nuff said

  • RouxFou@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    387
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    With the way he’s running this, I’m a bit confused as to why he didn’t just buy Truth Social directly. Wouldn’t have cost him nearly as much.

  • eoddc5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    293
    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

  • rusticus1773@lemmy.ml
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    160
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    ·
    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
      42
      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
    150
    ·
    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.

    • chickenwing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. I don’t really consider social media “technology” anymore. I mean yeah it uses technology but so does everything else. I don’t think technology is the right community for this kind of post. There should be an enshittification community where we can see all the Twitter, reddit, and meta stuff.

      In fact a lot of “technology” companies are just regular companies with an app. Netflix is a media company, Uber is a taxi company that somehow skirted regulators, and Airbnb is a hotel company that also skirted regulators.

      • pedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be fair, the social media platform are generally very advanced in terms of technology. Many of the most breaking grounds software technologies at least come from them.

    • randfur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m happy to learn about significant updates to the health of the platform but not as literal Musk tweets pls.

    • lo9rd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      With RIF is just straight blocked posts containing Musk, Rowling etc, plenty of specific subreddits and managed to make my /all experience a great one. I’m hoping I can do that down the line with Lemmy too!

  • experbia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    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?

  • tswerts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    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
    74
    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
      28
      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
        14
        ·
        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
    65
    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

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    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
      20
      ·
      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
        16
        ·
        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.

        • IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Of course, but many, many companies never leave that state in the age where the biggest investment strategy is dumping hella cash into a startup in hopes that it overtakes (monopolizes) the industry but may never be profitable. And many people thought that Tesla would never be profitable, it sure looked like it for a very long time.

    • db2@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        22
        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.

    • db2@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      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.

      • CurlyWurlies4All@prxs.site
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The more realistic death is a buyout, merger and dismantling. That’s how the vast majority of publicly traded companies die. Bought my a larger organisation looking for a deal on your IP, userbase or reputation who then sells off all physical assets, offshores all talent and outsources all capabilities. They retain the brand equity which then gets rinsed through a range of products that are smaller and smaller before quietly being shelved. See GEs dismantling of RCA, the death of GE itself, and every company EA has ever bought.

    • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meta is pumping ungodly amounts of money into a moon shot (VR) because it is in stagnation phase and their market is saturated - so they do care about growth quite a bit.

        • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We were talking about growing the userbase. Growth of the business is something different. Of course any company is interested in growth. However, I don’t think usercount growth is the metric Facebook is looking at currently.

          Look at Amazon. The cloud division is now more profitable than the Amazon website. Facebook is looking to use those large profits to branch out in different directions. Some like the metaverse won’t work. Just like Amazon’s echo didn’t become profitable. But others eventually will.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If your business relies on the size of your userbase than those things are quite related. Again, not a coincidence that while facebook is stagnating meta is desperately trying to force vr.

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

              It’s doing double digit billions in profit every year. Both Facebook and Meta. They’re actually doing quite all right even with the VR fiasco.

              And even iftheir only possible growth vector was user count(which it isn’t), they have close to 3 billion active users monthly with over 2 billion people using Facebook daily. It is impossible to grow. There are no more people.

    • 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.