[Hayek]

The fact is that most people who “change the world” are those who are single minded, focussed, but very often lacking in empathy or human values. For those who think Tesla is saving the world - face the facts - you have bought Musk’s KoolAid. Musk was smart enough to identify a large segment of left wing, rich Americans (and others including Chinese), who want to have a car that is fast, and makes them claim that their luxury consumption is saving the world. He built Tesla for them - starting with the Roadster, and the Model S. Space X is once again a boondoggle - realising that the highly inefficient US government contracting system for launches was ripe for disruption. And in buying Twitter, he clearly sees the same opportunity - a site plenty of folks are addicted to - but which is hugely undervalued relative to peers. Unfortunately, he got his timing wrong here - and ended paying USD 44 bn for something he could have got for half that price a few months later. But can he disrupt Meta and get Twitter to a value equivalent to where Meta is? That is the question, and you would be foolish to bet against him on that.

All he wanted from Twitter was the users - he will now find a way to grow and monetise them.

[Turbanator]

He is giving three months of severance.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588671155766194176

I can't imagine what he would have done to Air India had he bought it instead of Tata's

[volkman10]

‘Nothing Has Worked’: Musk Laments loss of Twitter advertisers and acknowledges trying to back out of deal.

On the same day Twitter started laying off thousands of workers, Elon Musk doubled down at an annual investment conference in Manhattan on the challenges he faces in trying to bolster profits for the ailing social media firm he purchased for $44 billion, including a potential advertiser exodus over the proliferation of hate speech on the platform.

Regarding the loss of advertisers—including General Mills and Volvo—since he took over, Musk claimed the company has done its “absolute best to appease them,” before lamenting: “Nothing has worked.”

Musk blamed “activist groups” for the pushback he’s received from advertisers, after a group of more than 40 organizations on Tuesday sent a letter urging Twitter’s top 20 advertisers to “cease all advertising” on the platform if Musk rolls back on moderation practices—saying the groups prompted a “massive drop in revenue.”

General Motors also announced that it is pausing its paid Twitter advertisements while it evaluates the platform's direction under the new management. The company's interaction with its customers on Twitter will continue, though.

Ford, on the other hand, confirmed that it has stopped advertising on Twitter even before Musk's takeover. Fisker, on the other hand, made a harsher move, with the owner and CEO deleting his Twitter account as soon as the news about Musk and Twitter first broke in April of this year. Citroën aired its reaction to the Musk-Twitter fiasco through a one-liner tweet.

$210.3 billion. That’s how much Musk, the world’s richest person, is worth on Friday (04/11)

Link

[vishnurp99]

Musk's bread & butter is still Tesla. Now I think it is only natural for competitor auto companies to discourage his takeover of one of their advertising platforms : Twitter.

This is essentially the same reason why large retailers like Walmart would not spend too much on Amazon's DSP and ad properties if they have a choice.

It's just business and I don't think there is any unadulterated save free speech activism here. Musk will be able to find other advertisers but NeoTwitter's early supporters won't be from the auto industry.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

Musk will be able to find other advertisers but NeoTwitter's early supporters won't be from the auto industry.

And definitely subscribers too.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...tisers-3492209

In the last 2 -3 years, the only time I have used Twitter is to engage with businesses or authorities over some matter. Most of the time, the results were instant and addressed my questions/ complaints.

Many businesses will like to get that Blue Tag besides the persons who have large followers, and even if someone like or hates it, creating such a big subscriber base is no joke. People going to go off from Twitter will feel alone, people who are hungry to express themselves or live on this.

[V.Narayan]

CEO Patrick Collison's email to Stripe employees on November 3, 2022

Stripe CEO Patrick Collison sent the following note to Stripe employees

https://stripe.com/en-in/newsroom/ne...ripe-employees

This is how mature CEOs running organizations with responsibility for all stakeholders address lay-offs. Any apparent hint at Elon Musk is only co-incidental

Musk's dramatic over-exaggerated style has nothing to do with corporate economics or efficiency and everything to do with posturing and an over inflated sense of himself. Unfortunately we measure the worth of a person in $ which creates the illusion of more $ = better person. Just because a very intelligent person is top dog in some areas {electric cars, software, engineering} does not make him a genius in others {geo-politics, media, fundamental rights, the way views are shaped}.

