Twitter thread: Elon rebrands Twitter [joke redacted] (1 Viewer)

[Gr00vus]

"I'll wager I could run something even as successful as Twitter into the ground."

"That's impossible, it's so firmly entrenched in people's lives, it's virtually indestructible."

"The usual amount?"

"Why not."

 

[massraider]

Should this same resource also be the place where any person anywhere can say that nastiest stuff they can think of? Does it NEED to be that place?

This seems to be the very difficult question. It doesn't personally bother me because I'm numb to people being horrible and stupid on the internet, so I prefer things staying more open and unmoderated. Some of the stuff I learned from the Twitter Files was offensive and shocking. That's not to say Musk isn't doing the same things, or doing anything any better. I was fine with Twitter the way it was run before, in part out of my own ignorance, and I'm fine with the way its being run now. I guess its somewhat odd that I won't pay for it, but I think that's the case.

It's completely as useful to me now as it was then. I see little difference

 

[Chemical X]

is every thing gonna be “…posted on X, formerly known as twitter.” i’m already sick of hearing this. now this crappy hate spewing forum has 2 names?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

In the meantime, we badly need a public square that is not subject to the kind of censorship pressure imposed by (a) the previous Twitter regime

Do we? is it really necessary for everyone to reach everyone?

No. There are voices that nobody needs to hear.

 

[Sammy3469]

In the meantime, we badly need a public square that is not subject to the kind of censorship pressure imposed by (a) the previous Twitter regime

Do we? is it really necessary for everyone to reach everyone?

I don't think the way you've stated it here does justice to the value of Twitter for me. No, it is not necessary for everyone to reach everyone, and I could easily do without Twitter, but the information sharing and breaking news aspect of Twitter is unique as far as I know. The ability to follow people and get their off-the-cuff opinions on things of interest to me has value. In contrast, the commentary/discussion aspect of it has little value, just like I'm not going to read the comment section on Youtube. But I don't see myself paying a subscription fee for Twitter - even a very small one - just out of principle. Its backwards to me for a model that depends on users to make money to charge those users for access.

I use it exactly like you and I don’t see myself paying for it either. It’s become a time waster for me and maybe it’ll spur me to get off my phone more.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In the meantime, we badly need a public square that is not subject to the kind of censorship pressure imposed by (a) the previous Twitter regime

Do we? is it really necessary for everyone to reach everyone?

I don't want to reach anyone. I'm just tired of people telling me who I can read.

 

[The Commish]

Perspective needs to be regained IMO. The internet is our "public square". As far as I know, in this country, one can go to any part of that public square that they want. Twitter was merely a megaphone and/or summary created by others of that public square. It is, today, what it was 3 years ago. The summary is just different. There are literally thousands of ways to achieve the same sort of aggregation on the internet, but they require individuals to set them up themselves instead of relying on others to do it. There seems to be a mass conflation between desire and ability when people talk about source consumption. There's a very big difference between ability to read whomever/whatever one wants and the desire/effort it takes to get that input.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Perspective needs to be regained IMO. The internet is our "public square". As far as I know, in this country, one can go to any part of that public square that they want. Twitter was merely a megaphone and/or summary created by others of that public square. It is, today, what it was 3 years ago. The summary is just different. There are literally thousands of ways to achieve the same sort of aggregation on the internet, but they require individuals to set them up themselves instead of relying on others to do it. There seems to be a mass conflation between desire and ability when people talk about source consumption. There's a very big difference between ability to read whomever/whatever one wants and the desire/effort it takes to get that input.

Agreed. Also, from a purely pragmatic perspective, having information diffused throughout the internet is probably better than having it centralized. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are all inviting targets for regulators and hall-monitor types. It's a lot harder to employ censorship effectively if you're trying to police sites like, say, this one. In theory, regulators could dig down to the architecture that lies below websites, but that's a lot clumsier and (I think) therefore harder to pull off effectively.

Twitter is nice in the sense that I can be exposed to a very wide assortment of viewpoints on a whole bunch of topics in one place, that I personally get to curate to my liking. That's awesome. But if commercial realities make that unsustainable, oh well. I was happy back in the blog era too.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Perspective needs to be regained IMO. The internet is our "public square". As far as I know, in this country, one can go to any part of that public square that they want. Twitter was merely a megaphone and/or summary created by others of that public square. It is, today, what it was 3 years ago. The summary is just different. There are literally thousands of ways to achieve the same sort of aggregation on the internet, but they require individuals to set them up themselves instead of relying on others to do it. There seems to be a mass conflation between desire and ability when people talk about source consumption. There's a very big difference between ability to read whomever/whatever one wants and the desire/effort it takes to get that input.

