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

[visibleman]

Only commercial use would be required to pay other twits get it for free.

Depends what "commercial" means and cost as a large/enterprise business or government is one thing but a small business, typical celeb, social media "star" or streamer, where arguably Twitter is used as part of their business/PR, probably wouldn't bother.
And i doubt anyone would pay for a tier subscription either.

Personally i can see Twitter losing users if they implement something like that and i'm not sure that's something they need considering Pinterest (supposedly) has more active users (https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/).

 

[Lysander]

Not a chance will people pay for social media.

Hehehe. Of course they will.

They're just not used to doing so. But they'll come around.

It's like the no-smoking ban or paying for carrier bags in a supermarket.

The initial response is flat out denial because they've had things one way for so long, but they eventually go for it.

Now you see people paying for plastic carrier bags all the time without a second thought

I imagine this could even turn into a model for the future.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Hehehe. Of course they will.

That will be the day a lot quit it fully. I bet they will do a free model and a paid model.

 

[Lysander]

That will be the day a lot quit it fully.

What, like the day they said the OCUK forum would get a like button?

 

[fez]

I don't think most people will pay for social media. The issue is that the amount people would have to pay to go "ad free" is quite a lot and no one will pay that amount so they are left with a small subscription amount and still showing people annoying ads. I think it would be the death of it.

 

[Rroff]

I don't think even a lot of businesses will rush to pay even a small fee. There is plenty of potential for working with commercial entities to produce a revenue flow involving Twitter though.

Now you see people paying for plastic carrier bags all the time without a second thought

A lot of people go without or using other options rather than pay for a bag - I guess it does at least increase the use of alternatives. I also not infrequently see people trying it on to save even the small cost of a carrier bag :s (which pretty much never works).

 

[visibleman]

Hehehe. Of course they will.

They're just not used to doing so. But they'll come around.

It's like the no-smoking ban or paying for carrier bags in a supermarket.

The initial response is flat out denial because they've had things one way for so long, but they eventually go for it.

Now you see people paying for plastic carrier bags all the time without a second thought

I imagine this could even turn into a model for the future.

Your analogy isn't the same; unless you have bags with you then you're (typically) forced to pay for a bag as you're a bit screwed if you don't.
For the analogy to work, it would require all social media companies to implement freemium or subscription based models which won't happen as there will always be a "free" version.

Plus, social media users have no real allegiance with a platform (plenty of noise of Twitter users looking at alternatives when it was announced Musk was purchasing) so will happily flock to where the crowd and if the "blue ticks" and co are forced to jump ship, to another platform or clone, then the crowds will follow.

To be honest, it would be interesting to see what the current uptake of Twitter Blue is although i suspect it hasn't been massive even at $3/mo.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I find twitter a bit of a toxic cess pit for comments anyways to be honest.

 

[Demon]

because Tesla and SpaceX where he did exactly that are not good examples?

DOn't get me wrong, Musk clearly is an accomplished business man, and I would personally be absolutely OK buying a Tesla..

However, watching some of Thunderfoots youtube debunking videos is quite eye opening in terms of over promising, under delivering

Space X - Claimed to be far cheaper than the Shuttle due to reusability etc, projected crazy low costs over time.. THe reality seems to be it's cost far more than the Space Shuttle and very little reuasablity
Hyperloop - Err, shocking the obvious science as to why you can't build a 1000+ mile vacuum tube now seems obvious so no surprise it's died.. The way Musk bigged up how simple it was etc..
The Boring Company - Promising the cheapest tunnelling solution, but the costings where not like for like, i.e. a basic 'hole' vs a fully installed tunnel and the concept of autonomous high speed self driving underground tunnels has rather under delivered with cars limited to 30mph, still needs a driver and it's far quicker/cheaper to just take the overland bus.
Tesla - Bold claims for FSD/Autopilot which have been going on for 6+ years, he's inching ever closer but it's rather behind on the initial promises. Even the AI bot is another Musk'ism, literally a man in a suit and with some bold claims.

