Official Twitter Thread (2 Viewers)

[urbanhack]

Just straight destroying $500MM a quarter is hard to get your head around. And that doesn't include the underlying decline in value.

He's worth $236.5 Billion, he doesn't care.

Yea man billionaires famously love throwing away billions of dollars.

There's 700 something billionaires in the US - he's one of the most well known and most odd compared with his peers. Trying to make predictions on what he may or may not do is literally just guessing.

I’m not predicting what he’ll do I have no idea at all. I do know he doesn’t like losing that kind of money though.

If it means he's controlling a major piece of media and now has influence in our elections...I don't think he minds at all. I'm of the opinion that the twitter purchase was not business or financially related.

 

[massraider]

Then he wouldn't have tried to weasel out of the sale.

 

[Mitchie]

Just straight destroying $500MM a quarter is hard to get your head around. And that doesn't include the underlying decline in value.

He's worth $236.5 Billion, he doesn't care.

Yea man billionaires famously love throwing away billions of dollars.

There's 700 something billionaires in the US - he's one of the most well known and most odd compared with his peers. Trying to make predictions on what he may or may not do is literally just guessing.

I’m not predicting what he’ll do I have no idea at all. I do know he doesn’t like losing that kind of money though.

If it means he's controlling a major piece of media and now has influence in our elections...I don't think he minds at all. I'm of the opinion that the twitter purchase was not business or financially related.

True, but it is financially related in that his finances will be influenced by the election. So he's hoping the losses on Twitter will be compensated by that.

 

[thecatch]

I think his brain is so rotten from all the drugs that he hasn't made a clear and conscious decision in years. He's not just dabbling in weed; this guy is full on Fear and Loathing. Keep him out of hot tubs.

He's a ketamine casualty.

Could be, but he also seems like he's suffering the effects of being terminally online (specifically, on Twitter) that seems to impact almost everyone who over-indulges on social media.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

November 5th on that platform is going to be off-the-charts crazy in every direction.

 

[Capella]

Just straight destroying $500MM a quarter is hard to get your head around. And that doesn't include the underlying decline in value.

He's worth $236.5 Billion, he doesn't care.

Yea man billionaires famously love throwing away billions of dollars.

There's 700 something billionaires in the US - he's one of the most well known and most odd compared with his peers. Trying to make predictions on what he may or may not do is literally just guessing.

I’m not predicting what he’ll do I have no idea at all. I do know he doesn’t like losing that kind of money though.

If it means he's controlling a major piece of media and now has influence in our elections...I don't think he minds at all. I'm of the opinion that the twitter purchase was not business or financially related.

Idk how much election influence he has. I guess there could be people out there easily influenced one way or the other but I don’t think many are flocking to Elon Musk or Twitter for how to vote

 

[Yo Mama]

If he didn’t care about the money, why is he talking about suing the advertisers who drove the reduction of said money?

 

[Yo Mama]

Just straight destroying $500MM a quarter is hard to get your head around. And that doesn't include the underlying decline in value.

He's worth $236.5 Billion, he doesn't care.

Yea man billionaires famously love throwing away billions of dollars.

There's 700 something billionaires in the US - he's one of the most well known and most odd compared with his peers. Trying to make predictions on what he may or may not do is literally just guessing.

I’m not predicting what he’ll do I have no idea at all. I do know he doesn’t like losing that kind of money though.

If it means he's controlling a major piece of media and now has influence in our elections...I don't think he minds at all. I'm of the opinion that the twitter purchase was not business or financially related.

Idk how much election influence he has. I guess there could be people out there easily influenced one way or the other but I don’t think many are flocking to Elon Musk or Twitter for how to vote

I think the influence will be greater on the trust of the election results rather than on the voting itself.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

November 5th on that platform is going to be off-the-charts crazy in every direction.

It isn’t already?

 

[the moops]

I think his brain is so rotten from all the drugs that he hasn't made a clear and conscious decision in years. He's not just dabbling in weed; this guy is full on Fear and Loathing. Keep him out of hot tubs.

He's a ketamine casualty.

Could be, but he also seems like he's suffering the effects of being terminally online (specifically, on Twitter) that seems to impact almost everyone who over-indulges on social media.

