5 ms·

The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. If the existing Twitter is so bad that Elon needs to buy it and save it, then the

The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. If the existing Twitter is so bad that Elon needs to buy it and save it, then the value of the userbase is low - particulary considering that the time cost for a user to switch is much lower than say a Myspace to FB shift. I am assuming that Elon is not this much of a dumbass - what am I missing here?

no_butterscotch 4y ago
> The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. No it wouldn't. Literally tons of people would do it and plenty of competitors have tried or are trying. Per the value of the userbase and the cost of switching: well look at some of the competitors I mentioned, the ones Joe Rogan and others flock too when they get a temporary Twitter ban, do they not return immediately after their ban is lifted? The cost of code and marketing can't beat Twitter's network effect. Getting Elon, Joe, and plenty of other personalities to move also is no guarantee that even a slight portion of the userbase switches.
- jayd16 4y ago
  This argument is double edged. If on the one hand you argue that the free speech twitter clones are uncompelling, you have to also agree that the proposed features are inconsequential, no? What's the point of Elon shaking things up? I also think its odd to mix altruistic ideas like free speech platforms with profitable network effects. If it's just about speech, why can't such a platform co-exist with Twitter? Why does it need to overtake Twitter?
  - darawk 4y ago
    That's not how network effects work. Network effects lock users into the platform with the users, regardless of whether a new platform with better features comes along. That's the whole point of a network effect.
  - Toboe 4y ago
    >If on the one hand you argue that the free speech twitter clones are uncompelling, you have to also agree that the proposed features are inconsequential, no? No? It is entirely possible to imagine consequential features that are uncompelling: Actively hostile features. >I also think its odd to mix altruistic ideas like free speech platforms with profitable network effects. Why does it need to overtake Twitter? What is the value in Twitter over the "free speech" clones if Twitters audience doesn't have value? Does Twitter have such unique features that couldn't be replicated much cheaper than the buy price?
gfodor 4y ago
Twitter's userbase is immensely valuable, but the company's execution has both been slow to unlock its full potential and also is on a fairly clear trajectory of eroding the window of permissible speech on the platform which presents grave risks to society at large. For an activist investor of the right type, the former checks the box of financial opportunity, and the latter checks the box of impact opportunity.
- mdoms 4y ago
  > is on a fairly clear trajectory of eroding the window of permissible speech on the platform which presents grave risks to society at large. I really feel like a lot of you guys vastly overestimate the impact of Twitter on The Real World. Elon Musk included.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    The point is the trajectory, not the position. Given network effects and other phenomena, there's good reason to think Twitter could converge on some kind of universal, global engine for the vast majority of all future short conversational written discourse.
encryptluks2 4y ago
You're missing the games Elon plays to manipulate the market and pretend to be interested.
- mlindner 4y ago
  I've yet to see any example where Musk "manipulated" the market to his own gain. People love to say this over and over but there's not a single shred of evidence I've ever seen about it. Musk doesn't have a strong ability to deceive. He doesn't have strong interpersonal skills given his mental affliction. You should take what he says at face value other than when he's making an obvious joke and lots of things make a lot more sense. Lewis' trilemma as always applies. He either a great deceiver, completely believes what he says but is beyond his ability, or actually will do what he says.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Maybe you somehow missed this? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 Musk has a trend of doing this with investments. It's purely speculative but I think it is reasonable to suggest based on Musk's previous actions I do not think he is serious about buying Twitter.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Claiming that that case proves or even implies that Musk manipulates crypto currencies markets to make money is quite the leap of imagination.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      That's called "believing the accuser", and that statement didn't actually lead to him gaining any money. So I go back to my previous statement. Also there's recent news that Musk was forced to settle despite believing that he would have won the case because bankers were holding Tesla hostage.
      - 4y ago

no_butterscotch 4y ago

> The cost to code and market a Twitter clone would be a tiny fraction of $45b. No it wouldn't. Literally tons of people would do it and plenty of competitors have tried or are trying. Per the value of the userbase and the cost of switching: well look at some of the competitors I mentioned, the ones Joe Rogan and others flock too when they get a temporary Twitter ban, do they not return immediately after their ban is lifted? The cost of code and marketing can't beat Twitter's network effect. Getting Elon, Joe, and plenty of other personalities to move also is no guarantee that even a slight portion of the userbase switches.

jayd16 4y ago
This argument is double edged. If on the one hand you argue that the free speech twitter clones are uncompelling, you have to also agree that the proposed features are inconsequential, no? What's the point of Elon shaking things up? I also think its odd to mix altruistic ideas like free speech platforms with profitable network effects. If it's just about speech, why can't such a platform co-exist with Twitter? Why does it need to overtake Twitter?
- darawk 4y ago
  That's not how network effects work. Network effects lock users into the platform with the users, regardless of whether a new platform with better features comes along. That's the whole point of a network effect.
- Toboe 4y ago
  >If on the one hand you argue that the free speech twitter clones are uncompelling, you have to also agree that the proposed features are inconsequential, no? No? It is entirely possible to imagine consequential features that are uncompelling: Actively hostile features. >I also think its odd to mix altruistic ideas like free speech platforms with profitable network effects. Why does it need to overtake Twitter? What is the value in Twitter over the "free speech" clones if Twitters audience doesn't have value? Does Twitter have such unique features that couldn't be replicated much cheaper than the buy price?

gfodor 4y ago

Twitter's userbase is immensely valuable, but the company's execution has both been slow to unlock its full potential and also is on a fairly clear trajectory of eroding the window of permissible speech on the platform which presents grave risks to society at large. For an activist investor of the right type, the former checks the box of financial opportunity, and the latter checks the box of impact opportunity.

mdoms 4y ago
> is on a fairly clear trajectory of eroding the window of permissible speech on the platform which presents grave risks to society at large. I really feel like a lot of you guys vastly overestimate the impact of Twitter on The Real World. Elon Musk included.
- gfodor 4y ago
  The point is the trajectory, not the position. Given network effects and other phenomena, there's good reason to think Twitter could converge on some kind of universal, global engine for the vast majority of all future short conversational written discourse.

encryptluks2 4y ago

You're missing the games Elon plays to manipulate the market and pretend to be interested.

mlindner 4y ago
I've yet to see any example where Musk "manipulated" the market to his own gain. People love to say this over and over but there's not a single shred of evidence I've ever seen about it. Musk doesn't have a strong ability to deceive. He doesn't have strong interpersonal skills given his mental affliction. You should take what he says at face value other than when he's making an obvious joke and lots of things make a lot more sense. Lewis' trilemma as always applies. He either a great deceiver, completely believes what he says but is beyond his ability, or actually will do what he says.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Maybe you somehow missed this? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 Musk has a trend of doing this with investments. It's purely speculative but I think it is reasonable to suggest based on Musk's previous actions I do not think he is serious about buying Twitter.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Claiming that that case proves or even implies that Musk manipulates crypto currencies markets to make money is quite the leap of imagination.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    That's called "believing the accuser", and that statement didn't actually lead to him gaining any money. So I go back to my previous statement. Also there's recent news that Musk was forced to settle despite believing that he would have won the case because bankers were holding Tesla hostage.
    - 4y ago