Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#221

Post by yumraj »

cinntaile wrote: post #182
Animats wrote: post #129

OK, so far, not much. Musk is getting stretched rather thin. Space-X seems to be doing OK with Gwynne Shotwell running things. Tesla, which Musk apparently does really run personally, is doing OK, but their side ventures are not. Self-driving is a mess. Solar panels (yes, Tesla has a solar panel business) are not doing well. The Cybertruck is years late. (Maybe next year.[1]) So is the Tesla Model 2, the low-end vehi…

I think Starlink is a gamechanger, but I guess that's part of SpaceX?

But what's the size of the market? TAM may be huge, but what's a realistic SOM?

In other words, how many people with hard wired fiber/coax will change to Starlink or will be be useful only for the rural/remote segment.

Yes, there's some international, marine, flight etc. market, but, again, how big is that.

Serious question - is there any real data?

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#222

Post by zo1 »

bbreier wrote: post #125
hn8305823 wrote: post #69

He literally said it will not be a free for all. He may be chaotic, but he's not stupid. There is a huge difference between no moderation (anarchy), and not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology.

I'd love to see some clear examples of conservative voices being targeted solely based on ideology, cause I don't think they exist. The replies so far seem to just confirm my point. Doesn't seem like any of them were banned "solely based on ideology" at all. Come on y'all, show me one example where someone was banned for asking for lower taxes!

Jordan Peterson.

But you'll find a reason for this example and any other to not to fit your criteria.

Another: Stefan Molyneux.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#223

Post by ginger2016 »

celestialcheese wrote: post #141
linuxftw wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pressure from advertisers" implies the advertisers are paying more than the marginal utility of the ads themselves in some kind of corporate-back-scratching model. If the ads provide a ROI, then other advertisers will gladly jump on board.

100% this. Big advertisers don't stop spending because they have a moral objection to the content, they stop spending when the customers who disagree with the content boycott and make a lot of noise.

Also big advertisers can stop spending because the people who make decisions on ad money spend ideologically disagree with Musk moderation policy. The decision makers are not robots, they have biases too.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#224

Post by marcosdumay »

samfisher83 wrote: post #18
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #9

Prediction: Brain drain at Twitter begins as Elon starts enacting unpopular policies. Valuation tanks. Morale becomes non-existent and Twitter slowly starts to fade from existence while competitors begin to fill the void. I give it 3-5 years before it's gone full husk.

He plans to fire most of them. I don't think he thinks they are are that smart. He could be right or wrong.

Twitter clearly has a problem of technical competence somewhere. It may be withing the people he is planning to change, or it may be somewhere else and those people are the only reason it barely works.

But the one thing that is obvious is that everything there is not fine.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#225

Post by sakras »

sosodev wrote: post #137
mooreds wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think he understands that, as indicated by https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728 That doesn't sound like someone burning Twitter to the ground. Also, many are acting like Musk has free rein in running the company. Yes and no. Beyond needing employees to actually run the thing, he also has loans to pay back ($13B!) and investors to maintain good relationships with. More on that here: https…

I'm very skeptical of the idea that Twitter can become a place where people discuss things with civility. It seems like the mechanics of the conversation encourage outrage.

I think the fundamental limitation is that a small character limit removes the opportunity for nuance. It is a trade off though - not many people will spend time reading nuanced essays. I’d say this is a big part of the polarization - there’s only enough room to basically say left or right and maybe indicate some magnitude to your belief, so you naturally end up with two parties.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#226

Post by thehappypm »

foobarian wrote: post #192
danjoredd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Musk's solar panel business is that it is more expensive and less effective than normal solar panels. They look nicer than normal panels, but to thrive off of solar you need as much efficiency as possible. Tesla panels don't provide that especially for the cost.

Is it though? I found that when combined with their battery offering, which triggers additional state incentives, their pricing is quite a bit below the competition. I just have cold feet because of rumors of bad/nonexistent customer service.

Ive found the service fine. It took a couple weeks to get someone out when I had an inverter issue, but they auto-scheduled the service

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#227

Post by dawnerd »

wccrawford wrote: post #188
danjoredd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Musk's solar panel business is that it is more expensive and less effective than normal solar panels. They look nicer than normal panels, but to thrive off of solar you need as much efficiency as possible. Tesla panels don't provide that especially for the cost.

