1760 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

Probably many people do not care much for free speech. Certainly there are parts of the world that yearn for control over their lives and even vote willingly for security over freedom. It’s not a great path, look at Russia.  Iran.  China.  Venezuela.  The entire Middle East, save for Israel.  Most of Africa.

 

[G-Man]

I’m not a Twitter user, but my impression was that Twitter is primarily a political opinion platform. G-man, are you sure you aren’t a niche (non-political) user on a broader political platform?

I don't think that is true. I follow a decent amount of people and have a pretty good following and mostly people are posting about their lives, cool places to eat, new developments, jokes, photography etc.

The primary purpose behind a social media platform should definitely not be free speech. It should be engagement as that drives usage and profits.

[Victoria Watcher]

^ and it will continue to do all that. But few people are creators. Most people can’t even write well.

So like other social media platforms, the most views will be of accounts with big followings. Be they politicians, entertainment, news, business.

[G-Man]

But those are not active users of the service which is what they should be focused on. Fail to maintain a service that encourages the active users and instead focus on some politicians media management account will doom the service.

[Victoria Watcher]

But those are not active users of the service which is what they should be focused on. Fail to maintain a service that encourages the active users and instead focus on some politicians media management account will doom the service.

 

You can't have 8,500 employees and just cater to all the free users.  You have to take care of the 0.001% of the customers that advertise.   And you have to keep people glued to the screen following content that is highly desirable, like AOC or Musk or Beiber or Taylor Swift. 

 

You can't pay their chief lawyer/censor $17 million per year off just free users.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 01 May 2022 - 01:55 PM.

[G-Man]

I am not a free user. I pay for it. I bet lots of people have signed up for Twitter Blue and also it is the people that are scrolling through all the time that are seeing the ads not people going to look at the one post by a famous celebrity. So again it is the active users that should be the focus IMO

[Victoria Watcher]

There are very few Twitter Blue subscribers.

Musk just needs to trim the fat, like that salary above. As you say, Twitter doubled revenue from 2019 to 2021, but still lost money. It made a billion in each of 2018 and 2018 when it didn’t employ so many censors.

[spanky123]

It sells ads.

It’s most profitable when many people use it.

It has not been profitable since Trump was kicked off.

 

The money is not just in selling ads but also in selling your meta data. 

[G-Man]

I don't disagree with the idea of trimming fat at a company. I still think it is those users that are plugging away day in and out that are pulling in engagement not the celeb media accounts. Those celeb accounts are small potatoes when you look at the aggregate of regular interactions on twitter and far those smaller ones are more useful. Who deep down cares about what marketing teams are having their celeb accounts say? It is not the celebs themselves posting for the most part. There are a few exceptions like Musk, Mark Hamil, Rainn Wilson...

[Victoria Watcher]

I read somewhere that Taylor Swifts social media and marketing team numbers over 100 people. I do not doubt that.

I’m not sure if people think/know that the Kardashians themselves are posting. Kylie is still a billionaire.

Or was.

https://www.forbes.c...sh=3f6fdeb655b5

$900 million by 23 years old. All off social media and reality TV.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 01 May 2022 - 04:35 PM.

[Mike K.]

Lots of conservatives politicians and personalities commenting on massive follower boosts in recent days. The thinking is their follower counts were being suppressed, their content was being suppressed, or their accounts were shadow banned where only select people could actually follow them, despite them clicking ‘follow.’

It would appear as though settings are being changed and algorithms cleaned up prior to Musk’s takeover.

[G-Man]

Well that remains to be seen. I have my doubts that it was a nefarious plot. What is definitely verifiable is that people with more conservative views are signing up to Twitter in large numbers and that would also cause a surge in followers for prominent conservatives. The world is not really filled with underhanded schemes by large organizations. If you look for the most likely obvious answer, that is usually what it is.

[G-Man]

I had a two percent gain in followers starting the day after he announced his takeover. It could be a plot or it could be the weird cloud picture I posted on Twitter...

[Mike K.]

Except for all the underhanded schemes Twitter has been caught doing, you may be right

[Victoria Watcher]

It comes after it was revealed the world's richest man has 18 investors committed to collectively stump up more than $7billion worth of equity to help fund his takeover.

In a filing on Thursday, Musk said his friend the Oracle Corp co-founder Larry Ellison's trust will invest $1billion towards the $44 billion buyout.

Musk said he had also received equity commitment letters from investors including Sequoia Capital ($800m) and Brookfield ($250m) for financing of $7.14 billion.

Other investors listed included Qatari Holding ($375m) and NYC real estate investor Steve Witkoff ($100m).

The filing also listed Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud as having committed 34,948,975 Twitter Inc shares.

The royal made the move 'in order to retain an equity investment in Twitter following completion of the Merger'.

Alwaleed had initially opposed the buyout but tweet Musk today referring to his 'new friend' who will be an 'excellent leader' at the social media giant.

https://www.dailymai...r-takeover.html

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 May 2022 - 04:02 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Elon Musk said Tuesday that he would restore former President Donald Trump’s banned account on Twitter if his deal to acquire the company is completed.

Musk’s remarks at an automotive conference mark his first public acknowledgment of what had been widely expected since the billionaire announced plans to buy the social media giant for $44 billion.



He says limited-time suspensions are better. Which makes sense.



Lex Fridman is a research scientist at MIT. With 1.6 million followers. Twitter refuses to issue him a blue checkmark just out of spite.

https://twitter.com/...nBrTfYxM791NUhw

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 10 May 2022 - 10:22 AM.

[dasmo]

I wonder if he will re-instate the MP Derek Sloan's account? 

https://twitter.com/TrueDerekSloan

[spanky123]

^ I wonder if he will actually complete the deal. 

[dasmo]

Shares of Twitter Inc. plunged 17.9% in premarket trading Friday, after Elon Musk tweeted that the deal to buy the social media company was "temporarily on hold."

[spanky123]

^ Any bets Musk dumped his shares yesterday?!