you don't have an account, maybe.

It wasn't just Catturd on that list was it, AOC & LeBron James also, seems an odd list to me.

Well hopefully they just sort it so there is level playing field amongst everyone. It's alright for Musk to have his boosted though, i could understand that
 
Trusty said:
Musk is an individual. Twitter is the platform. Musk sharing a ridiculous account doesn't speak for what the platform is. Surely you must know that?



It's really not that much of big deal. You'll still be able to follow accounts without a blue check mark if they put good content and you enjoy/follow their stuff. It's mountains out of molehills type stuff. It seems the biggest pushback from legacy accounts is the elitism associated with blue check marks.



If you've ever listened to Jack Dorsey at tech summits and stuff, he's said on many occasions he didn't even know what Twitter was in the early days. Why do you think the board snapped Elon's hand off at $54 a share. $54 is pretty pathetic considering its user base and active daily users, compared with other tech platforms anyway which have gone on to be worth several hundreds. It's consistently been a zombie company with monetisation. They've struggled with it. Twitter isn't a promotion and marketing platform? it's where the lions share of revenue comes from, i believe it's around 75% of it.
You can have those other things that you mention, discussion and info, just like Facebook has a marketplace. Doesn't mean Facebook is a Gumtree equivalent.
Twitter is a platform to sell yourself, idea's, business, products and services.
Click to expand...

The value of an individual share means nothing when comparing one company to another.
You know that all companies don't have the same number of share right?

Some companies historically had very low share numbers and hence very high value per share to stop people buying small amounts (like single shares) in order to get access to all the information and to potentially be able to raise issues at shareholders meetings.
It changed somewhat when shares went electronic but the theory still exists.
 
Trusty said:
Hmmm, if you don't have an account, maybe.

It wasn't just Catturd on that list was it, AOC & LeBron James also, seems an odd list to me.

Well hopefully they just sort it so there is level playing field amongst everyone. It's alright for Musk to have his boosted though, i could understand that
Click to expand...

His boost was due to the issue that so many people had blocked him the algo was starting to limit his reach

This could be a work around for the others as well as they also seem like the type that might have a high block count

But that would mean they couldn't fix the algo which isn't a good look

That leaves the only other option that Elon's created a list of people he thinks will drive engagement from their posts and has given them a boost. Problem with that is it's exactly the sort of behavior he berated the old Twitter for
 
Trusty said:
Musk is an individual. Twitter is the platform. Musk sharing a ridiculous account doesn't speak for what the platform is. Surely you must know that?
Click to expand...

Musk is the defacto dictator of Twitter. What he says goes. He's made it so his posts are the most elevated on the platform, so what he promotes matters.


Trusty said:
It's really not that much of big deal. You'll still be able to follow accounts without a blue check mark if they put good content and you enjoy/follow their stuff. It's mountains out of molehills type stuff. It seems the biggest pushback from legacy accounts is the elitism associated with blue check marks.
Click to expand...
Of course its a big deal. And their "good content" won't matter, they still will get buried. Yes content that is abusive etc will get even more buried but buried is buried. Only subscribed posts won't be.

Trusty said:
If you've ever listened to Jack Dorsey at tech summits and stuff, he's said on many occasions he didn't even know what Twitter was in the early days. Why do you think the board snapped Elon's hand off at $54 a share. $54 is pretty pathetic considering its user base and active daily users, compared with other tech platforms anyway which have gone on to be worth several hundreds. It's consistently been a zombie company with monetisation. They've struggled with it. Twitter isn't a promotion and marketing platform? it's where the lions share of revenue comes from, i believe it's around 75% of it.
You can have those other things that you mention, discussion and info, just like Facebook has a marketplace. Doesn't mean Facebook is a Gumtree equivalent.
Twitter is a platform to sell yourself, idea's, business, products and services.
Click to expand...

They snapped his hand off because its never been worth that amount of money. Compared to other platforms like FB its user base is small and likely to get smaller in the coming months if this change is as bad as feared. I can't imagine they gather anywhere near as much data to sell as FB does, people put their whole lives on FB, many on Twitter just browse and don't even tweet much.

Is Twitter a platform to sell yourself, idea's, business etc? I guess it depends on what you use it for. I can't think of many I follow that use it for that. Journalists use it to get their stories out but that doesn't mean people sign up to their papers subscriptions if they have them. Maybe the big papers/media could pay but they would argue that they bring users to the platform, they supply the content that drives clicks.

Elon's problem is he has driven advertisers away, he clearly has no idea how to deal with them having never used them with Tesla, his naivety showed in the early days as he went from one disaster to another and even threated to out advertisers that pulled their products if they don't come back, yeah that is the kind of move that will have companies flocking to Twitter.
 
Trusty said:
If you've ever listened to Jack Dorsey at tech summits and stuff, he's said on many occasions he didn't even know what Twitter was in the early days. Why do you think the board snapped Elon's hand off at $54 a share. $54 is pretty pathetic considering its user base and active daily users, compared with other tech platforms anyway which have gone on to be worth several hundreds. It's consistently been a zombie company with monetisation. They've struggled with it. Twitter isn't a promotion and marketing platform? it's where the lions share of revenue comes from, i believe it's around 75% of it.
You can have those other things that you mention, discussion and info, just like Facebook has a marketplace. Doesn't mean Facebook is a Gumtree equivalent.
Twitter is a platform to sell yourself, idea's, business, products and services.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting point of view.

Because as useless as you suggest Twitter management was, we all saw them taking Elon to the cleaners after he incompetently valued the company then signed a legal document on the basis of his incompetent valuation then flapped around on his own hook for some time before giving up and handing over the absurd payment.

From this shameful position Elon now has a go at running it.
 
Jimmy Kimmel, nice to hear those fake laughs and Jimmy read what his writers wrote for him earlier. People actually watch this too.

I watched upto 7 minutes and this is just awful
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
If you've ever listened to Jack Dorsey at tech summits and stuff, he's said on many occasions he didn't even know what Twitter was in the early days.
Click to expand...
Have you got a source that shows Jack Dorsey not knowing "what Twitter was in the early days"?

Trusty said:
Why do you think the board snapped Elon's hand off at $54 a share. $54 is pretty pathetic considering its user base and active daily users, compared with other tech platforms anyway which have gone on to be worth several hundreds.
Click to expand...
Because Musk offered way, way above the going rate and the same would have happened if anyone else offered similar.
It certainly wasn't because you believe Twitter to be some LinkedIn clone come marketing platform.

Trusty said:
It's consistently been a zombie company with monetisation. They've struggled with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, Twitter has always suffered with generating revenue, similar to a lot of social media companies, and prominently relied on platform advertising and fundraising rounds.
Not entirely sure what this has to do with your point though.

Trusty said:
Twitter isn't a promotion and marketing platform? it's where the lions share of revenue comes from, i believe it's around 75% of it.
Click to expand...
From adverts displayed to users. Using this theory, The Daily Mail website is also a 'promotion and marketing platform' because they display adverts.

Trusty said:
You can have those other things that you mention, discussion and info, just like Facebook has a marketplace. Doesn't mean Facebook is a Gumtree equivalent.
Click to expand...
Again, i'm not sure what the relevance is other than to make the obvious observation that platforms will add (similar) features to compete (with other platforms) and to stay relevant.

Trusty said:
Twitter is a platform to sell yourself, idea's, business, products and services.
Click to expand...
Using a spoon to dig a hole doesn't make it a shovel.
If someone or some business uses a platform to promote, market and/or keep customers informed, it doesn't change the core existence and use of a given platform. Plus, business features didn't start appearing until 2011.

Arguably you can believe what you want though so have at it :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom