3 ms·
Agreed. What's missing from many of these conversations is Twitter has been a publicly held company with a legal duty to increase value for its shareholders for
by rishair 4y ago
Agreed. What's missing from many of these conversations is Twitter has been a publicly held company with a legal duty to increase value for its shareholders for a decade.
If it were only held to its own morals then this would be much easier to solve (albeit still VERY hard). But it must make decisions to make $ and grow. It found its local maxima by optimizing for ad revenue, coming from eyeballs on screen by incentivizing and distributing emotionally engaging content - e.g. exciting "dunks" and political drama.
The side effect is an increasingly polarized populous. Seeing drama encourages more drama.
Now that Elon has taken Twitter out of the capitalist rat-race, there's an opportunity for them to dislodge from this local maxima and find a new one - perhaps one that doesn't subsist on human drama. The question becomes, how do you find that new local maxima? What does it look like? How does it make money?
Elon is an ego-driven wild boar in my eyes, but he's given Twitter an unprecedented couple years to reinvent itself outside of fiduciary shareholder duties. Now, what will he do with it? What would we want him to do with it?
- oersted 4y agoI think the world keeps overestimating the impact of Twitter. When you are on it it feels like everyone is there, but they only have 77M users in the US and 238M worldwide. That's a tiny minority. The population at large is nowhere near as polarized as Twitter makes it seem, and very few people are actually impacted by this biased perspective.