This. He goes on weird rants at all hours of the day and falls for clearly false memes and tweets. If my grandfather was alive today and capable of tweeting, he would be Elon

 

[massraider]

I think the influence will be greater on the trust of the election results rather than on the voting itself.

The biggest influence will be as a source of clickbait/stories for outside content farms. Which is what it has been for a while now.

People who are actively using Twitter? Trying to reach people--to get them to LEAVE Twitter, and head over to their site/blog/substance/podcast.

 

[shuke]

Only a 114m in revenue a quarter for a social platform that large is insane.

Not even sure how this is possible.

 

[the moops]

I know the guy is super smart, but what he chooses to reply to, and how he replies makes me question just how super smart he really is.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I know the guy is super smart, but what he chooses to reply to, and how he replies makes me question just how super smart he really is.

Purely anecdotally, it seems common for highly skilled, brilliant science and tech people to come off as socially inept and seem totally lost in normal human settings. Before he started pressing his personal brand on society, Musk may have been a common pick for "guy I'd like to have a beer with." Now, interacting with him on a social level seems like a brutally painful proposition.

 

[massraider]

Only a 114m in revenue a quarter for a social platform that large is insane.

Not even sure how this is possible.

Scott Galloway response on his podcast was worth listening to:

Starting at about 16 minutes

Disclaimer: Scott Galloway is definitely not HARDCORE for Musk, and probably hasn't put down a deposit on the Musk Mars colony. He's not a fan.

 

[massraider]

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis​

The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.

The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon.

The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.

The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory.

According to data from PitchBook LCD, the Twitter loans have been hung longer than every similar unsold deal since the 2008-09 financial crisis for which the research firm has complete records.

[...] Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago who has tracked such deals since the 1980s, said Twitter isn’t only the biggest hung deal by dollar amount since the 2008 financial crisis but one of the biggest of all time.



[...] But nearly two years after Musk’s acquisition, X’s business is still struggling to climb out of the deep hole it fell into under his ownership—the company last year said its value had fallen by more than half, to around $19 billion.

[...] With the two-year mark on the Twitter loans rapidly approaching, the banks haven’t made moves to sell them, even after some banks have marked the value of the loans down by hundreds of millions of dollars.

[...] Because of Twitter and other hung deals, some of the banks also scaled back how much they lent in providing capital for merger-finance deals, according to some of the people.

The banks early this year discussed a possible plan to restructure the deal where Musk could pay down some of X’s outstanding debt and the banks would agree to lower interest payments, people familiar with the matter said. X didn’t follow through on the plan, they said.

But in the interim, some of Musk’s public comments and tweets have made a sale of the debt more difficult for them given the resulting pressures on the business.

At MUFG, Musk’s rant against advertisers in the fall prompted anxiety among senior U.S. executives at the bank, according to people familiar with their thinking.

Not long after Musk’s comments, they downgraded the bank’s internal credit rating of the loan—a sign that they don’t think it will be easy to get their money back—and kicked the debt into its special situations and workouts group, which typically handles the debts of bankrupt and financially distressed companies.

 

[Mitchie]

He'll probably wait until after the election and then junk it.

 

[bigbottom]

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis​

The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.

The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon.

The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.

The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory.

According to data from PitchBook LCD, the Twitter loans have been hung longer than every similar unsold deal since the 2008-09 financial crisis for which the research firm has complete records.

[...] Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago who has tracked such deals since the 1980s, said Twitter isn’t only the biggest hung deal by dollar amount since the 2008 financial crisis but one of the biggest of all time.



[...] But nearly two years after Musk’s acquisition, X’s business is still struggling to climb out of the deep hole it fell into under his ownership—the company last year said its value had fallen by more than half, to around $19 billion.

[...] With the two-year mark on the Twitter loans rapidly approaching, the banks haven’t made moves to sell them, even after some banks have marked the value of the loans down by hundreds of millions of dollars.

[...] Because of Twitter and other hung deals, some of the banks also scaled back how much they lent in providing capital for merger-finance deals, according to some of the people.

The banks early this year discussed a possible plan to restructure the deal where Musk could pay down some of X’s outstanding debt and the banks would agree to lower interest payments, people familiar with the matter said. X didn’t follow through on the plan, they said.