The problem I hear with their solar panel business is customer service. A friend of ours had their panels installed for months but couldn't get Tesla to actually turn them on. We went with a local company and it it took a couple weeks longer to install than estimated and they were turned on immediately after install. The power company has even changed out the meter now, so we're fully installed and done.

I sold my house and I still have the panels showing in my Tesla account as pending install ... except they installed them two years ago. Repeated emails to them and I still have access. Kinda tempted to try hitting the cancel install button to see what happens.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#228

Post by concinds »

Gud wrote: post #210
concinds wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect Tesla will still be his "crown jewel". He's already announced he's searching for a Twitter CEO. I doubt it would take him much time out of his day to set a general vision for Twitter. Jeff Bezos for example owns the Washington Post, but doesn't run it (which will likely be the case with Musk and Twitter in a few months), and it doesn't seem to have detracted from anything while he was still CEO of Amazon. Fi…

Is Tesla really his crown jewel though? I always thought that was SpaceX.

Depends on what we mean by that; SpaceX might be what he takes the most pride in (due to the much longer-term vision, and more "grandiose" nature of space exploration). What I meant was that Tesla is his first priority, which he micromanages the most and spends the most time at.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#229

Post by PathOfEclipse »

bbreier wrote: post #125
hn8305823 wrote: post #69

He literally said it will not be a free for all. He may be chaotic, but he's not stupid. There is a huge difference between no moderation (anarchy), and not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology.

I'd love to see some clear examples of conservative voices being targeted solely based on ideology, cause I don't think they exist. The replies so far seem to just confirm my point. Doesn't seem like any of them were banned "solely based on ideology" at all. Come on y'all, show me one example where someone was banned for asking for lower taxes!

I'm not sure why GP was downvoted. There are many, many examples. You would probably see them if your primary news sources weren't the NYT, the Washington Post, CNN, or MSNBC. Twitter is the poster child for authoritarian leftist social media!

The easiest way to get censored for ideological beliefs was to state that biological sex is a reality: https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-censors-tucker-carlso...

Babylon Bee got banned for harmless satire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/babylon-bee-a-factor-in-musk-...

Libs of tiktok was banned for "hate speech." I'm not sure they ever even let the account owner know exactly what was said that deserved censorship: https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-censors-popular-accou...

A classic is when the NY Post got locked out for posting factual information that the left wanted to bury before the 2020 election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/nypost-remains-locked-out-of-...

Twitter censored health experts whenever what they said didn't fit the COVID narrative put forth by the CDC: https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-censors-white-house-h...

There is still, today, multiple years after the start of the pandemic, no strong evidence that masks did anything significant to slow the spread of COVID. I can provide many citations if you need them. In fact, much of what big tech censored turned out to be true or still plausible today, like: the lab leak theory, natural immunity being more effective than the vaccine (even Bill Gates admits this now!), and so on.

James Lindsay got locked out for saying "OK groomer". https://www.dailywire.com/news/author-james-lindsay-banned-f...

Leftists have said many, many more vile and hateful things than that without suffering a single consequence, including making threats on others' lives: https://www.foxnews.com/media/libs-of-tik-tok-creator-twitte...

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#230

Post by Hamuko »

_chap wrote: post #196
Animats wrote: post #129

OK, so far, not much. Musk is getting stretched rather thin. Space-X seems to be doing OK with Gwynne Shotwell running things. Tesla, which Musk apparently does really run personally, is doing OK, but their side ventures are not. Self-driving is a mess. Solar panels (yes, Tesla has a solar panel business) are not doing well. The Cybertruck is years late. (Maybe next year.[1]) So is the Tesla Model 2, the low-end vehi…

The Boring Company's latest test tunnel was about 1034 times slower than a snail (their current stated goal). https://www.reddit.com/r/BoringCompany/comments/xugxdl/comme...

Has the Boring Company really achieved anything that is not a flamethrower (not not a flamethrower?) and a slow EV taxi lane under Las Vegas?
Post reply on HN