Jump to content

Twitter Twee: all your tweets are belong to chud


JGP

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

To date, Musk is down 49% across the board-- and 27% alone in the last 3 weeks. 

At this rate, the prophecy will be fulfilled in a matter of weeks when my net worth exceeds Elno's. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Musk is like Trump, they are both overgrown babies. There's nothing deep going on, he tried to get out of it and failed, and now he's acting out.

He's very exposed for what he is at this point, it's like a very public temper tantrum of a baby inflated by money. That Trump Baby balloon is the perfect visualization for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Acording to snopes  Elon Musk made his money from Zip2 and Paypal and his father didn't really help him with much of anything. 

The idea that his family's wealth didn't aid his access to elite schools - and subsequently enable him to abandon education to move to Silicon Valley - is laughably absurd.  Further, his father did help bankroll Zip2.  It may not be much relatively speaking, but my father would never give me $28k to start a business when I was 24 - even though he certainly could've afforded to.  It should also be mentioned that he was ousted from PayPal and replaced by Thiel before it was even called PayPal.

I don't begrudge Musk any of that - and it certainly pales in comparison to certain other famous rich figures - but the idea that he was a "self-made" man is typical myth-making horseshit.  And refusing to acknowledge the extraordinary advantages and privileges you are granted is all-too-familiar among rich brats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, it's not just $44B, it's that plus what his stocks lost after he announced his decision. The number I saw was an additional $22B. 

And hopefully, the money he'll lose when he gets sued for what happened to the stock of corporations after someone impersonated them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So interesting (to me at least) Twitter hasn't been profitable for 2 years - but it had been profitable previously. 

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/

As to the common garbage talking point that removal of 75% of the employee base is a Good Thing and they can be profitable again - not very likely. 92% of their revenue was from advertising, and that is by all accounts absurdly, comically down. Much of their staff was dedicated to making ad revenue better, making relationships with advertisers and brands better and making twitter professional better; all of that is in massive flux. 

Mostly, while you can keep something around in maintenance mode with a fairly small amount of staff you won't be able to grow anything that way, least of all revenue. And for a system as large as twitter that 'maintenance' mode is going to require hundreds of employees working absolute shit hours for a job that ensures that they're only doing tooling and build work, which is the least interesting stuff technically. They'll likely run into compliance issues, legal issues, issues with other companies - and they won't be nimble or capable enough to respond. 

Facebook was, at one point, the same way - you didn't need a ton of people to run the basic stuff. But the basic stuff doesn't make your company grow and thrive, it makes you a glorified tech demo. You can't compete with Google or Amazon on ad revenue running the 'basic' stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

You can't compete with Google or Amazon on ad revenue running the 'basic' stuff. 

Twitter could never compete with Google or Amazon on ad revenue. It doesn't even have as many active users as Pintrest or Snapchat! That doesn't seem like a viable channel for expansion anyway. Twitter users are not going to expand massively from this point without there being a big change of direction as to what Twitter actually is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Twitter could never compete with Google or Amazon on ad revenue. It doesn't even have as many active users as Pintrest or Snapchat! That doesn't seem like a viable channel for expansion anyway. Twitter users are not going to expand massively from this point without there being a big change of direction as to what Twitter actually is. 

You can't compete for overall revenue, but you have to offer something to make yourself competitive for ads against google. Otherwise...people will just buy more google ads. Most companies want to have a mix, but that mix implies your ads are at least somewhat reasonably close in impressions/clickthru rate to the gold standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

You can't compete for overall revenue, but you have to offer something to make yourself competitive for ads against google. Otherwise...people will just buy more google ads. Most companies want to have a mix, but that mix implies your ads are at least somewhat reasonably close in impressions/clickthru rate to the gold standard. 

Sure and in the short term Twitter needs to up its engagement rates to keep advertisers around, but in the long term the plan has to be to move away from advertising revenue as a major source of income.

Twitter cannot really get any bigger with its current model, so it is really limited in terms of growth. It is a really minor platform in terms of the numbers of users, even if its importance to certain user types is quite large (journalists). 

