nuff said

  • eoddc5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    253
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember the 50% number is just what he was comfortable with publishing to the public

    We have no reason to believe his public statistics

    • emptyother@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would he tweet about his losses in the first place? I applaud his openness (/s) but I doubt any investors or advertisers will come running to a dying social networking.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s either better than 50, or he expects it to be better shortly so when he says it’s 40, he can celebrate how good he did for the +10.

      • eoddc5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If your losses are at 80% and you tell everyone they’re at 50% you can try to spin the story in your favor.

    • traveler01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What does he has to gain in lying anyway? It’s not like he cares about what investors think since Twitter is now a private company owned by him.

  • rusticus1773@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, the white supremacists and Nazis that he caters to aren’t making up the ad revenue? Well I’ll be!

    • RaLiChu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d imagine the sort of companies willing to advertise towards their ilk are also the types not willing to pay much for it either. Not like typical ad networks like Google’s pay much to begin with lol

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe… I don’t know, just throwing ideas out there… you shouldn’t have Musked all over Twitter nor fired its core developers? Again, just thinking out loud…

    • Aer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not even just that… Alienates all potential leftwing/brand friendly advertiser’s through changes and being the spokesperson for the platform.

      “We’re down 50% how could this have happened???” - Elon Musk

      Dude needs to stfu, make an alt account. He has chosen to be the spokesperson for the platform. Spouting off conspiracies and controversial takes. You can’t be surprised nobody wants to associate with him.

      He is a liability and a brand risk. Sure he can have his opinions but here is the problem…

      He has chosen to be extremely public and force those opinions onto the average consumer feed due to his narcissistic tendencies and it is biting him in the ass.

      No sympathy. He wanted free speech, (albeit it isn’t because he is okay as long as it doesn’t criticise him or his affiliates.) now he has his free speech platform but in the same way advertisers can chose not to engage with it.

  • randomTingler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    • Your Google search result redirects to Twitter
    • you click and open the link
    • Twitter asks you to login to see the tweet.
    • You close that tab and move on to next search result.

    Best way to avoid traffic to your site, then complain about revenue loss from advertisements.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      medium started doing the same shit, sometimes it has interesting articles I’d like to read, but then they started putting in behind registration so I just no longer open medium links.

    • traveler01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly my wild guess is that he’s trying to make Twitter profitable from subscription based services and not so much from ad revenue.

      Can’t really have free speech if platform depends on advertisers and investors.

      • AChiTenshi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps. But a rather large issue arises when your content is generated primarily by users who wouldn’t want to pay for a service.

        There is also the issue where if you are having to pay to get around interaction limits is it really free speech? Or just limited to those that can afford to pay?

        • traveler01@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think these limits were increased to a point where they are not really bad or they were removed. The point of them was to prevent scraping to train AIs

            • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d argue it’s a poisoned dataset. You can’t validly train an AI based on content that contains a non-trivial percentage of bot-generated content.

  • experbia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Weird, users can’t access the site, so ad revenue goes down?? Nobody can blame Elon, that’s literally impossible to predict. Maybe if he bans users from tweeting more than once a day it will get better?

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe it’s the advertisers. They’re racist and hate Musk because he’s African. That must be it. Couldn’t possibly be anything else.

  • tswerts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not waiting to see Twitter fail. I’m just hoping that the federated alternatives for Twitter and Reddit will get more mainstream. And I must say that I’m happy with the way things are evolving at Mastodon and Lemmy.

  • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hmm maybe putting in rate limits, thus greatly reducing the amount of time people spend on the app, isn’t the best strategy for a platform whose main source of revenue comes from advertising?

    • Catma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think there is like a 1% chance rate limits were an actual thing. It really feels like someone fucked something up, caused the issue and the “rate limits” were how Elon decided to try and play it. Then “increasing” the limits multiple times to completely illogical values was the system slowly coming back up. Elon increasing that limit makes him look like he is listening to the users and thus the good guy.

      I have not seen anyone complain about rate limits since the day it happened. Other than jokes has anyone seen or heard of the issue?

      I would say a company suddenly introducing a major policy change like view limits with no warning is beyond stupid but then again it is Elon who seems to believe he is God’s gift to tech.

