What do you mean he is off to a bad start? Twitter was a heavy left leaning culture and Musk is on the other side of this mentality. He stated he was going to fire a large portion of the staff and its no secret that these terminations are due to their beliefs and ideals to how the company is run. It's going as well as anyone should expect. I expect much chaos, confusion, high emotional expressions, ect..etc...
This just in: Massive Cokehead also does a tab of acid an hour before a board room meeting and ***** his pants giggling about identifying as African American on VOIP while failing to answer any relevant questions ad investors may have before handing over hundreds of millions of dollars for the following year. Ad investors quickly back away. Following his trip, cokehead sobers up and realizes the consequences of his actions. Proceeds to cry about it publicly then rationalizes to himself its actually cool and on purpose to throw away tens of billions down the toilet because he can in public display of machismo. Investors helping fund the purchase of Twitter no doubt are on Musk's back right now. Middle aged boomers with disposal income on online forums though rejoice and rationalize the way a crypto user still does about sticking to the plan, as though there ever was one to begin with when it came to this buyout.
I explained it by referencing the two main customers. But perhaps I should add this as a reason (I didn't because it was already known): "massive drop in revenue" - Musk. I didn't expect a massive drop in revenue this fast (or any at all actually).
What I don't understand is how people only invested in TSLA stock are good with Elon using TSLA staff to operate Twitter in lieu of these layoffs. You'd think that'd be a conflict of interest to actual investors in TSLA stock, as expanding the responsibilities of employees beyond the scope of the investors would be a negative to them. What if expanding the responsibilities of TSLA employees dilutes the product TSLA puts out, lowering it's value, thereby hurting investors counting on a quality product worth it's value to be worth the investment put into it? How are these actions done in the best interest of TSLA investors or it's car buyers beyond the exclusive self interest of Elon Musk? Or what if in a best case scenario the work of TSLA employees increases Twitter's value by untold amounts, from which TSLA investors get zero benefit? Even allies of the man in a best case scenario are getting screwed over by him unless invested into both companies while one is losing it's ad investments and was bought out way over it's actual value. Even under the hypothetical scenario where you're invested into both companies right now, wouldn't it be better for you as an investor to anticipate when Twitter will reach it's lowest plummet in anticipation of it's value rising the moment you invested opposed to already being invested in Twitter and enduring it's plummet before it's bottomed out? You're taking losses now with no assurance there will be gains worth it in the future as a result of the ill-preparedness of Musk thus far. I get that you like to LUL with memes but I would also think as an investor, your greater concern would be with a solid return on your investment and if you had to choose between your investment increasing or Musk free speeching while tanking your investment's value, you'd probably go with the one that's going to earn you more. So with Musk mouthing off like a cokehead, how does that benefit you? You're running into a personal conflict where your ideology meets your money and the possibility of it's eventual absence if invested into both Twitter and TSLA right now. Which one do you ultimately value most? How is any of this to an investor's benefit and not exclusively to the benefit of Elon Musk? More than that, what do middle aged boomers with disposal income that publicly celebrate Elon social media get out of it unless heavily invested into both companies and are counting on big returns on their investment from which Twitter's value is not panning out thus far? I get why you'd be doing damage control as you got money invested into both companies. However if you don't, why shill so hard?
I've been trying to understand it myself. I would hope twitter is paying tesla for leasing their employees.