Agreed. Also, from a purely pragmatic perspective, having information diffused throughout the internet is probably better than having it centralized. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are all inviting targets for regulators and hall-monitor types. It's a lot harder to employ censorship effectively if you're trying to police sites like, say, this one. In theory, regulators could dig down to the architecture that lies below websites, but that's a lot clumsier and (I think) therefore harder to pull off effectively.

Twitter is nice in the sense that I can be exposed to a very wide assortment of viewpoints on a whole bunch of topics in one place, that I personally get to curate to my liking. That's awesome. But if commercial realities make that unsustainable, oh well. I was happy back in the blog era too.

I think the problem (for society), is that most people AREN’T using social media to be exposed to a wide range of views. Rather, it allows people to find others with the same views, enables them to self silo from everyone else, and then the algorithms normalize and amplify those views. So the weirdo with the dangerous extremist views was previously ignored and it was made clear to them that their view did not fit in society. But now they are able to find all the other similar weirdos and start to believe that their extremist/dangerous views are actually mainstream.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Perspective needs to be regained IMO. The internet is our "public square". As far as I know, in this country, one can go to any part of that public square that they want. Twitter was merely a megaphone and/or summary created by others of that public square. It is, today, what it was 3 years ago. The summary is just different. There are literally thousands of ways to achieve the same sort of aggregation on the internet, but they require individuals to set them up themselves instead of relying on others to do it. There seems to be a mass conflation between desire and ability when people talk about source consumption. There's a very big difference between ability to read whomever/whatever one wants and the desire/effort it takes to get that input.

Agreed. Also, from a purely pragmatic perspective, having information diffused throughout the internet is probably better than having it centralized. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are all inviting targets for regulators and hall-monitor types. It's a lot harder to employ censorship effectively if you're trying to police sites like, say, this one. In theory, regulators could dig down to the architecture that lies below websites, but that's a lot clumsier and (I think) therefore harder to pull off effectively.

Twitter is nice in the sense that I can be exposed to a very wide assortment of viewpoints on a whole bunch of topics in one place, that I personally get to curate to my liking. That's awesome. But if commercial realities make that unsustainable, oh well. I was happy back in the blog era too.

I think the problem (for society), is that most people AREN’T using social media to be exposed to a wide range of views. Rather, it allows people to find others with the same views, enables them to self silo from everyone else, and then the algorithms normalize and amplify those views. So the weirdo with the dangerous extremist views was previously ignored and it was made clear to them that their view did not fit in society. But now they are able to find all the other similar weirdos and start to believe that their extremist/dangerous views are actually mainstream.

Yes, this is definitely true. Censorship is not the solution though. I get that you're not saying it is. At least with the status quo, I can choose to keep my personal bubble relatively wide and broad. Censorship institutionalizes a small bubble for everybody.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Didn’t Elon buy Twitter to promote free speech?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Didn’t Elon buy Twitter to promote free speech?

Yes. If Musk hadn't purchased Twitter, there is a very high likelihood that Missouri vs. Biden would not have happened. And Twitter definitely seems to have lightened up on moderation compared to the previous regime. Those are both very strong steps in the right direction IMO.

Edit: To clarify: the "everyone doesn't need to reach everyone" and "some voices shouldn't be heard by anyone" crowd are generally anti-Twitter and definitely anti-Musk.

 

[Da Guru]

I don`t use Twitter that often but it just seems "Same as always"

I did not care about the first owner nor do I care that Musk owns it. I find what I am looking for.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don`t use Twitter that often but it just seems "Same as always"

I did not care about the first owner nor do I care that Musk owns it. I find what I am looking for.

That's been my experience as well.

It's a valuable tool for doing what I do with Fantasy Football and my experience today is better than it was 3 years ago. But I also don't care much about Elon Musk.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Didn’t Elon buy Twitter to promote free speech?

Yes. If Musk hadn't purchased Twitter, there is a very high likelihood that Missouri vs. Biden would not have happened. And Twitter definitely seems to have lightened up on moderation compared to the previous regime. Those are both very strong steps in the right direction IMO.

Edit: To clarify: the "everyone doesn't need to reach everyone" and "some voices shouldn't be heard by anyone" crowd are generally anti-Twitter and definitely anti-Musk.

It was a "semantic" joke (since he's charging now).

 

[massraider]

It was a "semantic" joke (since he's charging now).

He's not charging yet.
He's saying he's going to do it. Like saying he's going to sue the Anti-Defamation League (apparently they said mean things, and you see, THAT'S the reason my company is only worth a fraction of what I paid for it).

