4 ms·

"Elon Musk's raging narcissism launches all-out $43B assault on his credibility and fortune" Without any understanding that the his right-wing narcissistic sup

"Elon Musk's raging narcissism launches all-out $43B assault on his credibility and fortune" Without any understanding that the his right-wing narcissistic suppliers who rage in public about being prevented from raging in public are not the sort of people who become good paying customers for a free platform. This is like the universe seeing Elon Musk and issuing a course correction. For the avoidance of doubt: this is dreadful for Twitter's longevity. Twitter's only sustainable future while staying true to its roots, is as a market utility co-owned by media companies. A billionaire pouring money into a money-pit is fine only for as long as it holds his interest as a plaything (which might be a long time, considering his narcissism)

LegitShady 5y ago
Twitter is on a years long decline and heading faster and faster towards stagnation with features no one cares about. Twitter "staying true" to its roots means continued decline and loss of shareholder value. Musk can pay for Twitter and still be the richest man in the world. It's like buying a boat for a normal person. Sounds like a lot of salt on your part.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Salt? I've fully grasped that he is rich. Though he is not, actually, $43bn liquid rich, at all; he's going to need to sell chunks of his other businesses to do this. That potentially means handing over significant influence over SpaceX or Tesla, so he can buy the cause of his hurt feelings in his spat with the SEC. I don't give a damn whether he is the richest man in the world now (he is not -- Putin is) or continues to be. I don't think Twitter want to be compared to someone buying a pleasure boat. That really does underscore my point about it being a narcissism purchase though, with the added frisson of white male mid-life crisis, so I'll stipulate if you will! The strategy I outlined in a single sentence for twitter to stay true to its roots means not having to worry about shareholder value or decline. There are several viable, thriving market utilities run on this basis (e.g. in currency trading markets). They do not decline and they are beholden to their shareholders only in continuing to provide the utility. There is no way that Twitter owned by a random rich narcissist won't decline as it tilts at windmills. Twitter owned by a set of media companies that have come to depend on it as a means to exist -- as a utility that supports the media market through enlightened self-interest -- is viable.

LegitShady 5y ago

Twitter is on a years long decline and heading faster and faster towards stagnation with features no one cares about. Twitter "staying true" to its roots means continued decline and loss of shareholder value. Musk can pay for Twitter and still be the richest man in the world. It's like buying a boat for a normal person. Sounds like a lot of salt on your part.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Salt? I've fully grasped that he is rich. Though he is not, actually, $43bn liquid rich, at all; he's going to need to sell chunks of his other businesses to do this. That potentially means handing over significant influence over SpaceX or Tesla, so he can buy the cause of his hurt feelings in his spat with the SEC. I don't give a damn whether he is the richest man in the world now (he is not -- Putin is) or continues to be. I don't think Twitter want to be compared to someone buying a pleasure boat. That really does underscore my point about it being a narcissism purchase though, with the added frisson of white male mid-life crisis, so I'll stipulate if you will! The strategy I outlined in a single sentence for twitter to stay true to its roots means not having to worry about shareholder value or decline. There are several viable, thriving market utilities run on this basis (e.g. in currency trading markets). They do not decline and they are beholden to their shareholders only in continuing to provide the utility. There is no way that Twitter owned by a random rich narcissist won't decline as it tilts at windmills. Twitter owned by a set of media companies that have come to depend on it as a means to exist -- as a utility that supports the media market through enlightened self-interest -- is viable.