Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

techcrunch.com

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#271

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 don’t think many people are cross-shopping Teslas with Bolts or Leafs. The difference in performance and technology is big enough to put them in a different vehicle class. Most of the people I know who are buying Teslas are coming from Audi and BMW, and never would have considered buying a Chevy.

That's basically the point. Tesla can't sell to those people, because they have no product for them currently.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#272
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.

It depends on incentives. Right now histrionics and outrage get boosted and sober, nuanced analysis goes nowhere. Invert that boosting algorithm and maybe Twitter can become useful. I'm not sure what would mean for revenue though.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#273

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 don’t think many people are cross-shopping Teslas with Bolts or Leafs. The difference in performance and technology is big enough to put them in a different vehicle class. Most of the people I know who are buying Teslas are coming from Audi and BMW, and never would have considered buying a Chevy.

But that's the point. Tesla's market cap is over $700bn.

That's more than twice that of all of Porsche, VW (which owns Audi), Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari and Volvo put together.

Without selling down into the mass-market and out-competing Chevy in that segment, that price premium cannot be justified.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#274

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…

Yeah actually I think this is a very important point. A lot of people are either super worried or super excited about what Musk will do with Twitter, but both of those positions share the assumption that he'll be successful in whatever he's trying to do but I'm not so sure that's warranted. As you point out, he fails sometimes, and honestly the way he talks about Twitter doesn't really impress upon me the intuition that he'll be successful (this whole X thing sounds ill-conceived to me at this point.)

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#275
post #247

If I was working at Twitter right now I would be looking for a different job, regardless of what I think of Elon's politics/motives. The talk of layoffs and major policy changes creates massive uncertainty and I don't think I'd risk sticking out the transition. I bet many inside the company feel the same. This begs the question: If there is a major exodus, will it even matter? And, if it does, how will the problems m…

These are times of tremendously unnatural opportunity for people who stick with it. If you doubt your objective value or just don’t like high-stress environments, then yes, start looking elsewhere now.

Musk immediately created a huge power vacuum within Twitter. There's absolutely going to be senior staff trying to climb into executive roles with golden parachutes.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#276

I understand that he has been publicly combative with all the executives; but is it a practical to fire all those key executives right away? Specially, do they not contain any specifically useful knowledge or experience that you should make an attempt at creating a collaborative transition? Is this how these kinds of acquisitions of public companies happen? Isn’t this effectively freezing all significant activities f…

It's pretty common for the CEO, CFO and general counsel to be dismissed after acquisitions in circumstances (like here) where the acquisition is a disavowal of their vision and leadership. Keep in mind there are far more executives than these three. It's less likely to happen for well-run, profitable companies that are just being acquired for talent or synergy reasons. The size of the acquired and acquiring firms, an…

> He still communicates regularly with Jack Dorsey, so I doubt there's much knowledge and experience being lost.

I would not be surprised if Musk convinces Dorsey to come back to Twitter in some kind of formal (but part-time) role. Board member, adviser, consultant, etc

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#277

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.

> not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology. This literally does not happen, and is entirely made up in a form of projection. In fact, Twitter has been found to be biased towards recommending right-wing sources. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-a...

No post body was provided.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#278
> Elon’s first official acknowledgement on Twitter of his new toy post-deal close was a tweet reading simply “the bird is freed.” This was quickly rejoined by European Commission Internet Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, who responded with a reminder that freedom isn’t free.

> Notably, Breton has previously met with Musk in person and even recorded a video in which he says that he explained to Musk the EU’s Digital Services Act, and in which Musk basically says he’s aligned to everything it contains.

Wikipedia summarizes the DSA as so:

> The Digital Services Act (DSA) is an EU regulation to modernise the e-Commerce Directive regarding illegal content, transparent advertising, and disinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act

And later,

> The DSA proposal maintains the current rule according to which companies that host other's data are not liable for the content unless they actually know it is illegal, and upon obtaining such knowledge do not act to remove it.[15] This so-called "conditional liability exemption" is fundamentally different[16][17] from the broad immunities given to intermediaries under the equivalent rule ("Section 230 CDA") in the United States.

> In addition to the liability exemptions, the DSA would introduce a wide-ranging set of new obligations on platforms, including some that aim to disclose to regulators how their algorithms work, while other obligations would create transparency on how decisions to remove content are taken and on the way advertisers target users.

That Musk agrees (or at least did agree) to essentially everything in here suggests that a good chunk of the work going forward will be around policing "illegal" content.

In this light, the last point in the TechCrunch article sounds a little ominous:

> One of Musk’s first big leadership decisions appears to be to install a content moderation council that will help decide matters like who gets banned on the platform and for what — similar to Facebook’s Oversight Board.

> Twitter does already have a trust and safety council that acts in an advisory capacity, but that’s a large group that seems to act more behind the scenes to inform product decisions, whereas this would be a ‘Supreme Court’ of sorts for decisions on who gets to tweet and what in cases of controversy.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#279
post #8

It can be great for freedom of speech. Hopefully, it won't distract Elon too much from SpaceX, Tesla, and other important work. I still don't get how he managed to be CEO of multiple high-complexity companies. It's already not easy to be CEO of just one.

It's not actually clear to me that free speech (in the constitutional sense) is Elon's driving factor here.

His calculus seems to be: 1. People will find a way to say what they think online. 2. If everyone splinters into their own little self reinforcing bubbles and we can't hear each other, that is quite dangerous in the long term.

That is to say, he arrives at a similar position, but it seems to be driven more by pragmatism than idealism.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#280

Would be interesting if he makes Twitter more dev friendly (open APIs etc)

"Would be interesting if he makes Twitter more dev friendly (open APIs etc)" How open and dev friendly is Tesla?

Does Amana Appliances Corp. make a microwave with all-wheel drive and independent suspension? Respectfully, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Post reply on HN