Twitter is better

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Musk did say at the outset that he didn't care about making money with Twitter.   It was posted just above.   Advertisers are coming back as noted above.   So things are looking good for Twitter (X), but it is worth less yes.   It is privately owned.   So who cares if it is a better place to communicate?

mspart

For someone who professed to not caring about the financials, he tried comically hard to get out of the deal until he was forced to close.

[wrestlingguy]

40 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Talk about not accurate. This information is very easy to find.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/29/fidelity-has-cut-xs-value-by-79-since-musk-purchase/

 

I was referring to the spin on words. Referring to it "up" to down by 78% is about like the people that say inflation is only at 2%.

[mspart]

And that means what exactly?  If he was worried about financials would he have done the things he did to make it less profitable?  Nope.   He did what he did to streamline the corporatness of the enterprise and gain control of it so it would serve his purpose.  Which he did.

mspart

[jross]

As the OP, I defined X as better from a user experience perspective, feeling that the platform had immediately become more of a "digital town square" where more voices are heard.  I stand by this today, that X is better, and support that with "record usage" and "balanced politics" citations.

There's chatter about an increase in hate speech and misinformation, but offense is in the eye of the beholder, right? Before Musk's acquisition, I was frustrated with Twitter's content. Now, I find X is a different atmosphere, one that resonates with me more. And when surveys show X's political balance, it just confirms my own experience. It's not like the echo chamber of Twitter or Gab.

Musk's motives were clear from the start - it wasn't about making money; it was about fostering free speech and other principles.  So it feels ingenuine to measure "better" based on private share value. (which clearly he has driven down)

Would Musk sell X to a new owner that would revert X back to Twitter moderation policies?  Would he do this to recoup his original cost?  Would he do it for 2x his cost?  

Given a do-over

• Would Musk pay the 1 billion to get out of the contract or fight the inflated users (bots) concern?
• After buying X, would he focus more PR by self-control over his words?
• Would he keep moderation policy and staffing?

Musk's behavior and statements suggest he values the mission of X over financial considerations.  He has shown a willingness to endure financial losses for what he believes in... at least in the short term.

Edited Friday at 07:44 PM by jross

[Wrestleknownothing]

58 minutes ago, jross said:

 

Given a do-over

• Would Musk pay the 1 billion to get out of the contract or fight the inflated users (bots) concern? The $1bn was only if his financing fell apart. It did not so he could not get out even with the break up fee. The bot "concern" was the comical attempt to back out of the deal that I referenced earlier. He specifically said he was buying Twitter to rid it of his bot problem. Then he tried getting out of the deal by claiming he did not know about the bots. Delaware law is very clear that, for very technical reasons, would not be a valid reason to get out of the deal. Twitter threatened to sue him to force the close, which the court can do, and he caved.

 

• After buying X, would he focus more PR by self-control over his words? Maybe, but when you are the richest man in the world and can afford to massively over pay, maybe not. He doesn't do it it Tesla, and that works. He is the ultimate meme investment/investor/player. And it mostly works.

 

• Would he keep moderation policy and staffing? Doubtful

Musk's behavior and statements suggest he values the mission of X over financial considerations.  He has shown a willingness to endure financial losses for what he believes in... at least in the short term. The only thing I think he would change is the purchase price. It was impetuous, he did zero due diligence until after he signed a term sheet, and he even made the purchase price a weed joke.

 

[1032004]

2 hours ago, jross said:

As the OP, I defined X as better from a user experience perspective, feeling that the platform had immediately become more of a "digital town square" where more voices are heard.  I stand by this today, that X is better, and support that with "record usage" and "balanced politics" citations.

There's chatter about an increase in hate speech and misinformation, but offense is in the eye of the beholder, right? Before Musk's acquisition, I was frustrated with Twitter's content. Now, I find X is a different atmosphere, one that resonates with me more. And when surveys show X's political balance, it just confirms my own experience. It's not like the echo chamber of Twitter or Gab.

Musk's motives were clear from the start - it wasn't about making money; it was about fostering free speech and other principles.  So it feels ingenuine to measure "better" based on private share value. (which clearly he has driven down)

Would Musk sell X to a new owner that would revert X back to Twitter moderation policies?  Would he do this to recoup his original cost?  Would he do it for 2x his cost?  

