4 ms·

The Trump stuff is hard to understand; seems like he had such a massive oppurtunity.

core-utility 5y ago
He had a market, but simultaneously didn't if that makes any sense. The world didn't need another Twitter clone, it already had Parler and Gettr. Social networks are difficult to get users onto because people want to go where their "friends" are, so you're not just convincing one user individually. Getting wide enough adoption to where users actually use the platform regularly is difficult.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  I think it would make very much sense. However it seems like the problem is scaling / delivering in a technical sense. I find that incredible given the momentum he had just after election and the fact that the project was valued at 3 b usd via a spac.
- overthemoon 5y ago
  I think this is right. In addition, IMO ultimately it feels hollow if you can't piss anyone off. Twitter makes it possible to search for the living avatar of whatever you hate the most so you can tweet invective at them until your head explodes. It feels good, even for a moment, to tell your enemies what's what. If you're on a platform with only MAGA people, what's the point? I signed up out of curiosity after it launched and there was so little actual engagement. Maybe that's changed, I dunno, but at any rate, a key component of the MAGA movement was how much certain high profile people obviously hated it and felt threatened by it. (Whether one thinks they should have or not is immaterial to the fact that it thrived on the hate and contempt from mainstream liberal mores havers.) If you can't see them being mad at you for having your own social media network, it loses its charm. Also, the fact that as far as I know Trump still hasn't posted anything there is a major unforced error. If nothing else it was a way to get a direct line to him post Twitter ban.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 5y ago
    Ha I should've refreshed this tab before adding a comment, you posted my thoughts a few hours before me and phrased it better :)
- smcl 5y ago
  > people want to go where their "friends" are There's another flip-side to this which is particularly important towards the more extreme end of the right wing - some people want to go where their enemies are. That Twitter allows you to jump right into the middle of a discussion and directly engage with or antagonise those who you dislike is a big draw. For those into reactionary politics, being siloed away in a little safe zone with people who agree with them isn't particularly gratifying. edit: I agree with your comment btw, I just wanted to add a little something to it :D
rsynnott 5y ago
"It has this one guy who got banned off twitter, and no other obvious reason to exist" isn't necessarily a great business model, particularly as Trump-friendly Twitter clones _already existed_. But, again, this makes a Musk-specific social network look even more dubious; Musk hasn't been banned, just... kinda snubbed, if you squint hard enough, but arguably not even that?, and there isn't really a Musk-focused ideology in the same way as there's a Trump one. (Also, the timing was arguably particularly unfortunate, in that the Soviets also called their major internal propaganda organ 'Truth', and, well, Russia is on peoples' minds now. Though I'm not sure how obvious this parallel was to Trump enthusiasts; it jumped out at me, but I'm not sure how well-known Pravda is in the US).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
Yes but he doesn't understand it. Twitter is driven mostly by the media and regular personalities. Trump brand is toxic, and so very few luminaries will contribute. Combine that with the fact that unregulated speech online immediately results in people calling for some guy they don't like to be lynched, literally, and you have a problem. Even Trump's allies are all on Twitter, because that's where the audience is. If Trump were a sharing guy, he could have given America's right wing luminaries each a small stake in it, and required them to put >50% of their content there. And then talked about it like it was 'free speech' but secretly just have slightly more lose moderators. Paradoxically a 'free speech' platform that benefits Trump would come out of the anarcho-socialist types. A Pirate Bay type thing I think is more likely to find themselves overrun by unpleasant people, and then maybe get acquired by Trump or something.
philosopher1234 5y ago
Trump fans are fundamentally reactionary. They exist in response to liberals and leftists. If their enemies aren’t on the platform, they have no reason to use it.

He had a market, but simultaneously didn't if that makes any sense. The world didn't need another Twitter clone, it already had Parler and Gettr. Social networks are difficult to get users onto because people want to go where their "friends" are, so you're not just convincing one user individually. Getting wide enough adoption to where users actually use the platform regularly is difficult.

throwaway4good 5y ago
I think it would make very much sense. However it seems like the problem is scaling / delivering in a technical sense. I find that incredible given the momentum he had just after election and the fact that the project was valued at 3 b usd via a spac.
overthemoon 5y ago
I think this is right. In addition, IMO ultimately it feels hollow if you can't piss anyone off. Twitter makes it possible to search for the living avatar of whatever you hate the most so you can tweet invective at them until your head explodes. It feels good, even for a moment, to tell your enemies what's what. If you're on a platform with only MAGA people, what's the point? I signed up out of curiosity after it launched and there was so little actual engagement. Maybe that's changed, I dunno, but at any rate, a key component of the MAGA movement was how much certain high profile people obviously hated it and felt threatened by it. (Whether one thinks they should have or not is immaterial to the fact that it thrived on the hate and contempt from mainstream liberal mores havers.) If you can't see them being mad at you for having your own social media network, it loses its charm. Also, the fact that as far as I know Trump still hasn't posted anything there is a major unforced error. If nothing else it was a way to get a direct line to him post Twitter ban.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 5y ago
  Ha I should've refreshed this tab before adding a comment, you posted my thoughts a few hours before me and phrased it better :)
smcl 5y ago
> people want to go where their "friends" are There's another flip-side to this which is particularly important towards the more extreme end of the right wing - some people want to go where their enemies are. That Twitter allows you to jump right into the middle of a discussion and directly engage with or antagonise those who you dislike is a big draw. For those into reactionary politics, being siloed away in a little safe zone with people who agree with them isn't particularly gratifying. edit: I agree with your comment btw, I just wanted to add a little something to it :D

rsynnott 5y ago

"It has this one guy who got banned off twitter, and no other obvious reason to exist" isn't necessarily a great business model, particularly as Trump-friendly Twitter clones _already existed_. But, again, this makes a Musk-specific social network look even more dubious; Musk hasn't been banned, just... kinda snubbed, if you squint hard enough, but arguably not even that?, and there isn't really a Musk-focused ideology in the same way as there's a Trump one. (Also, the timing was arguably particularly unfortunate, in that the Soviets also called their major internal propaganda organ 'Truth', and, well, Russia is on peoples' minds now. Though I'm not sure how obvious this parallel was to Trump enthusiasts; it jumped out at me, but I'm not sure how well-known Pravda is in the US).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 5y ago

Yes but he doesn't understand it. Twitter is driven mostly by the media and regular personalities. Trump brand is toxic, and so very few luminaries will contribute. Combine that with the fact that unregulated speech online immediately results in people calling for some guy they don't like to be lynched, literally, and you have a problem. Even Trump's allies are all on Twitter, because that's where the audience is. If Trump were a sharing guy, he could have given America's right wing luminaries each a small stake in it, and required them to put >50% of their content there. And then talked about it like it was 'free speech' but secretly just have slightly more lose moderators. Paradoxically a 'free speech' platform that benefits Trump would come out of the anarcho-socialist types. A Pirate Bay type thing I think is more likely to find themselves overrun by unpleasant people, and then maybe get acquired by Trump or something.

philosopher1234 5y ago

Trump fans are fundamentally reactionary. They exist in response to liberals and leftists. If their enemies aren’t on the platform, they have no reason to use it.