I can't knock him for what he has achieved, but I find the way he hypes things up (hyperloop being a really good example) seems almost borderline dodgy, clearly it helps push share prices up and keeps investors energised, but it's a bit too optimistic for my liking.

And this is the same as his Twitter claims, it has the hallmarks of one of those promises that he may never deliver.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Space X - Claimed to be far cheaper than the Shuttle due to reusability etc, projected crazy low costs over time.. THe reality seems to be it's cost far more than the Space Shuttle and very little reuasablity

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Do you have a source for that?

His source is Thunderfoot who is obsessed with Musk. I watched a video where he said Musk isn't an engineer and doesn't work on the designs at SpaceX.

I posted this in the comments. A couple of people tried to dismiss it but when one of the top CPU designers calls Musk next level, you have to respect it. I'm not sure if Thunderfoot honestly believes what he posts or he's seen the analytics and they tell him there is a huge anti Musk/Tesla audience.

(video is lined up for his comment)

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

DOn't get me wrong, Musk clearly is an accomplished business man, and I would personally be absolutely OK buying a Tesla..

However, watching some of Thunderfoots youtube debunking videos is quite eye opening in terms of over promising, under delivering

Space X - Claimed to be far cheaper than the Shuttle due to reusability etc, projected crazy low costs over time.. THe reality seems to be it's cost far more than the Space Shuttle and very little reuasablity
Hyperloop - Err, shocking the obvious science as to why you can't build a 1000+ mile vacuum tube now seems obvious so no surprise it's died.. The way Musk bigged up how simple it was etc..
The Boring Company - Promising the cheapest tunnelling solution, but the costings where not like for like, i.e. a basic 'hole' vs a fully installed tunnel and the concept of autonomous high speed self driving underground tunnels has rather under delivered with cars limited to 30mph, still needs a driver and it's far quicker/cheaper to just take the overland bus.
Tesla - Bold claims for FSD/Autopilot which have been going on for 6+ years, he's inching ever closer but it's rather behind on the initial promises. Even the AI bot is another Musk'ism, literally a man in a suit and with some bold claims.

I can't knock him for what he has achieved, but I find the way he hypes things up (hyperloop being a really good example) seems almost borderline dodgy, clearly it helps push share prices up and keeps investors energised, but it's a bit too optimistic for my liking.

And this is the same as his Twitter claims, it has the hallmarks of one of those promises that he may never deliver.

Sorry but you are going to have to back that up. Show us where the Space Shutter for the same amount of launches cost less than Falcon 9. SpaceX just turned a Falcon 9 around in 9 days, the shortest a Space Shutter was turned around in was 54 days, after the Challenger disaster it was 88 days. I know they are really comparable but the shuttle was a money pit, partly because every member of Congress wanted a slice and because too many cooks when it came to the design.

In todays money it cost $44b to design and launch the first shuttle

How Much Did it Cost to Create the Space Shuttle?

Between 1972 and 1982, NASA spent approximately $10.6 billion to develop the space shuttle and its related facilities.

www.planetary.org

Total cost of space shuttle over its lifetime $209b. 135 missions / $209b = $1.54b per launch

NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It?

NASA has spent 39 years and more than $209 billion on its iconic shuttle program. With the final shuttle mission to launch July 8, now is as good a time as any to ask: Was it worth it?

www.space.com

As for the rest of the list which I crossed out, they don't interest me so I've never bothered to look into them.

 

[visibleman]

Space X - Claimed to be far cheaper than the Shuttle due to reusability etc, projected crazy low costs over time.. THe reality seems to be it's cost far more than the Space Shuttle and very little reuasablity

As Thunderfoot isn't particularly reliable, have you got another source to back this up?

Launch cost of a Shuttle was ~$1.7-1.9bn per launch, although this was over the lifetime of the programme but figures of around ~$450/500m for the actual launch get floated. Whereas a crewed Falcon 9 is around the ~$220-400m (NASA paid $2.4bn for six launches; recent Axiom was $55m per seat). In comparison, it's projected that the SLS will be ~$4.1bn per launch.
And if you go purely on payload (not entirely a fair comparison), KG to LEO (https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/), then a Falcon launch is many times cheaper at ~$2.6k/KG or ~$1.5k/KG (Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy) compared to the Shuttles $65k/KG.

