12mo ago

Elon Musk's X claims it's now a 'video-first platform' as it tries to reverse an advertiser exodus that has cost it billions in value

fortune.com Elon Musk's X claims it's now a 'video-first platform' as it tries to reverse an advertiser exodus that has cost it billions in value

The claim is a major departure for the service, which has long been known as a destination for posting short snippets of text.

You're viewing a single thread.

290 comments

It's amazing watching a platform with no substantial competitor kill itself so badly. AltaVista was killed by Google, MySpace was killed by Facebook, Twitter is killed by the ramblings of the lunatic who bought it.
- And yet there are so, so many people that don't seem to be able to pull themselves away from it.
  I really don't get it.
  
  For the reason above. There's not a serious alternative that replaced it for those people.
  
  It's fucked up how threads immediately devolved into a bigoted Antisemitic shit hole like twitter in a fraction of the time.
  Is it impossible to develop a social media platform that doesn't get overrun with conspiracy whack jobs and assholes?
  
  Is Mastodon overrun too recently, or...?
  
  It's just not a useful platform at present. Maybe one day it'll be relevant enough but not today.
  
  Social media in modern times is an instrument of war. It will always be used as such whenever possible. So no, I think the answer is no
  
  Social media in modern times is an instrument of war
  It is fascinating watching what Iran, Qatar and Russia have pulled off this past few years.
  
  I think we just underestimate the amount of people who think like that
  
  Sadly I've just come to assume most people are Antisemitic bigots these days. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.
  
  It's not about having a serious alternative, what twitter does can mostly be written by like 10 people in 3 months. The problem is scaling it to be big enough while eating that cost until enough people start using it.
  AND the advertising budget.
  There's no real way to break into that now without a ridiculous amount of investor capital which investors are gunshy in offering for shit like this right now.
  We don't need an alternative, we need the next generation and I hate to say it but it might just be Discord if they get their shit together.
  
  I never seriously used twitter (I probably have used it less than 10 hours total), but what really is stopping people from getting on mastodon? It's the same thing, and is extremely easy to sign up for.
  It's right there, not that I have much of a desire to use it, but if people like twitter, is it just that not enough people are on it? Just the network effect?
  
  Twitter has more people, meaning more content. It's the same reason I still have Reddit downloaded.
  
  The network effect is a real doozy.
  
  Social momentum is a hell of a thing
  
  It's all about stickiness. Twitter still has accounts people want to follow whereas other platforms don't so people can't shift or find it hard to. I've seen some prominent users move to Threads, Substack, Bluesky, Mastodon etc. but not enough and scattering to the four winds doesn't help either. If there were an actual exodus of accounts across media, news, celebrities, sports, government etc. then Twitter die on its ass. Or even if big accounts started mirroring their content across other social media services.
  And these rival services should really federate. But we all know that the commercial services are loath to cooperate with each other when they want all the pie.
  
  To be fair, there are also people like me who didn't use it at all before, but now do just to watch it burn cause it's funny.
  
  I got on twitter because artists I want to follow post there, a lot of them exclusively. They do this because -- in theory -- that is where the audience is, with the biggest potential for growth. Then they all get shadowbanned, even the ones that don't draw porn, because they don't bring in ad revenue or something. Alternatives exist but so many of them refuse to go to another platform because there isn't an audience there, pre-packaged and waiting for them.
  I understand it, but also I don't. It's a cyclical problem but only the content-producing side has the power to solve it.
  
  I really don’t get it.
  I'm still on Xitter, but on my own terms. I use a plugin called Control Panel for Twitter, which means I don't get anything on my feed other than stuff from those I follow, and what they share, unless they share some bollocks then I will block shares from them. There are a bunch of Hong Kong activists, journalists and fellow HK travelers who don't use other platforms yet, and I don't want to get cut off from what's happening there. There is also good motorsports contributors, who also post on TikTok and IG which I refuse to go near. In addition there are feeds and posters related to my work, some I can't see anywhere else, then there is some random stuff I can't see anywhere else.
  I don't have the Xitter app on my phone and use the same Control Panel plugin to ensure my terms of engagement are maintained on mobile. This plugin, for example blocks anyone who paid Xitter for a blue badge, so I don't see any of their putrid bile in response to those I follow. It also frees you from the "algorithm" that determines what Xitter want's you to see, I only get a chronological timeline feed. Upsells, ads, who to follow, bookmarks and other random bits of UI I never use are also gone.
  Basically, it is exactly how I want the whole Xitter experience with none of elmo's shit polluting my screen.
  Get it now?
  
  I use Twitter with the control panel and ad block. Both on my desktop and my phone. The phone doesn't use their app, it uses a web app which gets stripped of all the ads and other bullshit. I peek into Bluesky and Mastodon and post the odd thing there. Some Twitter accounts I follow are starting to mirror on other sites which is a positive thing. I just wish the news services I follow would do the same. I don't get why the BBC (for example) doesn't mirror its content or other news orgs when Twitter / Musk is so hostile to them and their journalists.
  
  No. You're still supporting that shitpile and its piece of shit owner.
- Also a likely mix of ketamine and alcohol.
- You seem to be taking pleasure in it, but the fact is this was the plan from the moment he was locked into the purchase. Buy the business, run it into the ground, destroy the platform that people use to organise on. On the way down, try a bunch of shady shit and see what they can get away with - this will be the new standard for any platform that comes next.
  
  That's been the outcome, but I think you're dramatically overestimating Musk if you think that was his intent.
  It seems clear to me that he's of below average intelligence with an overinflated, incredibly fragile ego.
  
  It wasn't his intent when he posted about wanting to buy the company, but after the SEC forced him to buy, and once he formed a coalition to buy it, the plan became to kill the business off with a leveraged buyout.
  Make no mistake, Twitter isn't dying because of Musk's mismanagement, it's dying because it was saddled with $13bn of debt that it could never have hoped to pay back. The mismanagement is just a show to provide deniability.
  That isn't to say that Musk is some kind of genius, just that he's a clown playing his role.
  
  How is Musk going to profit from running Twitter into the ground? I think I did not understand that part.
  
  He isn't. However, you can still make something from a loss - such as establishing new standards of what social media websites can get away with.
  
  Everyone is downvoting as if this is a baseless conspiracy and ridiculous.
  For those people, here's a source
  https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/was-elon-musks-strategy-twitter-rcna118490
  And an excerpt;
  On the day that public records revealed that Elon Musk had become Twitter’s biggest shareholder, an unknown sender texted the billionaire and recommended an article imploring him to acquire the social network outright.
  Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the 3,000-word anonymous article said, would amount to a “declaration of war against the Globalist American Empire.” The sender of the texts was offering Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO, a playbook for the takeover and transformation of Twitter. As the anniversary of Musk's purchase approaches, the identity of the sender remains unknown.
  The three texts were sent on April 4, 2022. In the nearly 18 months since then, many of the decisions Musk made after he bought Twitter appear to have closely followed that road map, up to and including his ongoing attacks against the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit organization founded by Jewish Americans to counter discrimination.
  
  But...how does NBC News have texts that Musk received...?
  Edit: Revealed in a court filing.
  
  God damn but that gun is smoking like Australia in a heatwave.
  
  I bet that anon texter practically jizzed himself to see how much chaos a few words could create.

290 comments