But in the interim, some of Musk’s public comments and tweets have made a sale of the debt more difficult for them given the resulting pressures on the business.

At MUFG, Musk’s rant against advertisers in the fall prompted anxiety among senior U.S. executives at the bank, according to people familiar with their thinking.

Not long after Musk’s comments, they downgraded the bank’s internal credit rating of the loan—a sign that they don’t think it will be easy to get their money back—and kicked the debt into its special situations and workouts group, which typically handles the debts of bankrupt and financially distressed companies.

Wait, the banks lent this money without requiring a personal guaranty or securing the loan against other assets of Musk? If that’s the case, that is on the banks.

 

[massraider]

Wait, the banks lent this money with requiring a personal guaranty or securing the loan against other assets of Musk? If that’s the case, that is on the banks.

Far as I can recall, Musk put up Tesla stock for a certain amount of the price (Maybe 12 billion or so? Don't quote me).

The rest he borrowed, and Twitter is the collateral. Essentially a leveraged buyout. Borrow money, and place the debt on the company's books. Very common.

Agreed that it is on the banks. Their analysts should have been able to spend an hour looking at the numbers, and deciding this was a bad risk. They probably figured they could sell the debt right away, which they tried to do.

They probably didn't think the company would go from 600 mill in a quarter to 114 mill in a quarter.

 

[Gr00vus]

1. Trick banks into loaning you billions to buy Twitter using Twitter stock as collateral.
2. Rebrand Twitter to "X"
3. Run platform into the ground
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!

Kudos to Musk for adding a couple of steps to this recipe.

 

[Snoopy]

One week prior to the NFL game there Brazil instituted a total ban of X there.

 

[BlackCrowes]

I can’t remember hearing anyone call it X. Well done.

 

[djmich]

I know the guy is super smart, but what he chooses to reply to, and how he replies makes me question just how super smart he really is.

Purely anecdotally, it seems common for highly skilled, brilliant science and tech people to come off as socially inept and seem totally lost in normal human settings. Before he started pressing his personal brand on society, Musk may have been a common pick for "guy I'd like to have a beer with." Now, interacting with him on a social level seems like a brutally painful proposition.

I guess more beers for me and Elon then

 

[Ilov80s]

I’m very tempted to deactivate my account but the fantasy football and movie info/discourse on there is still decent.

 

[Capella]

One week prior to the NFL game there Brazil instituted a total ban of X there.

masterful gambit, sir

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Happy to live in the only country that has both football and the first amendment.

 

[rockaction]

The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.

Oh no. No mergers? Gosh dang it. Elroy, the banks have less money for mergers! Come quick!

 

[Bozeman Bruiser]

And to all those who thought Twitter would die ...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Turns out that Twitter and Rogan were worth more than CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Clearly, Musk and his support for Trump had a large impact in this election. That's obvious.

But please let's keep politics out of this as much as possible. We left this thread open while people regularly criticized him. People can be allowed to say positive things about him and the platform. But keep the politics out of it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

 

[belljr]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

The biggest difference to me is many people will consume everything and anything but they want it "now".

It doesn't matter at the time if its true or not but they want it now. And by the time things shake out it has already been ingrained on the socials that it just sticks - whether it was fabricated or true. And I agree that is how online works these days.

I for one don't spend my time online except here so I don't know truly how twitter has actually changed but thats how it "feels" to me. People can find "their" feelings completely backed up quickly and easily get confirmation bias and run with it.

ETA: Obviously, some people can process through the noise and cultivate Twitter to their own liking but I don't think the majority does that

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I think that's exactly right for media.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I know the guy is super smart, but what he chooses to reply to, and how he replies makes me question just how super smart he really is.

A lot of geniuses are socially awkward/odd/eccentric.

 

[Peggy]

Musk is a true American Hero.

And the whole SpaceX colonization of Mars thing might just save the human race someday, who knows.

 

[Juxtatarot]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I guess I’d lump 2024 into the distrust of main stream media/reliance on social media factors that has been prevalent since 2016.

 

[Max Power]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I guess I’d lump 2024 into the distrust of main stream media/reliance on social media factors that has been prevalent since 2016.