One challenge success creates is the seed in our minds that we are unconquerable and with that sets in the decline. The graveyards are full of indispensable men. I believe Musk has bitten off more than he can chew and will not see his $44bn come back. He may not care either.

If you had $210 billion {that's Rupees 16 lakhs and 80 thousand crores} what is the best use of the money - buying Twitter? really??? In a world with far bigger problems of hunger, child health care, primary education, research on climate change, disease, etc etc at the cost of sounding moralistic this is a very poor use of wealth. I don't subscribe to the American version that if you earned it it is yours to do what you wish. Those who earn a lot of money {or inherit it} are trustees for other fellow humans to use that money wisely for the greater good. Just my views. Many will disagree.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

If you had $210 billion {that's Rupees 16 lakhs and 80 thousand crores} what is the best use of the money - buying Twitter? really???

Move to Mars? Oh wait...

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Hayek

The fact is that most people who “change the world” are those who are single minded, focussed, but very often lacking in empathy or human values.

If the "change in world" is for the better, is it not a contradiction to say that it is lacking empathy or human values?

Originally Posted by Hayek

For those who think Tesla is saving the world - face the facts - you have bought Musk’s KoolAid. Musk was smart enough to identify a large segment of left wing, rich Americans (and others including Chinese), who want to have a car that is fast, and makes them claim that their luxury consumption is saving the world.

I think it is disingenuous to say one single company can save the world. I dont think anyone is saying that including Tesla themselves but its irrefutable that Tesla singlehandedly has accelerated the transition towards sustainable energy. They are fundamentally rethinking what a car is and how to manufacture it at scale with industry leading margins and best in class performance, safety and technology.

In the developed world including China, the price of Tesla is not much more than the average selling price of an ICE car. It is barely any costlier but its offset by excellent resale, no servicing costs and very low running costs. Unlike other luxury manufacturers which sell you options packs, even the cheapest Model 3 comes with all the features of the top end Model 3.

In Australia for e.g. the new C class with 2.0 litre petrol engine is more expensive than the top end Model 3 Performance. Even throwing the propulsion method out of the window, I cant find a SUV which is as fast and as practical as Model Y Performance and I havent even come to running costs, servicing costs, technology and resale value.

Driving a Tesla may not be saving the world but it is certainly helping. I feel better driving my hybrid Lexus RX450h over my RX350 which I sold primarily because I have started to care about my carbon footprint.

Originally Posted by Hayek

He built Tesla for them - starting with the Roadster, and the Model S.

Untrue. They started with low volume high margin vehicles while they scaled production. Other EV start ups are doing the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by Hayek

Space X is once again a boondoggle - realising that the highly inefficient US government contracting system for launches was ripe for disruption.

And yet none of the incumbents saw it and made an effort or if they did it wasnt/isnt good enough - Blue Origin and Boeing come to mind. Boondoggle and Disrupter seems like an oxymoron.

https://qz.com/emails/space-business...ent-than-nasa/

https://theconversation.com/how-spac...o-space-112586

Originally Posted by Hayek

And in buying Twitter, he clearly sees the same opportunity - a site plenty of folks are addicted to - but which is hugely undervalued relative to peers.

Twitter is the 16th most used social network on internet, even lower than Pinterest and not even in the same league as youtube and facebook's of the world. The advertising is also different in that its more discretionary than targeted as it is on other platforms so further disadvantaged and it hasnt made any real profit in all these years. Not sure how it is undervalued.

[EV NXT]

Musk sacks half of Twitter staff:


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/t...yoffs.amp.html

[thehighwayman]

I strongly believe that all individuals should be subjected to mental evaluation before they are allowed to take over any business . Musk honestly doesn't inspire much confidence with his lack of maturity on display far too often. A person can be a genius but if he is going to be unhinged, then its more of a detriment than benefit.

[nareshov]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

They are fundamentally rethinking what a car is and how to manufacture it at scale with industry leading margins and best in class performance, safety and technology.

We seem to forget how the state of technology and safety was a few years ago:

https://nitter.net/atomicthumbs/stat...39618780344321

If the safety was about the excellent body rollover tests: EVs in general fare well because of where the bulky battery weight is located.