Given a do-over

• Would Musk pay the 1 billion to get out of the contract or fight the inflated users (bots) concern?
• After buying X, would he focus more PR by self-control over his words?
• Would he keep moderation policy and staffing?

Musk's behavior and statements suggest he values the mission of X over financial considerations.  He has shown a willingness to endure financial losses for what he believes in... at least in the short term.

IMO, one particular move of his that I think contradicts the claim that he “values the mission of X over financial considerations” is taking away legacy blue checks from notable people in favor of the Premium system.   As a user, I preferred it when someone with a blue check was not just anyone that paid $8 or whatever the cost is now.  But I understand that he wants to try to make money too.

Anecdotal, and I won’t get into the “more hate speech” allegation, but I’ve noticed more porn accounts replying in unrelated threads than pre-Musk.  Oddly seems to be common under the replies of low-view tweets about college wrestling.

[1032004]

15 hours ago, jross said:

Hmmm

 

 

 

On 11/13/2024 at 11:56 AM, Wrestleknownothing said:

 

As for streamlining operations, it is related to why advertisers cut back. Those streamlined operations included cutting back on content moderation to such an extent that advertisers were appearing along side content that they did not want to appear along side of. 

This sounds like an admission of WKN’s comment (from a different thread):

 

 

[jross]

Hmmm

About the advertising...

Did you know that X Corp filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in November 2023, alleging that Media Matters manipulated the user experience on X to show ads next to extremist content?  The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial on April 7, 2025.

Links

• Easiest to consume initial complaint: https://www.adamtownsend.me/x-corp-v-media-matters/
• All docket entries: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68023366/x-corp-v-media-matters-for-america/

TL;DR:

• Media Matters was created to combat the conservative agenda
• Media Matters was already critical of Twitter before the Musk acquisition
• X Corp. alleges Media Matters manipulated its platform by following only a few specific accounts to force ads next to controversial content, then used this rare occurrence to claim widespread issues as fact, prompting advertisers to pull from X.
• The rare content being just 50 out of 5.5 billion ad impressions that day. In reality, only Media Matters' employees saw these placements, not typical users.

[Offthemat]

14 minutes ago, jross said:

Hmmm

About the advertising...

Did you know that X Corp filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in November 2023, alleging that Media Matters manipulated the user experience on X to show ads next to extremist content?  The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial on April 7, 2025.

Links

• Easiest to consume initial complaint: https://www.adamtownsend.me/x-corp-v-media-matters/
• All docket entries: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68023366/x-corp-v-media-matters-for-america/

TL;DR:

• Media Matters was created to combat the conservative agenda
• Media Matters was already critical of Twitter before the Musk acquisition
• X Corp. alleges Media Matters manipulated its platform by following only a few specific accounts to force ads next to controversial content, then used this rare occurrence to claim widespread issues as fact, prompting advertisers to pull from X.
• The rare content being just 50 out of 5.5 billion ad impressions that day. In reality, only Media Matters' employees saw these placements, not typical users.

Yep.  I was aware of that. 

[1032004]

18 minutes ago, jross said:

Hmmm

About the advertising...

Did you know that X Corp filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in November 2023, alleging that Media Matters manipulated the user experience on X to show ads next to extremist content?  The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial on April 7, 2025.

Links

• Easiest to consume initial complaint: https://www.adamtownsend.me/x-corp-v-media-matters/
• All docket entries: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68023366/x-corp-v-media-matters-for-america/

TL;DR:

• Media Matters was created to combat the conservative agenda
• Media Matters was already critical of Twitter before the Musk acquisition
• X Corp. alleges Media Matters manipulated its platform by following only a few specific accounts to force ads next to controversial content, then used this rare occurrence to claim widespread issues as fact, prompting advertisers to pull from X.
• The rare content being just 50 out of 5.5 billion ad impressions that day. In reality, only Media Matters' employees saw these placements, not typical users.

Yes I was aware, that doesn’t change my statement. 