MSM earned their level of trust.

I do like that X has "Community Notes" where the staff can add additional context to tweets.

 

[titusbramble]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I guess I’d lump 2024 into the distrust of main stream media/reliance on social media factors that has been prevalent since 2016.

MSM earned their level of trust.

I do like that X has "Community Notes" where the staff can add additional context to tweets.

Community Notes is not done by "staff"

 

[Max Power]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I guess I’d lump 2024 into the distrust of main stream media/reliance on social media factors that has been prevalent since 2016.

MSM earned their level of trust.

I do like that X has "Community Notes" where the staff can add additional context to tweets.

Community Notes is not done by "staff"

How do they do it? I thought it had to be added by approved users.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I posted this as its own closed thread. But thank you folks for helping us keep the forums free from politics today.

I know lots of people are encouraged and lots are discouraged. I have people very close to me that cover that spectrum. I think I get it.

I know emotions are high, and thank y'all for helping us keep it politics-free. Thank y'all.

 

[HellToupee]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I guess I’d lump 2024 into the distrust of main stream media/reliance on social media factors that has been prevalent since 2016.

MSM earned their level of trust.

I do like that X has "Community Notes" where the staff can add additional context to tweets.

Community Notes is not done by "staff"

How do they do it? I thought it had to be added by approved users.

I’m a part of community notes. I can write a note on any tweet and then it gets voted on by the CN group. I’d say 90% of the notes are useless and are rated not helpful. Every tweet Musk makes ahas a proposed CN, he could post “the sun is shining “ and I will be noted. It’s kind of broken by some with an agenda

 

[tymarsas]

It's a different media landscape today. In 1992, it was a big deal that Clinton played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. In 2024, one candidate did Rogan and the other didn't. Not that either of those things decided a race all by themselves, but it's a sign of how people consume news differently.

Going a little further, I think we can safely identify a few really important elections from a "how does the media work?" perspective:
1960 -- Nixon/Kennedy debate. Campaigns are all about television now.
1992 -- Arsenio Hall. Campaigns invest a lot of time and energy on "soft" media now (late night shows, SNL, etc.)
2024 -- X/Rogan. It feels like this was the first truly "online" campaign for an assortment of reasons, most of which will not be helpful to get into here.

(Edit: I don't honestly know if this sort of observation is over the line or not -- just stating something that I see as factual without getting into whether it's good or bad.)

I guess I’d lump 2024 into the distrust of main stream media/reliance on social media factors that has been prevalent since 2016.

MSM earned their level of trust.

I do like that X has "Community Notes" where the staff can add additional context to tweets.

Community Notes is not done by "staff"

How do they do it? I thought it had to be added by approved users.

I’m a part of community notes. I can write a note on any tweet and then it gets voted on by the CN group. I’d say 90% of the notes are useless and are rated not helpful. Every tweet Musk makes ahas a proposed CN, he could post “the sun is shining “ and I will be noted. It’s kind of broken by some with an agenda

Community notes works exactly as intended. There are a lot of useless proposed notes (generally with an agenda), but the stuff that does get approved is generally accurate and helpful.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Musk is a true American Hero.

And the whole SpaceX colonization of Mars thing might just save the human race someday, who knows.

 

[bigbottom]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

 

[the moops]

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position,

You did not misunderstand

 

[Dickies]

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.

- Martin Luther King, Jr

 

[Joe Schmo]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

Think of Musk as today's William Randolph Hearst with similar style and motivation.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

The "For You" section of Twitter should be avoided - I have similar experiences with mostly hardcore conservatives and other "nasty" stuff showing up when I did click on it.

 

[Dickies]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

I don't really notice any difference in mine, but I'm by no means a Twitter/X power user.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

I've had a similar experience. About 6 months ago I went through my account and unfollowed all politically-inclined accounts. Most of these were people I'd followed for unrelated reasons like sports, law, entertainment, but who had veered into regular political discourse in their twitter feed. My "For You" is similar - maybe not 90% but strongly on one side. I've been fed tweets from Alex Jones (who I didn't know was even a thing still), and of course regular tweets from ole DJT himself. My primary account with my regulars is still pretty clean though and I still appreciate the service for the reasons I always have.