In terms of reusability, Tim Dodd did a decent video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF69nqY3TZs) a few years back comparing the Shuttle and Falcon 9 but essentially the Shuttle required a lot more refurbishment and maintenance between launches than a Falcon 9. And arguably, if SpaceX could recover the second stage then it would almost be a complete reusable launch system.

Edit - Both Hyperloop and The Boring Company are (currently) research programmes, so comparing them to Tesla, SpaceX isn't quite fair. Plus Hyperloop wasn't Musk's idea any way and someone else (now Virgin) has ran with it to try and develop it further. And The Boring Company has generated some interesting research, especially in developing cost effective and efficient moles.

 

[Demon]

Sorry but you are going to have to back that up. Show us where the Space Shutter for the same amount of launches cost less than Falcon 9. SpaceX just turned a Falcon 9 around in 9 days, the shortest a Space Shutter was turned around in was 54 days, after the Challenger disaster it was 88 days. I know they are really comparable but the shuttle was a money pit, partly because every member of Congress wanted a slice and because too many cooks when it came to the design.

In todays money it cost $44b to design and launch the first shuttle

How Much Did it Cost to Create the Space Shuttle?

Between 1972 and 1982, NASA spent approximately $10.6 billion to develop the space shuttle and its related facilities.

www.planetary.org

Total cost of space shuttle over its lifetime $209b. 135 missions / $209b = $1.54b per launch

NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It?

NASA has spent 39 years and more than $209 billion on its iconic shuttle program. With the final shuttle mission to launch July 8, now is as good a time as any to ask: Was it worth it?

www.space.com

Here's the TF Vid mentioned, yes, indeed, I misremembered and the costs much more than the Space Shuttle claim is not correct, but the video is just looking at the over promising, however, someone smarter than me can point out where his context or facts are incorrect.

As Thunderfoot isn't particularly reliable, have you got another source to back this up?

Launch cost of a Shuttle was ~$1.7-1.9bn per launch, although this was over the lifetime of the programme but figures of around ~$450/500m for the actual launch get floated. Whereas a crewed Falcon 9 is around the ~$220-400m (NASA paid $2.4bn for six launches; recent Axiom was $55m per seat). In comparison, it's projected that the SLS will be ~$4.1bn per launch.
And if you go purely on payload, KG to LEO (https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/), then a Falcon launch is many times cheaper at ~$2.6k/KG or ~$1.5k/KG (Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy) compared to the Shuttles $65k/KG - but this isn't particularly a fair comparison.

In terms of reusability, Tim Dodd did a decent video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF69nqY3TZs) a few years back comparing the Shuttle and Falcon 9 but essentially the Shuttle required a lot more refurbishment and maintenance between launches than a Falcon 9. And arguably, if SpaceX could recover the second stage then it would almost be a complete reusable launch system.

I'll take a look, thanks.

In terms of promises made, obviously with Twittergate brewing, the media are piling in:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/15/elon-musk-promises/

I am not trying to undermine his achievements, I was considering a buying a Tesla Model Y last month, but as someone that has watched a lot of the Tesla annual events, it's a bit of a meme between friends about the exaggerated promises.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Musk is known for his slightly ridiculous timelines. Like I posted earlier there is a website that gives a more reliable timeline to what Musk says it will be https://elontime.io/

Still with SpaceX he has changed the industry. People said you couldn't make a reusable rocket, he made it. Now he's getting there with a fully reusable one. Personally I think the guy is douche bag, he is clearly somewhere on the spectrum which isn't itself what makes him a douche. His comments over the Thailand caves and trying to manipulate the market with his claim he was taking Tesla private when he had no funding to do it are just those of a spoilt child that thinks they can do and say as they please. Owning Twitter isn't going to improve that at all. Expect far worse from him in the future.

