I’m not sure if this is technically Technology news, but I can remove this post if it’s in the wrong community
Archive link: http://archive.today/3XM6s
Musk brought up the idea of charging all users of X/Twitter during a wide-ranging conversation focused on AI that featured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday. “[We’re] moving to a small monthly payment for use of the X system,” Musk told Netanyahu, claiming that it is the only way to eliminate the problem of bots, as reported by Bloomberg’s Dave Lee.
Musk didn’t mention timing of his plan to charge X/Twitter users, nor did he say how much it would cost.
Musk, who also is CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said X/Twitter ad sales have plunged 50% since he bought the company. “We’re still negative cash flow, due to ~50% drop in advertising revenue plus heavy debt load,” Musk posted on July 15.
So, I am starting to really believe his goal is to just drive a stake into the heart of twitter.
Either that, or he is trying to prove a point regarding something.
I don’t think there is any possible way, he is so dumb as to make all of these horrible decisions regarding twitter… This has got to be destroying twitter by design, on purpose.
I mean, seriously… he has done literally everything that you SHOULDN’T do. Fire the majority of the company. Destroy over a decade worth of very good branding. Alienate all investors. Alienate the user base. Piss off the remaining users more. Drive away advertisers…
FFS, the dude has a company that sends rockets into space, and previously, the world’s premier electric car company… What in the hell is his odd obsession with choking the life out of twitter, that has been costing him money left and right due to absolutely horrible publicity.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” - Hanlon’s razor
Can’t… can’t it be both? 🤔
He’s a stupid man. But he’s also sitting on mbs dick, so he does what daddy says
If he wanted Twitter to fail, he could have just unplugged all the servers and be done with it.
No need for him to change the policies so much everyone would leave, break his internet persona, and then declare Xitter bankrupt.
No, I believe he bought Twitter in order to manipulate the US presidential election by spreading propaganda from what he considers a “left-wing bubble”. But because he has no idea how to run a social media, he is failing to keep it together and by now is throwing stuff against it to see what sticks.
He owes a lot of money to banks, etc, for the company.
Explicitly closing Twitter would make him liable for destroying other people’s equity. Accidentally destroying twitter while pretending to drastically fix it, while pretending it’s failing against his will and his taking measures to save it, is the only way to kill it without being on the hook for it.
I doubt he won’t be on the hook for the billions he got as investment no matter how he destroys Twitter.
Incompetence is not a legal defense.
Haven’t you heard the story about that one time when he literally unplugged a bunch of servers? He also had zero regards to the proper protocol for moving hardware like that.
Yes, but he didn’t do that with every server sadly
It was a good start. Elon should pull that same stunt with all the data centers he owns.
Please remember that SpaceX and Tesla have entire teams dedicated to handling Elon and reversing his decisions. Twitter did not have the infrastructure required to handle the sheer level of stupid that is Elon Musk.
deleted by creator
There are some (extreme) suspicions on his intent: https://davetroy.medium.com/no-elon-and-jack-are-not-competitors-theyre-collaborating-3e88cde5267d
Fuckin do it, Elon. Double dog dare ya.
People won’t pay for something that used to be free… OTOH, neither will bot farms.
Either case will end Twitter, so I say go for it!
I hope he buys reddit next
I think he should seriously consider buying Meta so that we can watch it crash and burn just like Xitter. Facebook is the cancer of the internet and it deserves to go too.
Unfortunately, Twitter was only up for sale because it wasn’t able to effectively monetize. On the other hand, Meta has figured out how to make money hand over fist.
I think the easiest route to get Musk to own Meta is if we goaded him + Zuck into a pay per view fist fight over ownership of Meta.
Twitter was profitable in the years before covid. They made a net income of $1.2 billion in 2018.
They made a slight (compared to their revenue) loss during the pandemic, presumably because advertisers generally were willing to spend less, but they were still earning more than enough - simply cut a few costs and they’d be profitable again. Or just wait for the market to improve since from the sounds of it they had more than enough savings to ride it out (that appeared to be their plan).
They didn’t sell to Musk because they were desperate, they sold to Musk because he signed a contract guaranteeing he would pay far more than the company was worth. If I owned a house that was worth a million dollars, and someone offered me ten million, hell yeah would I sell that house even if I wasn’t really interested in selling.
How about we upgrade that to a thunderdome with chainsaws?
Beautiful idea
I want to charge Musk every time he makes another asshole announcement about running one of his companies into the ground. Just fuck off, dude.
If you had a nickel for every time musk edged a promising platform closer to worthlessness and destruction you’d have a mother fucking shit ton of nickels.
Like… a cavalry charge? Infantry? Rhinocerii?
I had been thinking “charge” in the financial sense, but now that you mention it, a bunch of rhinos would be much more entertaining!
So I mean, if this was in lieu of data collection and tracking, this is what more of the software world should actually do. Running platforms isn’t free, and making the user the product is a malicious and unsustainable solution.
That said, I certainly wouldn’t pay Twitter - I think I’d rather donate to a Mastodon instance, or pay for some other private alternative. Musk is awful for so many reasons, holds way too much power, and deserves no money of mine.
I would love if there was a platform where they charged a very small amount monthly eg. I £1/€1/$1 in exchange for not using my data for anything. I love lemmy but I’m entirely at the mercy of the instance maintainers and there is no guarantee my data won’t be used
It’s always going to come down to trusting someone though right ?