Although I think this is more likely to happen, because the only person bleeding money here is him. I think he'll have to at least try it.

I don't know, tho. If he charged, would all the bots disappear? All the fake users and followers? Does everyone on Twitter really want that?

Assuming many people don't pay, and go somewhere else, user numbers drop, traffic drops, and monthly fees need to make up for advertising drop. Possible, I guess.

 

[The Commish]

Didn’t Elon buy Twitter to promote free speech?

Yes. If Musk hadn't purchased Twitter, there is a very high likelihood that Missouri vs. Biden would not have happened. And Twitter definitely seems to have lightened up on moderation compared to the previous regime. Those are both very strong steps in the right direction IMO.

Edit: To clarify: the "everyone doesn't need to reach everyone" and "some voices shouldn't be heard by anyone" crowd are generally anti-Twitter and definitely anti-Musk.

I'd go further and say anti-social media in general and anti all the people who put those wheels in motion. There's a whole lot of "anti" to go around on this topic.

 

[Sammy3469]

It was a "semantic" joke (since he's charging now).

He's not charging yet.
He's saying he's going to do it. Like saying he's going to sue the Anti-Defamation League (apparently they said mean things, and you see, THAT'S the reason my company is only worth a fraction of what I paid for it).

Although I think this is more likely to happen, because the only person bleeding money here is him. I think he'll have to at least try it.

I don't know, tho. If he charged, would all the bots disappear? All the fake users and followers? Does everyone on Twitter really want that?

Assuming many people don't pay, and go somewhere else, user numbers drop, traffic drops, and monthly fees need to make up for advertising drop. Possible, I guess.

There is a sort of weird knock-on effect of if he charges and say 50 million people pay (pick a number), that base may be a better, more attractive, advertising base to advertisers. Being able to target advertising is really attractive to companies.

Processing payments at that scale is tough though especially if they take debit cards.

 

[massraider]

There is a sort of weird knock-on effect of if he charges and say 50 million people pay (pick a number), that base may be a better, more attractive, advertising base to advertisers. Being able to target advertising is really attractive to companies.

Processing payments at that scale is tough though especially if they take debit cards.

Right, it could work. Pay to post, free to lurk?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It was a "semantic" joke (since he's charging now).

He's not charging yet.
He's saying he's going to do it. Like saying he's going to sue the Anti-Defamation League (apparently they said mean things, and you see, THAT'S the reason my company is only worth a fraction of what I paid for it).

Although I think this is more likely to happen, because the only person bleeding money here is him. I think he'll have to at least try it.

I don't know, tho. If he charged, would all the bots disappear? All the fake users and followers? Does everyone on Twitter really want that?

Assuming many people don't pay, and go somewhere else, user numbers drop, traffic drops, and monthly fees need to make up for advertising drop. Possible, I guess.

There is a sort of weird knock-on effect of if he charges and say 50 million people pay (pick a number), that base may be a better, more attractive, advertising base to advertisers. Being able to target advertising is really attractive to companies.

Processing payments at that scale is tough though especially if they take debit cards.

I would probably bet against that.

The main thing that Twitter has going for it is its network. Twitter is good because "everybody" is on Twitter. When a certain type of person got angry about Musk, they tried switching to Mastodon and came right back because Mastodon just doesn't have enough users to make it a good Twitter substitute. Same for BlueSky (which can't seem to get out of its beta stage -- like, how?) and same for Threads. Twitter has been very hard to displace, and not from lack of trying. It's just really difficult to unseat a social media platform once network effects lock it in as a market leader.

What would break that spell immediately is a mass exodus of people like me, who spend a fair amount of time browsing but aren't content creators or power users. Most people who are on Twitter don't post. They just read. We didn't pay for blue checkmarks and we're pretty unlikely to pay for read-only privileges when so much of the internet is free for the taking. If we migrate off that site, the content creators no longer have anybody to talk to except themselves -- they have less incentive to stick around. And as those people leave, it encourages others to pack it in as well. Network effects are very strong and stable until they move the other way and then they can collapse rapidly.

If I'm an advertiser, I doubt I'm very interested in advertising on a site that has like 1/10th the traffic that Twitter currently has. I mean, maybe I'd advertise there, but there's no way that's as easy a sell as it would be when Twitter is as active as it is today. I know advertisers also get skittish when their ads appear next to posts that state or imply wrongthink, but at some point advertising is kind of a numbers game and a huge dropoff in traffic is going to matter to them a lot.

Obviously this whole argument is based on the assumption that a $4 monthly charge (or whatever) is going to send a whole bunch of people streaming for the exits. If I'm wrong about that, then none of this applies.