You don't seem to understand that there are many right-wingers on Twitter to this day and that the people who were banned were banned for violations of "guidelines" or whatever you want to call them, just like with this forum.
MUSK BUYS TWITTER!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Well we'll see, won't we.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You don't seem to understand that whenever someone is banned from a platform, he/she is banned from it because someone with the power to ban them bans them. Guidelines don't ban people; people ban people.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Wiki calls youtube a social media platform and Tiktok a social media service, and Twitter has active creators and passive viewers; not everyone is engaged in a running conversation. I understand what you're saying, but I think most people would consider all of them some form of social media.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Interesting threads here:
Thread by @padresj on Thread Reader App
@padresj: Now that block bot has had time to do its thing, here's a dispassionate look at the Twitter deal. The purchase price was north of $44b. That amount was raised w/a combination of $12.5b in financing,...…
Now that block bot has had time to do its thing, here's a dispassionate look at the Twitter deal.
The purchase price was north of $44b. That amount was raised w/a combination of $12.5b in financing, $21b in equity, & the remainder from a loan secured against his Tesla stock.
The purchase price was north of $44b. That amount was raised w/a combination of $12.5b in financing, $21b in equity, & the remainder from a loan secured against his Tesla stock.
A few notes:
First, the loan is secured on stock that is down from $361 at the time of the original deal to $228 yesterday, a 37% drop.
Why is that drop important?
As the loan is secured AGAINST Tesla stock, he had to commit MORE stock than he originally negotiated.
First, the loan is secured on stock that is down from $361 at the time of the original deal to $228 yesterday, a 37% drop.
Why is that drop important?
As the loan is secured AGAINST Tesla stock, he had to commit MORE stock than he originally negotiated.
Further, he's likely using the same loan agreements that he's been using to fund a cash-poor, stock-rich lifestyle (not unusual among the wealthy) - meaning that the bank can FORCE him to sell stock or cover the difference w/more stock/cash if the price drops.
This creates a precarious financial balance:
If Twitter doesn't earn, that will negatively affect Tesla stock prices, which could force a cover w/more Tesla stock or cash which would put further downward pressure on Tesla stock.
If Twitter doesn't earn, that will negatively affect Tesla stock prices, which could force a cover w/more Tesla stock or cash which would put further downward pressure on Tesla stock.
You know that scene from the HBO miniseries "Chernobyl" where Valery explains to the court how a "positive void coefficient" created a self-reinforcing buildup of heat that ended w/the #4 reactor blowing itself apart?
Musk has that as ~1/4 of his Twitter financing.
Musk has that as ~1/4 of his Twitter financing.
Second, in addition to the purchase price, Musk now pays the buyout packages & fully-vested stock prices of the employees he wants to fire.
For JUST the top three executives he's already fired, that's ~$200 million. That gets added to the debt which goes on Twitter's books.
For JUST the top three executives he's already fired, that's ~$200 million. That gets added to the debt which goes on Twitter's books.
Third, Musk isn't going to take on Twitter's debt as personal debt. That means it goes on Twitter's books, which already weren't looking too good.
Operating at a loss for most of its history, Twitter has JUST started to eek out profits, but now that's not enough.
Operating at a loss for most of its history, Twitter has JUST started to eek out profits, but now that's not enough.
Conservatively, financing that debt will cost about $1b a year.
Last year, Twitter lost $221m. The year before, $1.1b. Covering that debt doesn't look likely in the short term.
Musk said he plans to double revenue within three years, but that says nothing about PROFIT.
Last year, Twitter lost $221m. The year before, $1.1b. Covering that debt doesn't look likely in the short term.
Musk said he plans to double revenue within three years, but that says nothing about PROFIT.
Fourth, ad sales account for about 92% of Twitter's revenue.
Those ad sales only went up once Twitter started aggressively going after troll and bot accounts.
No brand wants its ads posted in a stream of people writing the worst-possible thing they can think of to write.
Those ad sales only went up once Twitter started aggressively going after troll and bot accounts.
No brand wants its ads posted in a stream of people writing the worst-possible thing they can think of to write.
This is why, even though Musk courted the "burn it down & post everything" crowd, his statements to the advertisers - that it WASN'T going to be a free-for-all-hellscape - are quite the opposite.
Musk can't forever finance the debt w/o any hope of seeing a return on investment.
Musk can't forever finance the debt w/o any hope of seeing a return on investment.
Doing so would endanger not only Twitter, but Tesla & all its connected companies. (See #1)
Musk knows that Twitter needs to EARN.
To earn, it needs ADVERTISERS.
To have advertisers, Twitter CAN'T be another Parler, Gab, Gettr or Truth.
Musk knows that Twitter needs to EARN.
To earn, it needs ADVERTISERS.
To have advertisers, Twitter CAN'T be another Parler, Gab, Gettr or Truth.
Now we have a better picture of the buyout:
- Musk bought a business w/dubious profit prospects
- promising changes that could destroy the revenue it already has
- to court an audience who will turn on him if he DOESN'T
- W/a positive void coefficient of financial hardship
- Musk bought a business w/dubious profit prospects
- promising changes that could destroy the revenue it already has
- to court an audience who will turn on him if he DOESN'T
- W/a positive void coefficient of financial hardship
To be fair, Musk can pull it off.
I'm a financial dilettante who hasn't seen the inner workings of Twitter.
Maybe he sees a quick way to turn around the company & stave off financial Armageddon.
Maybe he has a pivot will greatly widen revenue streams w/o driving up costs.
I'm a financial dilettante who hasn't seen the inner workings of Twitter.
