Threelon Musk: pl3ase lik3 m3

[dissolute ocelot]

It does fit with Musk's known operating method - push push push until something breaks then push some more. It's like SpaceX's abysmal safety record.

The SpaceX model is that it doesn't matter if the first 10 rockets blow up as long as the rest work, and people still seem willing to pay for its services. That doesn't work so well with Twitter - you can't get away with having 10 failed social networks before you have one that succeeds.

[Alberon]

I was thinking more of the high accident rate among employees. The whole 'chuck it in the air and see what doesn't explode' ethos actually seems to work.

But yeah, what works so well with private rockets doesn't work at all with a public social network. And it makes me think twice before I'd sit in a Tesla.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

As for Twitter I think Musk thinks it's far more used than it actually is.

That has always been a major issue with Twitter. The press has been guilty of reporting Twitter trends as a thing even if they are representative, regarding engagement rates, of something like 1% of the actual user base and are generated by small groups, often seeking attention.

Musk is buying into the same views, even if the death of Twitter would barely cause a ripple into the existence of most people. Especially as a close replacement like Threads, Truth Social or Bluesky would simply need a few months to power up and provide a nearly identical experience for most of the non Nazi supporters.

[Sebastian Cobb]

lol

[phantom_power]

Lots of sources talk about how ad revenue is the vast bulk of Twitter's income, e.g. - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120114/how-does-twitter-twtr-make-money.asp

That and other sources talk about how their overall revenue went down in 2022, and even more in 2023 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344362/twitter-net-ad-revenue-growth-worldwide/

If their revenue really is largely from ads and overall revenue really has declined by that much, then ads are likely to be in some way responsible.

I haven't seen any sources that link specific advertisers to specific amounts of that decline, and whether or not it "hurts" them is a tricky one since it's owned by Elon and he has deep pockets.

It also depends if he can get other advertisers in to replace the ones that leave, like Mike's Pillows or some other right wing loons who most companies would swerve but Musk is fine with

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

One of the limitations in revenue for Twitter was that the weren't able to sign small and local advertisers the way Facebook does. I doubt that Musk started a program to address this, so the pool he can tap in to get replacements is pretty shallow.

[touchingcloth]

One of the limitations in revenue for Twitter was that the weren't able to sign small and local advertisers the way Facebook does. I doubt that Musk started a program to address this, so the pool he can tap in to get replacements is pretty shallow.

It's a much smaller userbase as well, and so things are in a self-perpetuating cycle where advertisers will give their business to Google first, Facebook second, and Twitter or anyone else very, very rarely:



You almost feel sorry for Twitter, when you know that the pair of cunts on the top are running what would be an illegal monopoly in any other industry.

[waste of chops]

lol

Yes Linda they should definitely upload their trailer to a platform where the owner openly says their game sucks. It's a real mystery why they don't.

[touchingcloth]

Yes Linda they should definitely upload their trailer to a platform where the owner openly says their game sucks. It's a real mystery why they don't.

Are the 37M views even correct?

[idunnosomename]

Linda and the X board's job is basically to show Elon a large number so he goes "wow"

[Sonny_Jim]

Ziiiiiiiiing  Take that! Stephen King

[Alberon]

I take that to mean 37m times the post was shown to X users vs 6.7m times the video was actively viewed on youtube.

[Sonny_Jim]

I dunno, 65 million views in 14hours is ok, I guess.  Would have been more if they put it on X, obviously.

[Huxleys Babkins]

The fact that those 36m views on Twitter only generated, at best, 6.7m clicks through to YouTube, but probably far less than that, really should give her pause before bragging about the amazing reach of Twitter.

[Blue Jam]

Ziiiiiiiiing  Take that! Stephen King

Urghhh. Nothing more shameful than an incorrectly-used or badly-timed "That's what she said".

[Huxleys Babkins]

It's like Muscle Man in Regular Show fucking up the "your mom" punchline, but it's a real person with billions of pounds in the bank and not some green cartoon park keeper for children.

[Indomitable Spirit]

Are the 37M views even correct?

Probably correct, but basically juiced into meaningless-ness

A video view is when your video is watched in 50% view for 2 seconds or more.

https://business.twitter.com/en/help/campaign-setup/create-a-video-views-campaign.html

[touchingcloth]

Probably correct, but basically juiced into meaningless-ness

https://business.twitter.com/en/help/campaign-setup/create-a-video-views-campaign.html

And I suspect the 37M figure is actually even more juiced than that - the number of people who saw the post with an embedded (or linked, I can't tell from the screenshot) YouTube video, regardless of whether they viewed or even clicked away to it.

[jobotic]

Ziiiiiiiiing  Take that! Stephen King

That's amazing. What a prick.

[Indomitable Spirit]

And I suspect the 37M figure is actually even more juiced than that - the number of people who saw the post with an embedded (or linked, I can't tell from the screenshot) YouTube video, regardless of whether they viewed or even clicked away to it.