In NL there are a few Tesla model X that ply from the airport and a casual conversation with the driver speaks volumes to its alleged quality compared to the usual fleet vehicles.

About the freedom of speech arguments:
Remember Parler?
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/24/...ling-them-why/
Even right wing anti-vaxxers are shown the door there while one would think they would be welcome on a platform selling “free speech”.

“Free speech” on Twitter also seemed to have carried with it a duty against misinformation: https://psyarxiv.com/ay9q5

Remember the “drink bleach to cure Covid” episode?

Latest as of edit:

As expected, some of his biggest fans are getting mad at him: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/03/...ng-mad-at-him/

[binand]

Originally Posted by Poitive

A Blue Tick with payment could be a means to have identified and verified users at a large scale (while also getting some revenue).

* Such scale of Blue Tick users would also help tweak which content gets seen more.

Per some reports I've seen, Twitter has 400M accounts of which 400K currently have the blue tick. The requirements for blue tick, among other things, include what they call Notability. My guess is that this is where most rejected applications for blue tick trip - I'm sure they all can easily manage the other requirements (ID proof, profile & activity checks etc.).

So if Musk wants to take that 400K into the several millions all paying $8/month each, then in my opinion, he will have to dilute the Notability requirement. This would result in a lot of random accounts achieving the blue tick and consequently lowering of quality of the content coming from the blue tick accounts.

So if as you suggest he tweaks the algorithm to ensure blue ticks get even more visibility than now then the overall content quality would go down the drain, again in my opinion.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by binand

This would result in a lot of random accounts achieving the blue tick and consequently lowering of quality of the content coming from the blue tick accounts.

On the contrary, this might be an excellent business opportunity. To give you an example, our business is not on Twitter, if we have to get a handle that shows our business as "verified" we will surely like to subscribe.

A lot of businesses want to keep their presence only via chats and not on phone calls, Twitter can become a very good tool to engage with customers. Just DM someone after finding them on Twitter. No need to update those Facebook or Insta pages

You also can include the people like me who do not have or want to have any relations with Facebook & Co. ( if Twitter comes with a WA-type messenger in future, I will remove that too!) If Twitter- messenger can work without showing a phone number, it will be even better!

[binand]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

On the contrary, this might be an excellent business opportunity. To give you an example, our business is not on Twitter, if we have to get a handle that shows our business as "verified" we will surely like to subscribe.

I think you are only highlighting a different aspect of the $8/month move, not refuting what I said. Obviously there are going to be several variables each of which needs to be carefully evaluated before introducing this feature.

I don't want to make this about your company, so let us say a company that does not quality under the current Notability requirements is given a blue tick account after making a payment. What sort of content will it produce? Surely for the most part, self-congratulatory stuff, press releases and the like? It will be handled by an entry level social media marketing executive? I'm already tired of seeing this sort of thing in my LinkedIn feed. :-)

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

The world is indeed better place because of it - there is starlink which is democratising high speed internet access across the world, there is Tesla which is leading the charge towards sustainable energy and has already done more for the environment than perhaps any single company on the planet (and he open sourced most Tesla patents) and SpaceX which is democratising space and much more.

But that's exactly what they are not! Musk shut off Starlink for Ukraine in the middle of the war after they refused to toe his brokering peace line with Russia. It's anything but democratising a feature or a product, if someone can shut off the feature at will simply because you go against their political or ideological beliefs.

It's like saying Nestlé democratised baby milk or bottled water in Africa by making it easily accessible for free initially. And then ignoring that they directly caused thousands of deaths in Africa because mothers couldn't continue to buy their expensive formula or bottled water after their own milk had dried up. Ergo kids drank powdered milk in dirty water and died.

And that is the SINGLE biggest reason why an entrepreneur, specifically Elon Musk, should not have oversized power on worldwide communications via a platform like Twitter. With a publicly traded company there is at least a veneer of responsibility towards shareholders but when it's private there's none. He can burn it all to the ground if he wants. We've seen it time and time again with his companies, his personal life, and his political beliefs. It's his way or the highway.

Companies like Twitter and Meta need more regulation not less, because social media is now ubiquitous and is practically an "utility". And just like other utilities electricity, broadband, water, gas or heating they also need governance and regulation.