That is why the ultimate ambition for Twitter is not Twitter as we know it. We know that from the things Musk has himself said, so judging it on what Twitter is now seem pretty short sighted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a masterful strategy to reduce trust in the platform and its future direction with a bunch of haphazard roll-outs amid aggressive (and illegal, in some countries) riffs while keeping the true long-term plan under wraps. People are just lining up to be a part of this success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

Didn't Tim Pool recently die of covid, or am I cross referencing?

Sadly, he remains actively hell bent on the murder of LGBTQ folks and allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Sure and in the short term Twitter needs to up its engagement rates to keep advertisers around, but in the long term the plan has to be to move away from advertising revenue as a major source of income.

Twitter cannot really get any bigger with its current model, so it is really limited in terms of growth. It is a really minor platform in terms of the numbers of users, even if its importance to certain user types is quite large (journalists). 

That is why the ultimate ambition for Twitter is not Twitter as we know it. We know that from the things Musk has himself said, so judging it on what Twitter is now seem pretty short sighted.  

Yeah, this is all just buying what Musk is saying and is not actually based on facts.

Twitter was growing users year over year. Unlike Facebook. It was getting bigger. It was, in fact, very underrepresented in non-English countries, so the chances of expansion were quite good going forward. It was doing well in revenue until the downturn in ad revenue across the whole industry. It was doing well, though it was probably valued too highly. The only reason to move away from ad revenue as the major source of income (and 92% of its revenue was ad revenue, so that's a BIG lift) is if you simply don't want...well, twitter.

In which case...why buy it? It's a smaller user base, the ad relationships and systems aren't valuable to you apparently, the whole model of social media appears to be viewed badly - why buy it?

But regardless of that, all the short term things that are being done are ALSO against the above. It has reduced its engagement rates and advertisers are fleeing in droves because the relationships are gone. Twitter has soured its relationships with general users and companies since Musk started looking into it and those things have not changed. Even if all the things you said were actually  based on facts - which they are not - the actions being taken are STILL not particularly good choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

 

Twitter was growing users year over year. Unlike Facebook. It was getting bigger. It was, in fact, very underrepresented in non-English countries, so the chances of expansion were quite good going forward. It was doing well in revenue until the downturn in ad revenue across the whole industry. It was doing well, though it was probably valued too highly. The only reason to move away from ad revenue as the major source of income (and 92% of its revenue was ad revenue, so that's a BIG lift) is if you simply don't want...well, twitter.

It was growing.. a bit. How long has Twitter been around? There was plenty of time and opportunity for it to expand into other markets and take over. It hasn't happened. It was never going to be the sort of platform that is going to attract the sort of numbers other social media platforms would attract, despite all the numerous dumb attempts to get people on there with videos and group chats etc. It just didn't have legs. 

As a social media platform on its own it is not going to become big, it just wasn't going to happen. There is at least a possibility that if integrated with other features, payments etc it becomes something interesting to Musk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

It was growing.. a bit. How long has Twitter been around? There was plenty of time and opportunity for it to expand into other markets and take over. It hasn't happened. It was never going to be the sort of platform that is going to attract the sort of numbers other social media platforms would attract, despite all the numerous dumb attempts to get people on there with videos and group chats etc. It just didn't have legs. 

It had doubled in numbers of active users in 5 years. 

As it turns out, having a system that works well in one language is hard to do for all languages, and especially so for different countries. Twitter had chosen to grow somewhat slowly, but it was growing. Again, the notion that it wasn't is not backed up in facts. 

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

As a social media platform on its own it is not going to become big, it just wasn't going to happen. There is at least a possibility that if integrated with other features, payments etc it becomes something interesting to Musk. 

The first statement needs a citation. I get that's what Musk is selling but it isn't necessarily accurate. 

That said, the first statement also makes the second statement moot. The reason WeChat is successful is partially because it's one of the only things allowed, but another is that it actually is enjoyable for most people to hang out in - and that's emphatically NOT the case with Twitter currently. Twitter's best use case right now is not in the talking with others, it's the getting the feed of various people and consuming it. Adding payments and features won't make people more likely to want to stay on the app. If your argument is that Twitter isn't big enough and doesn't have enough people on it and the reason is that you need more features - the LAST thing you should do is gut 75% of your workforce. If your argument is that Twitter is not a good social network by its system the LAST thing you should do is therefore use it as the basis for an 'everything' app. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...