Yeah, and to clarify the "50% view" means literally only 50% of the area of the video needs to be viewable for two seconds to be counted, so I imagine a lot of "views" are generated by idle scrolling trending topics and shite like that

[touchingcloth]

Yeah, and to clarify the "50% view" means literally only 50% of the area of the video needs to be viewable for two seconds to be counted, so I imagine a lot of "views" are generated by idle scrolling trending topics and shite like that

That's worse than what even Facebook's pivot to video advice was based on, from what I remember.

[Dayraven]

Has anyone read or heard anything about whether the latest ad boycott (or rather suspensions) of Twitter is actually really hurting it?

Fair to be dubious about the real effect, but one of the differences is Musk saying it could kill Twitter, which is more direct than before.

[Paul Calf]

it's owned by Elon and he has deep pockets.

The Twitter purchase was heavily leveraged by the Saudi royal family and the Chinese government. His pockets aren't as deep as he looks - most of his wealth is in Tesla stocks, which are already massively overvalued. If he dumps more of them to keep Twitter afloat, investors are goign to start twitching.

If Tesla shares crash (or even reach their true market value) Musk does an Elizabeth Holmes swan dive, although he probably won't go to prison despite having behaved in many ways much worse than her or Sunny Balwani.

He's also too heavily propped up by government subsidy to be allowed to fail completely.

[buttgammon]

Ziiiiiiiiing  Take that! Stephen King

Said with all the comic timing of a broken clock; a clock which has an uncommonly dour design.

[touchingcloth]

The Twitter purchase was heavily leveraged by the Saudi royal family and the Chinese government. His pockets aren't as deep as he looks - most of his wealth is in Tesla stocks, which are already massively overvalued. If he dumps more of them to keep Twitter afloat, investors are goign to start twitching.

If Tesla shares crash (or even reach their true market value) Musk does an Elizabeth Holmes swan dive, although he probably won't go to prison despite having behaved in many ways much worse than her or Sunny Balwani.

He's also too heavily propped up by government subsidy to be allowed to fail completely.

Too big to fail, and I don't just mean his weird pigeon gunt.

He's in the "fortunate" position that Twitter can probably make very little revenue and still not disappear. Staff costs are at a minimum now thanks to him gutting the workforce, though I'm not sure how much ad revenue will go towards covering that particular bill. He has already refused to pay rent on his Twitter office spaces for weeks at a time without getting evicted because of it, so it's not too much of a stretch to see him doing the same with his server space.

I'm sure the bank, GoDaddy and utility companies would be just as amenable to me if I stopped making my mortgage and web hosting bills, and the others, too. We choose to not pay our bills. We choose to not pay our bills...we choose to not pay our bills in this decade and not do the other things, not because they aren't easy but because they are lols.

[dissolute ocelot]

It's a much smaller userbase as well, and so things are in a self-perpetuating cycle where advertisers will give their business to Google first, Facebook second, and Twitter or anyone else very, very rarely:



You almost feel sorry for Twitter, when you know that the pair of cunts on the top are running what would be an illegal monopoly in any other industry.

The other factor is that Google and Facebook know much more about you than Twitter, so they can serve you customised localised adverts, and ads based on all your online browsing and shopping. In contrast Twitter famously knows very little about its users (beyond they things they tweet abuse about). If only Google or some other ad company had bought Twitter, they could have integrated it into their tracking and advertising systems and it would be unstoppable (just as Facebook can synergise across all the platforms it owns and serve Instagram ads based on what you just watched on Facebook). Hurray for monopolies!

[Ferris]

Yeah, and to clarify the "50% view" means literally only 50% of the area of the video needs to be viewable for two seconds to be counted, so I imagine a lot of "views" are generated by idle scrolling trending topics and shite like that

I'd guess it takes 2 seconds for someone's brain to parse what is being presented to them and scroll away, uninterested, especially if it starts playing when you only have 50% of the video player on the bottom of your screen, and you keep scrolling past it until less than 50% of the video player is hidden at the top of your screen.

It is meaningless - surely advertisers don't fall for this shit.

[touchingcloth]

The other factor is that Google and Facebook know much more about you than Twitter, so they can serve you customised localised adverts, and ads based on all your online browsing and shopping. In contrast Twitter famously knows very little about its users (beyond they things they tweet abuse about). If only Google or some other ad company had bought Twitter, they could have integrated it into their tracking and advertising systems and it would be unstoppable (just as Facebook can synergise across all the platforms it owns and serve Instagram ads based on what you just watched on Facebook). Hurray for monopolies!

They provide a Twitter Pixel X Pixel PiXel which works similarly to Meta's Pixels and Googles Tags, and for even longer than that they've provided embed codes with a "share this to Twitter" icon, and those things will be seen by far more people than ever visit Twitter itself. I'd be surprised if they weren't using this data in some form, especially because one of the reasons Facebook knows so much about us all is via the share/like icons that have been on a lot of websites for a long time already.

[Kankurette]

He's having a normal one about childfree people because someone else's kids will have to look after us when we're old. Thinks we're immoral.

[Blumf]

The ol' your kids will be your indentured servants in your old age plan.