 

[BowdonUK]

I agree with his position on bans. He was trying to make an important point while the interviewer was trying to make it about Trump.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524083910933626881

 

[Demon]

The BBC article covering the same news:

Elon Musk would reverse Donald Trump's Twitter ban

He says Twitter's decision to ban the former US president was "morally wrong and flat-out stupid".

www.bbc.co.uk

A slight mention in there of Musk recognising the deal isn't done yet, and I see

Musk's $44 billion Twitter buyout challenged in shareholder lawsuit

Elon Musk and Twitter Inc were sued on Friday by a Florida pension fund seeking to stop Musk from completing his $44 billion takeover of the social media company before 2025.

www.reuters.com

Interesting lawsuit:

The fund said those agreements made Musk, who owns 9.6% of Twitter, the effective “owner” of more than 15% of the company’s shares. It said that required delaying the merger by three years unless two-thirds of shares not “owned” by him granted approval.

but then mentions:

The lawsuit also seeks to declare that Twitter directors breached their fiduciary duties, and recoup legal fees and costs. It did not make clear how shareholders believed they might be harmed if the merger closed on schedule.

 

[jpaul]

UK government (something for Kier to drive?) could say they will abandon use of twitter for their commercial use if Trump is re-admitted, in lieu of future digital harms legislation that may muzzle the likes of twitter anyway. .... might as well make a preemptive strike.

Lawsuit bought by the Tesla shareholder challenging that mushk has not achieved his tesla targets because he has his finger in the spacex/boring/hyperloop pies plays into earlier posts (its just like the MP's with side gigs Jeffrey Donaldson / patterson ... they're not omnipotent )

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I agree with his position on bans. He was trying to make an important point while the interviewer was trying to make it about Trump.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524083910933626881

I agree on Trump. He should be allowed back on, so everyone can see every day just what a **** he is. He won't be able to resist egging on the far right and white nationalists but better he do it in the public domain than on Truth Social where only his fans will see it and they are happy for him to do it. People need to be reminded just how destructive he is and that in his quest for power he will destroy all norms, break any law and drag society into his gutter.

Transcript from the clip:

Campbell:

“Are you planning to let Donald Trump back on?”

Elon Musk:

“Well, I think there’s a general question of should Twitter have permanent bans. I’ve talked with Jack Dorsey about this and he and I are of the same mind which is that permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots or spam/scam accounts — where there’s no legitimacy to the account at all.”

“I do think that it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.

“He is now going to be on Truth Social as will a large part of the, sort of the right in the United States. And so I think this could end up being frankly worse than having a single forum where everyone can debate.

“So, I guess the answer is that I would reverse the permanent ban. I don’t own Twitter yet so this is not a thing that would definitely happen but my opinion and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares this opinion is that we should not have permanent bans.”

“Now that doesn’t mean that somebody gets to say whatever they want to say. If they say something that is illegal or otherwise is just destructive to the world then there should be a passive time-out, temporary suspension, or that particular tweet should be made invisible or have very limited traction.

“But I think permanent bans just fundamentally undermine trust in Twitter as a town square where everyone can voice their opinion. I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme.”

Campbell:

“Even after he egged on the crowd who went to the US Capitol some of them carrying nooses, you still think it was a mistake to remove him?”

Elon Musk:

“I think if there are tweets that are wrong, they should — and bad — those should be either deleted or made invisible. And a temporary suspension is appropriate but not a permanent ban.”

Campbell:

“So if the deal completes, he might potentially come back on but with the understanding that if he does something similar again he’ll be back in the..” (sin pin? couldn’t hear)

Elon Musk:

“He has publicly stated that he will not be coming back to Twitter and that he will only be on Truth Social. And the point that I’m trying to make which is perhaps not getting across is that banning Trump from Twitter doesn’t end Trump’s voice. It will amplify it among the right. And this is why it is morally wrong and flat out stupid.”

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

If the stock market keeps heading south how much more Tesla stock is Musk going to have to put up to cover his loans? I can't imagine the financing is signed and sealed yet.