Elon Musk must destroy Twitter He should fire its servers into outer space https://unherd.com/2022/11/elon-musk-must-destroy-twitter/ excerpt: Twitter is at heart nothing more or less than a tool by which commentators measure their social capital, a social credit system for insecure writers. The most dangerous creature on Twitter is, after all, the aspirant blue check, whose desperate clamour for attention drives so much of the platform’s pathologies. From the moment he wakes up until the moment he goes to sleep, the journalist’s day is bookended, and punctuated by the platform: he scrolls through Twitter on his journey into the office; then, sitting at his desk, the first thing he does is open his laptop to scan Twitter. Stories, interviewees, heroes and villains are all identified on Twitter. Often contractually obliged to promote their work on Twitter, it becomes reality to the journalist, especially the opinion columnist, whose requirement to produce copy frequently outruns their capacity to formulate considered opinions. Likewise, the value of a news story is almost entirely based on whether or not people are discussing it on Twitter. Its baneful effects are visible everywhere: the precipitous decline of Channel 4 News as a platform for serious journalism began, in the mid-2010s, as it reoriented its focus towards producing shareable video content for Twitter, aiming particularly at middle-aged liberals outraged by Trump and Brexit, the demographic to which its editors belong. For the online BBC journalist, Twitter is used as a means to circumvent impartiality rules, using often the obscurest of Twitter accounts to voice sentiments they are banned from expressing themselves: when a BBC article tells you that something has “sparked online debate”, prepare for a lecture on the Twitter fixation of the day, in which the quoted account merely ventriloquises the barely-hidden political believes of the journalist sharing it. All journalism is now a Twitter performance: the journalist writes primarily for Twitter, and not his readership, their published work functioning as an esoteric text demonstrating allegiance to an in-group and hostility to an out-group: the readership, and the company paying for it are mere spectators to the essential work of Twitter performance. It is for this reason that journalists have become so reviled: their role has become so oriented to the production of discourse rather than the description of reality that the gulf between them and their readers widens ever more: Twitter and journalism are both locked in a fatal embrace. Because of its outsized role in the journalistic imagination, Twitter has come to consume politics, just as it has journalism. When the MP David Amess was murdered by a jihadist, the government turned it into a narrative about Twitter trolls: not only because it was easier for them to talk about — they would, horror of horrors, have been criticised on Twitter for talking about the actual problem — but because it is the only thing they care about. If they have tweeted their disapproval of something it is within their power to fix, like Conservative MPs moaning about the migrant crisis, politicians feel satisfied their work has been done: the point is no longer to change the world, only to create discourse about it. *** In viewing the Twitter blue check as a coveted badge of status, both Musk and his anxious critics are entirely mistaken. The best analysis tends to come from anonymous accounts, freed from the combination of fear and need for approbation which consumes the blue check: if Twitter were an entirely anonymous platform, it might be a better functioning clearing-house for information and informed commentary. Rather than the presence of bots being Twitter’s original sin, as Musk has claimed, its greatest flaw is that it has turned Twitter’s “power users” into effective bots themselves, their every utterance shaped by the need to navigate Twitter’s treacherous rocks and shallows. Instead, the true mark of success as a commentator is freedom from needing to be on Twitter at all: who knows what Cormac McCarthy, say, thinks about Trump, or Black Lives Matter, or trans toilets? Whatever his opinion, he would sink in our estimation even if we agreed with him. This is why the Twitter presence, let alone addiction, of the super-rich is viewed with simultaneous bewilderment and disgust by the platform’s most committed users, toiling away in the take fields.. Why would anyone be here if they didn’t need to? How much weaker and more pathetic does Putin seem for the growing fixation on American culture war issues that manifests in his speeches? Rather than being outside the system of America’s cultural power, he has revealed himself as trapped here with the rest of us. Who can doubt that if a nuclear exchange began, we would find out on Twitter — the shared countdown, the snarky memes — or that many would spend their final minutes composing the perfect final tweet, the one last dunk on their enemies or expression of tribal allegiance? If Musk, as is likely, destroys Twitter as it currently exists he will be doing the world a great service. By wrecking the current function it performs for commentators, he will free journalism and politics from its concentration in a single online madhouse, and in doing so, no doubt entirely unwittingly, help decentralise the spread of information. Like Legion in the New Testament, Twitter’s constellation of unhappy, clamouring souls must be driven off a cliff. When he learns, as he perhaps already has, that the platform will never be profitable, he should smash his new train set. The greatest power that will accrue to him, and the greatest gift he can offer civilisation, is not reforming Twitter through tweaks here and there but by loading its servers into a Space X rocket and firing them into the heart of the sun, forcing us all, finally, to log off. more at the link
Reasons I’m on Twitter still: -Woj Bombs -Shams bombs -Do I need to watch this rockets game I missed or was it that bad -how are the Astros doing in the summer before baseball gets good -Clutch posted a new pod with Bima -yes I still don’t need to care about the Texans … -What happened today in DC… but don’t need it for that So if Twitter ceased to exist tomorrow I only really would miss the woj bombs which might exist in some other platform eventually or I can just wait 2 minutes for breaking sports news like we used to in the olden days. Everything else is replaceable, but might not be as neatly thrown together in 30 seconds, but maybe seeking things out will make me appreciate things much more like how much the Texans have drained my soul.
Facts. Who need them? (Tl/Dr- verified user/blue checkmark 'journalist' abused his privledge and spoofed Elon musks profile)
Kind of odd how people care about TOS now when it comes to perma banning people but were all about absolute free speech on the platform a few months ago. EDIT: Also, he admittedly changed the punishment on the fly where before it was a warning/light suspension then suddenly just started permabanning people lol. This twitter thing was a mistake. No one who runs social media companies are liked and he's speedrunning into becoming as hated as Jack or Zuck in record time.
I think he'll eventually get bored of his new toy and hand over the responsibility of running Twitter to someone else.