Even with a larger corporation who tells you they don’t sell your data, it would only take 1 employee to see the opportunity to sell 1 billion email addresses or something.
Also in the fediverse your data is pretty much freely available to everyone. Instances need to publish the list of users who have upvoted a given post or comment. Anyone so inclined could build a profile of comments and posts you’ve liked from freely available data.
Lemmy still feels a bit wild - with lots of instances springing up in the last few months and not really any time for admins to demonstrate their attitudes to different issues.
Mastodon is a little more mature though, I’ve been at fosstodon.org for a few years now. The admins there are regular participants in the community. I think I’m on the “Elon” tier in their patreon - $11 a month.
This, I think, is actually the worst part about Lemmy. Instead of having more control and privacy you have less because everything is out in the open. Which is terrible for the users and could also have a chilling effect on the platform.
What’s worse is that this is never really communicated to the users.
I can understand your position but I don’t see it that way.
I think lemmy is a fairly early iteration of the fediverse and it’s still finding its own format and associated culture.
For example, maybe more people will start using multiple accounts, or use accounts only for a few months before discarding them.
A lot of redditors treated accounts like some kind of alternate self, to be manicured and maintained indefinitely, which might not be the right move in the fediverse.
Also, a lot of things aren’t really communicated to users on most platforms. The information is there if anyone cares to invest even the briefest moment in understanding the fediverse
But isn’t interoperability of instances kinda the main selling point of fediverse? If you really end up having multiple accounts across the site that seems like a drawback to me, not something to hope for. Besides, having “one self” is not a bad thing either. I’d rather have people use one account on which I can consistently see their views or behaviors or having tons of alts to hide behind and switch as the general opinion shifts. You can’t really have a proper community if it’s just smoke and mirrors of alts and throwaway accounts.
Perhaps, but all of these points rely on a subjective definition of what a community is, and I think that’s still emerging in the fediverse. A Facebook community is different to a reddit community which is different to a lemmy community.
if this was in lieu of data collection and tracking
I guarantee this isn’t in lieu of, it’s in conjunction with.
Yup. You can see this kind of stuff happening with ads in things you buy.
There was a model of “ad supported” and “pay to own”
But some exec figured out you could do both and double dip.
There is no world in which things get more consumer friendly unless it’s forced
That’s actually a good point about how some services do require payment to provide safe service to their users. A very close to home example would be your local Lemmy instance. In order to run the servers and keep it ad (and tracking) free, each instance needs donations from their users. The same is true for Mastodon, as you mentioned.
The problem is, I would be shocked if Twitter actually provided a safer (or improved in any way) service. There are a other issues at play as well, but they all basically boil down to most users not wanting too give money to Twitter, and if they were ok with that, they would already have purchased Twitter Blue.
I would be shocked if Twitter actually provided a safer (or improved in any way) service. There are a other issues at play as well
One of those issues being the idiot child in charge. As long as Musk is running the place, there’s no such thing as safety for the users.
Fully agree.
I fucking dare him to follow through. Please do it. Don’t wuss out Elon!
Should we all go make twitter accounts and say how great of an idea this is?
Yes! Absolutely!
What about a fee for every X install like Unity?
$0.20 for every view of your tweet!
YES!!! DO!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-sfG8BV8wU
Of COURSE Musk is buddying up with Bibi. He’s really leaning hard into the evil persona.
Moving to a user supported service IS a good way to cut down on spam and wrest control from advertisers…
…IF you do it before you destroy all value, branding, community and cultural relevance
As so many others have said, this move at this point sounds like he’s trying to finally end this fiasco.
Xitter, pronounced shitter
Anyone who hasn’t abandoned the platform by now deserves whatever they get.
One of the richest people in the entire world wants still more money. Tell me again how “trickle-down economics” works?
Ok, I loathe the man, hate the shit show he’s made TwitX, think he’s a clown, generally hate billionaires, etc. But this is kinda a really stupid comment.
Hi @ripcord, we have one rule on Beehaw - “Be(e) nice”. In the future, please be respectful of other users when posting in Beehaw communities. Thanks!
You’re right, I could definitely have written this in a more respectful, constructive way.
No, see, it’s like an inverted pyramid, and the little our overlords permit us of the product of our labor trickles down to them, you see.
He’s the wealthiest man in the world. That doesn’t mean he has a lair full of cash and just wants more. People really struggle to understand the difference between wealth and money in the bank. This isn’t about hoarding money just for the sake of it.
You aren’t going to tell me Musk doesn’t have some cash laying around.
Is he just supposed to pay for the running of twitter out of his pocket or what? It says there they’ve lost 50% of advertisers, and are making negative profit. That isn’t sustainable. The purchase of twitter has cost him 40-something billion, and still keeps costing him even more. It’s not about just wanting more profit, but to atleast break even.
It’s a self inflicted wound. Can’t bring myself to care.
I understand the difference, but he’s collecting stuff just because it’s shiny. He’s short of cash because he has no impulse control, and I fail to see why he shouldn’t fail the same way other people who overextend themselves fail.
What makes you think he’s short on cash? Wealthy people don’t store their wealth in cash anyways. The money is tied to the stocks of the companies they’re running. That’s why he needed to lend the money for twitter too; he doesn’t have that kind of cash, but people are willing to borrow it to him because of his wealth.
If you just had read the article you’d see that they have lost 50% of the advertisers and are losing money. This isn’t about wanting more money just for the sake of it. No company can exist if their finances are on the negative.
And yet here they are…
What are you saying?
Making great business decisions
