5 ms·

And what do you base that off of? He seems to do quite well once he puts his focus on a problem, even if that's due to the people he ultimately decides to hire

by loceng 5y ago

And what do you base that off of? He seems to do quite well once he puts his focus on a problem, even if that's due to the people he ultimately decides to hire/fire.

ronnier 5y ago
Because the people with power, the leaders, big tech, advertisers, people with influence, and the media do not like musk. They’ll just start some new trendy site and go there.
- loceng 5y ago
  Are you sure about that? I think you may be conflating people with artificial power and those with genuine power. You realize people have tried that before as well, e.g. Parler, Gab, Truth Social, etc? You're likely right to some degree though, in so much as that there will be a group or a few who will for reasons (whether truthful or not) don't want to associate with a site owned by Musk and will try to start and create a successful site; it's not easy though - and why Musk is willing to buy a head start for ~$42 billion.
  - 1270018080 5y ago
    Parler, Gab, and Truth Social are all right wing extremist sites because they don't moderate and they want to attract that demographic. I assume someone creating an alternative to Twitter because Musk buys it would intentionally not follow that path. Still, an alternative wouldn't succeed.
    - nickthegreek 5y ago
      all 3 of those sites do moderate.
      - Qub3d 5y ago
        That's true, but its a deeper problem with that. The moderation is a sort of "in protest" form, with lots of deliberate "blind eyes" and slow action so they don't get deplatformed by the app stores etc. Beyond the moderation, these sites have the problem that they are inherently set up as a sort of opposition haven -- "we're twitter for people banned from twitter!" This results in a phenomenon Hank Green calls the "worst people problem"[0]. I'm not a huge fan of the judgemental term, but the core idea is similar to pointing out the inherent contradiction of, say, an anarchists' society. You end up with a userbase that is defined by its desire to flaunt rules and reject any normative standards. [0]:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348101443404787718.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348101443404787718.html (somewhat related and worth a watch: Folding Ideas' 2017 video essay about YT alternatives. Alt platforms have had inherent problems even before the more recent political bent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI)
seanosaur 5y ago
How does one put that amount of focus into 3 large, highly visible companies?
- loceng 5y ago
  You seem to have a misconception, or lacking conception, of how companies are built and operate: it's a series of small decisions, like attracting and then hiring amazing, competent, and passionate people to do tasks that the company requires - and then different functions run autonomously (without you) - so then you can move onto the next decisions to be made or be focusing on putting out "fires" if that's what urgently and critically demands your time. If Elon owns Twitter he will attract very quality people, and he will pay them well, reward them well, and then they will be the ones doing most of the work to actually run Twitter.

by loceng 5y ago

And what do you base that off of? He seems to do quite well once he puts his focus on a problem, even if that's due to the people he ultimately decides to hire/fire.

ronnier 5y ago

Because the people with power, the leaders, big tech, advertisers, people with influence, and the media do not like musk. They’ll just start some new trendy site and go there.

loceng 5y ago
Are you sure about that? I think you may be conflating people with artificial power and those with genuine power. You realize people have tried that before as well, e.g. Parler, Gab, Truth Social, etc? You're likely right to some degree though, in so much as that there will be a group or a few who will for reasons (whether truthful or not) don't want to associate with a site owned by Musk and will try to start and create a successful site; it's not easy though - and why Musk is willing to buy a head start for ~$42 billion.
- 1270018080 5y ago
  Parler, Gab, and Truth Social are all right wing extremist sites because they don't moderate and they want to attract that demographic. I assume someone creating an alternative to Twitter because Musk buys it would intentionally not follow that path. Still, an alternative wouldn't succeed.
  - nickthegreek 5y ago
    all 3 of those sites do moderate.
    - Qub3d 5y ago
      That's true, but its a deeper problem with that. The moderation is a sort of "in protest" form, with lots of deliberate "blind eyes" and slow action so they don't get deplatformed by the app stores etc. Beyond the moderation, these sites have the problem that they are inherently set up as a sort of opposition haven -- "we're twitter for people banned from twitter!" This results in a phenomenon Hank Green calls the "worst people problem"[0]. I'm not a huge fan of the judgemental term, but the core idea is similar to pointing out the inherent contradiction of, say, an anarchists' society. You end up with a userbase that is defined by its desire to flaunt rules and reject any normative standards. [0]:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348101443404787718.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348101443404787718.html (somewhat related and worth a watch: Folding Ideas' 2017 video essay about YT alternatives. Alt platforms have had inherent problems even before the more recent political bent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI)

seanosaur 5y ago

How does one put that amount of focus into 3 large, highly visible companies?

loceng 5y ago
You seem to have a misconception, or lacking conception, of how companies are built and operate: it's a series of small decisions, like attracting and then hiring amazing, competent, and passionate people to do tasks that the company requires - and then different functions run autonomously (without you) - so then you can move onto the next decisions to be made or be focusing on putting out "fires" if that's what urgently and critically demands your time. If Elon owns Twitter he will attract very quality people, and he will pay them well, reward them well, and then they will be the ones doing most of the work to actually run Twitter.