[jross]

Advertisers had some concerns about X because of evolving content moderation policies and Elon Musk's public statements. However, the report by Media Matters, focusing on ads appearing next to neo-Nazi content, was the catalyst for these concerns. Ads were placed next to this content in only 0.0000009% of instances, a detail that is disingenuous to omit from the discussion.  In my experience, this detail was omitted from most news articles and it is omitted in most discussions/criticisms.

[1032004]

2 hours ago, jross said:

Advertisers had some concerns about X because of evolving content moderation policies and Elon Musk's public statements. However, the report by Media Matters, focusing on ads appearing next to neo-Nazi content, was the catalyst for these concerns. Ads were placed next to this content in only 0.0000009% of instances, a detail that is disingenuous to omit from the discussion.  In my experience, this detail was omitted from most news articles and it is omitted in most discussions/criticisms.

Neither mine nor the comment from @Wrestleknownothing that I quoted said anything about what the content was that advertisers were not happy about their ads being placed near.  But it’s certainly notable that Elon basically admitted that was happening.

[jross]

WKN has said before in this topic that

• Musk is killing twitter.com
• Musk says it is the advertisers fault for pulling their ads from a company whose owner uses its product to support anti-Semitic ideas.
• Musk attempts to dress the whole thing up as freedom of speech or censorship.
• People are stupid enough to fall for that thinnest of arguments.

I'll agree that there are consequences for actions and that Musk can be an idiot that warrants criticism.

However, the Media Matters smear job was real and there should be financial consequences for it.  Their role in the advertising problem should be acknowledged given it was such a large contributor.

Edited Saturday at 07:30 PM by jross

[Wrestleknownothing]

58 minutes ago, jross said:

WKN has said before in this topic that

• Musk is killing twitter.com
• Musk says it is the advertisers fault for pulling their ads from a company whose owner uses its product to support anti-Semitic ideas.
• Musk attempts to dress the whole thing up as freedom of speech or censorship.
• People are stupid enough to fall for that thinnest of arguments.

I'll agree that there are consequences for actions and that Musk can be an idiot that warrants criticism.

However, the Media Matters smear job was real and there should be financial consequences for it.  Their role in the advertising problem should be acknowledged given it was such a large contributor.

Your paraphrasing ranges from poor to completely inaccurate.

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Your paraphrasing ranges from poor to completely inaccurate.

If only there was a type of forum where you type your thoughts accurately to correct….. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

If only there was a type of forum where you type your thoughts accurately to correct….. 

I already typed my thoughts accurately.

[jross]

On 11/30/2023 at 2:29 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

It isn't about freedom of speech. It is about actions having consequences.

He tweets in support of anti-Semitic ideas on Twitter.com (happy, @ionel?) and then he is surprised that advertisers do not want to be associated with that activity. Of course, he cannot say it is his own fault that he is killing twitter.com so he says it is the advertisers fault for pulling their ads from a company whose owner uses its product to support anti-Semitic ideas. Then he attempts to dress the whole thing up as freedom of speech or censorship. And some people are stupid enough to fall for that thinnest of argu,ents.

He clearly has freedom of speech and he clearly has no censors, not an internal censor nor a CEO that is empowered to stop him from doing stupid things that harms the business he owns,. As evidence of this I point to all of his many, many, many tweets. He calls people pedophiles, files lawsuits to stop people from publishing reports about his product, and any number of other self-inflicted wounds. But it is never his fault. It is some evil cabal out to get him.

And when he tells the very people he blames for ruining his company by refusing to buy his product they can F... themselves, how is anyone surprised that they do not spend money on his product? Why would they ever at this point? He is just too toxic a presence.

Then you get guys like @headshuck who think it is war. The stupidity of that take is hard to quantify, and I spend all day, every day quantifying things. These are customers, sorry, were customers, who he is, in theory, trying to win business from, not enemies attacking him. 

 

Media matters actually is malicious… 

[Wrestleknownothing]

41 minutes ago, jross said:

 

Media matters actually is malicious… 

The point I made is Media Matters is irrelevant. Musk used them as a distraction. If he needs someone to blame he should find a mirror.