Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts about Twitter

nolancaudill.com

61–70 of 235 posts

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#61
I don't think this is a great opinion piece. IT jumps to conclusions about what Musk's team has done without being able to see any evidence of its effectiveness. All we have is groans from people that pretty much spend their days complaining about everything anyways.

And then there's this idea that Twitter was some great, happy place until the last week. That's simply not true and Twitter hasn't changed in any way whatsoever yet.

What we know so far:

- Twitter will rollout a paid account system where if you pay $8/month your tweets will actually be visible to people and you'll see less ad's. This will ensure bots/scammers have difficulty posting to Twitter because their non-paid posts won't be seen by many people. People are more likely to casually browse Twitter now and people who profit from writing on Twitter will have better engagements.

- Twitter is working on ideas to let users seta threshold for what they want to read/see. If you want a G-rated stream, then you'll be able to do that. For people that get triggered or don't want their ideas challenged then they can mute that much like you can avoid music and movies/media you don't want to be exposed to.

- Twitter fired a lot of staff. Unsure how this pans out. Some people think it was ridiculous to have that many people. Others think it will cause the entire thing to break. No one really knows anything here. I have to assume Elon's team has spent months analyzing what they believe is lean muscle and what is the fat they can cut.

How can people draw these impossibly detailed predictions on its future from these actions? Musk has a history of being bet against and proving the doubters wrong. Anyone there in 2013 when TSLA shipped the first Model S batch knows how much he was hated and bet against then. He has also failed to deliver on some promises. We'll see.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#62
I'm very unconvinced by Elon's $8 plan, but even to me "smothering it within weeks" seems wildly pessimistic. Even if his strategy doesn't work out, would things really come crashing down so quickly?

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#63
"...to balance their own version of “free speech”"

Nail on the head for what really bothers me. None of this (or the Trump/Freedom/Truth Social) opinions comprehend the fundamental concepts behind free speech. At best, they're ignorant, at worst, they've co-opted the concept to wield it against those whose speech they don't like.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#64
The claims in this article assume a lot. To pick just one, regarding stability/uptime: without knowing the distribution of layoffs by department, this may not just be incorrect, but the opposite might be true: if most SREs were retained, and engineers who know the systems well are still around, stability will likely improve as there will be fewer changes to the systems (usually the number one source of outages). If PMs were heavily cut then it’s possible they have infra that was slated for future projects that will no longer happen which gets them extra capacity.

Not saying any of what I spelled out above is what happened. But it is entirely plausible that thousands of jobs across the organization could be cut, and stability and uptime could improve.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#65

As a relatively disinterested observer (don’t tweet, don’t own a Tesla, don’t feel particularly strongly about Mr Musk), I’ve found the media/commentariat reversals of position on this funny. Musk’s initial Twitter takeover talk was met with general opprobrium, to put it mildly. I must have read more than one take that it was a threat to democracy itself. Then, after a stock market downturn, and when the Twitter acqu…

The image of Elon Musk turned sour after he decided to play geo-politcs and play the Putin's peacekeeper puppet. That event, at least for me showed the true colors of Musky

Wanting peace is now a bad thing?

Does it matter that his method wasn't ideal, at least he wasn't pushing for nuclear war like many politicians.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction - HE forced himself to buy it by signing a binding contract to buy it.

No. Not even semantically correct. If he didn't want to do something and the other party in the negotiation used the legal system to make him do it he was forced by someone else to do it. Anyway, it's beside the point. Elon OWNS twitter. Do you all understand what ownership means? Like how you own a phone? If he wants to smash his new toy into the ground and break it that's his prerogative. Employees need to stop del…

He got himself into the situation where he was required to buy Twitter because he signed a binding contract - that's how binding contracts work, and not understanding that the contract was binding is why he now owns Twitter.

In the end, he bought Twitter without being forced to, because he probably saw he was going to lose in court if he kept up with trying to get out of his binding agreement.

This is why a person needs to understand the contracts they sign. If you don't have an out, you can't change your mind. If you can just change your mind to get out of a binding contract, then it's not a binding contract.

Separately, I'm not making any comments about Twitter employees and their claims against the business, that's a completely separate topic.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The image of Elon Musk turned sour after he decided to play geo-politcs and play the Putin's peacekeeper puppet. That event, at least for me showed the true colors of Musky

Wanting peace is now a bad thing? Does it matter that his method wasn't ideal, at least he wasn't pushing for nuclear war like many politicians.

Wanting peace is a good thing. Wanted Ukraine to capitulate to genocide is not.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#68

As a relatively disinterested observer (don’t tweet, don’t own a Tesla, don’t feel particularly strongly about Mr Musk), I’ve found the media/commentariat reversals of position on this funny. Musk’s initial Twitter takeover talk was met with general opprobrium, to put it mildly. I must have read more than one take that it was a threat to democracy itself. Then, after a stock market downturn, and when the Twitter acqu…

One running theme here is Musk trying to ignore contracts and discovering that they're binding. Being the wealthiest didn't make him above the law.

That's bad for him and so far it seems bad for Twitter, but it was good for the shareholders, and it's good generally that contracts get enforced.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#69
> The illusion of Elon Musk, David Sacks and Jason Calcanis as savvy operators is completely gone.

Elon has owned Twiter for less than a week. How is it that everyone is already declaring it a failure? How can you argue the richest man on the planet is bad at running businesses?

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#70

As a relatively disinterested observer (don’t tweet, don’t own a Tesla, don’t feel particularly strongly about Mr Musk), I’ve found the media/commentariat reversals of position on this funny. Musk’s initial Twitter takeover talk was met with general opprobrium, to put it mildly. I must have read more than one take that it was a threat to democracy itself. Then, after a stock market downturn, and when the Twitter acqu…

That is because most Twitter users knew Musk would ruin what made Twitter Twitter. Twitter users just assumed the process of "muskifying" Twitter would be subtle and over the course of years. Watching him speed run the destruction of a $44 Billion company in a matter weeks has been absolutely shocking.
Post reply on HN