      • ritswd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup it’s been real. https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/must-reads/bc-government-hit-tweet-limit-amid-wildfire-evacuations-7268169

        The rate limits are because serving such a service at scale without the user noticing requires continuous innovation to get through scale bottlenecks; but with the engineering team greatly reduced, a lot of that work isn’t happening anymore. Typically, you’d get through those bottlenecks by coming up with some heuristics that make it seem like the service is doing a ton, when really it only needs to do little (like by sharding data, or by pre-caching a bunch of stuff). Without anybody to work on those heuristics to fake things, you gotta restrict with real restrictions.

        Source: that’s what I do for a living. I’ve been working on some of the highest-scale services out there for over a decade.

    • 👽🍻👽@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but how else is Elmo going to keep Amazon and Google from suing him for nonpayment? Geez man, use your noodle.

  • yuknowhokat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon complaining about this just reminds me that he can afford to lose ~50 billion dollars and still be one of the wealthiest people ever to have lived.

    • kroy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s below his height of wealth, but he’s still #1 and has 250 billion

  • BustedPancake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course! It’s because of Threads! Don’t you guys get it? They stole their secrets!! It has absolutely nothing to do with how things are being run on twitter or because Elon Musk is a genius!!!

    Fuck Musk and fuck twitter and all that goes with it.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember a fellow saying Elon is a very business savvy person, because of his 2 other successful companies, Tesla and SpaceX. I guess ruining communications with potential advertisers on a platform that depends entirely on advertisers wasn’t a very intelligent move.

    • IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I recall correctly, Tesla was actually cash-negavite for like half a decade after Musk bought it, surviving off investors and SpaceX’s success, I remember it was very big news when it finaly went cash-positive and subs like WSB were all over r/all

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        SpaceX became profitable not all at once as well.

        I think we should all remember that company’s success is also a function of investors’ money AND public trust. SpaceX for some people was a symbol of all things modern. Tesla as well to some extent.

        With such amount of trust no wonder these finally became profitable.

        Ah, also companies engineering vehicles and spacecraft are rather different from a company the whole purpose of which is matching people (readers to posters, advertisers to customers, so on).

        • UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Could you please point me to where I can find info on Spacex profitability? I’ve done a google search, but all I can find is revenue.

    • db2@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same people would say the same thing about Trump and everything he’s ever touched has gone to shit. I think they’re legitimately delusional… all of them.

      • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they’re just brainwashed by our capitalist system which says that if a person is wealthy it’s because they worked for it and we’re successful. We are indoctrinated from very young ages to believe that capitalism is a strict meritocracy where only the best, most intelligent, most deserving people become wealthy.

        In reality most wealthy people inherited some or most of their wealth, and used that inherited wealth to create more wealth- because it turns out that once you are wealthy it’s really easy to get more wealthy. They aren’t wealthy because they are skillful or intelligent or good at business. Most of them are good at precisely one thing: giving some of their money to a professional who knows how to grow it so that they will never run out.

        Then they throw money at whatever catches their eye, and when you have billions to throw around you can cast a very wide net that will almost certainly catch something.

    • zombuey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I still think the “saudi’s paid elon to nuke it” was a solid conspiracy theory.

      • dexx4d@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you think about it, there were a lot of populist movements growing through Twitter. It probably pissed a lot of wealthy, powerful people off.

        Then Musk and Zuckerberg were called to private meetings with the president, weren’t they? And Twitter was taken over and shut down. Then Threads, owned by Facebook who is known to help out law enforcement quite happily as well as track everything, takes off as an alternative.

    • db2@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The stocks had to be bought back first, then basically they could be turned in to the DTCC and the company gets delisted. That’s how Twitter did it.

      The other way is to naked short so much you’ve got enough shares to control the board and tank the company from inside then you don’t have to do a buyback because there’s no company. This will be reddit’s future if they even get to ipo at this point.

    • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      and the metric is growth

      No, not really. The metric is growth only for those who aren’t profitable. They use growth as a promise of future profits.

      Meta/Facebook is turning in a huge profit each ear. Nobody cares about the user count that much anymore unless it sharply falls.

      Twitter is different. Twitter didn’t really make a profit yet. They aren’t profitable.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Musk crumpled the cashflow pretty quickly in weeks, but he also has a lot of wealth, he had to chip in billions of his own dollars to save the company from his mistakes.

    • traveler01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Musk wasted a shitload of money to make it private. Twitter is wasn’t even close to being a net neutral business, was downright a hole of money the investors kept feeding because well, it’s Twitter.

      Musk bought the brand, he was well aware that this was going to happen.