Maybe he sees a quick way to turn around the company & stave off financial Armageddon.
Maybe he has a pivot will greatly widen revenue streams w/o driving up costs.
Maybe he's playing a long game & is willing to live with a financial Sword of Damocles to see through something he thinks is important.
But to an outsider, it looks like a rich man bullied himself into making a bad deal.
But to an outsider, it looks like a rich man bullied himself into making a bad deal.
Still, he is right in saying that Twitter has a big part to play in discourse around the world.
Sure, we can all move elsewhere, but first I think we watch what he does.
Sure, we can all move elsewhere, but first I think we watch what he does.
Thread by @PaulbernalUK on Thread Reader App
@PaulbernalUK: Anyway, my tuppence worth on Musk and Twitter. He’s in for a rocky ride, and the question for me is whether his ego is going to make him destroy Twitter. Right now, what’s pretty clear...…
Anyway, my tuppence worth on Musk and Twitter. He’s in for a rocky ride, and the question for me is whether his ego is going to make him destroy Twitter. Right now, what’s pretty clear is that he doesn’t understand what makes Twitter work. 1/10
There are three things he doesn’t seem to grasp. Firstly, he seems to think he’s bought a tech company (‘not enough coders, too many managers’) when what he’s really bought is a community of users. 2/10
What makes Twitter work, what makes it potentially valuable, isn’t the tech (which isn’t that special) but the community that uses it - that, in particular, it’s become the medium of choice of journalists and politicians. 3/10
That’s the value, right there. Every journalist worth their salt uses Twitter - and most use it a lot. Ditto pretty much every politician. They’re the user base he should care about, not the right-wing-nut-job community. But he doesn’t even understand *them* 4/10
Right-wing-nut-jobs don’t just want a place where they can rant, abuse and say whatever words they want. If they did, they’d be quite content with Gab, Parler, Truth Social, some bits of 4Chan, Reddit etc. See, they’ve got plenty of spaces. 5/10
No, what they want is a place where they can rant *at the libs*, at the MSM, at the people they hate. If those people aren’t there (and they aren’t on Gab, Parler, Truth Social etc), the ranting isn’t nearly as fun. So if Musk manages to drive the libs away, that’s ruined. 6/10
If the libs are driven off, the right-wing will be jubilant for a while, but then bored. And then Twitter dies. So Musk has to keep the libs on board. Oh, and the advertisers too, because they’ll run like hell if Twitter’s just a hate-speech hell-site. 7/10
And that means moderation. It means keeping the Nazis off the site. It means keeping control of abuse and hate speech. It means cutting down the misinformation. All things Musk doesn’t want to do. If he turns Twitter into a hell-site, he kills it. 8/10
So what can he do? It’s not easy. There’s no simple solution, no magic wand. Free speech is bloody difficult. I’d suggest he read Habermas, but of course he won’t. So it’ll be messy, and I suspect he’ll just get bored eventually, but who knows? 9/10
That’s the thing. Handing over Twitter to a massive-ego, massive-wealth, unpredictable billionaire is kind of a metaphor for the whole way we’ve dealt with the internet. It’s a mess. We just have to do what we can. 10/10
P.S. I realise I didn’t say what the three things are.
1) That it’s the community that matters, not the tech
2) Where the value is in that community
3) What the right-wing-nut-jobs want.
1) That it’s the community that matters, not the tech
2) Where the value is in that community
3) What the right-wing-nut-jobs want.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
100% spot on.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What's "100% spot on"?
- That he's not fake, and thus really pro-abortion?
- That he's fake, and thus not really pro-abortion?
Neither. Anyone of average intelligence can figure out what I meant. I'm content to leave you in the dark.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Your temper tantrum is not going to whitewash your self-contradiction.
Wikipedia has the right to disagree with me.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
seems targeted specifically at them. The commercial advocates for compassionate viewers to donate $8 per month to sponsor a celebrity's verified blue checkmark on Twitter.
"Hi, I'm Sarah McLachlan. Please say you will be the answer for an innocent celebrity who is suffering right now from this cruel tax designed to reduce the status of high-status people – the $8 monthly charge for a verified blue checkmark on Twitter." Sarah McLachlan delivers her appeal directly into the camera in the new commercial, gently cradling a scraggly and ill-kempt Stephen King as he moans quietly over the soft crooning of "In The Arms Of An Angel."
The commercial pans over several other destitute Twitter celebrities, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who holds out her hand with a poochie lip as the voiceover summarizes options for a one-time gift, monthly pledge, or ‘The AOC Package' – where you "pledge to make everything on Twitter free because, like, shouldn't it be about free speech anyways?"
As the commercial progresses, McLachlan enumerates the needs of wealthy online figures, including shelter, care, and being rescued from bullies who are making them pay a marginal amount for a marginal dose of online status. She even called out to "any widows who may be listening" by asking them to "step out on faith" and give their last $8 to a helpless Twitter celebrity stuck out in the cold.
Since the commercial's airing, $16 has been raised.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Musk already sees a “massive drop in revenue."
Don't think his massively stupid conspiracy tweet (now deleted) helped him at all, so now he's looking for someone else to blame.
It's those darn "activists!"
Don't think his massively stupid conspiracy tweet (now deleted) helped him at all, so now he's looking for someone else to blame.
It's those darn "activists!"
That evil Elon Musk! How dare he love the first amendment!
Attachments
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You need human employees to deal with the flood of reported/flagged tweets, hate speech, porn, etc., and Twitter has ~450 million monthly users. Do the math. You seem unable to understand that.