10 ms·

The pro-Elon redpill here is that he's already had at least 4 unambiguously successful companies (zip2, Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX). So maybe we are just observing

The pro-Elon redpill here is that he's already had at least 4 unambiguously successful companies (zip2, Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX). So maybe we are just observing what it takes to be extremely successful: Move fast and break stuff. If you want to be a multibillionaire you're going to have to make a lot of big mistakes, faster than anyone thinks possible. Additionally I think "verified users get priority in replies" has the potential to be absolutely killer. Everyone knows that clout chasing is huge on Twitter. I could easily see a spiral like so: * Initially 5% of daily actives buy the check marks, mostly just to own the libs (Fox News loves Elon btw). But the newborn blue checks are everywhere in replies. They're accumulating followers like no tomorrow. * Others begin to follow suit. $8/month is a small price to pay for clout. Remember, that's what they're all there for. "If anyone tells you they don't want more twitter followers, they're lying." * 10% of the userbase has bought a blue check. 20%. The anti-Elon folks are holding out. But their voices are growing quieter and quieter. * The entire tenor of the site begins to change. The loudest voices are the Elon fans who bought the check mark early. His politics become dominant on the site. * Eventually the anti-Elon folks either ragequit or end up purchasing the checkmark. Petty tyranny and clout chasing are kind of their thing. It's a case of irresistible force meets immovable object. Endgame seems hard to predict.

kivle 4y ago
You missed one: * Russia buys Blue for all of their Twitter bot-farms, giving Twitter tons of extra income, and Russia even better influence over US voters.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  $8 should be plenty sufficient to cover some sort of identity verification service -- assuming possession of a distinct US credit card number isn't sufficient on its own. (Could make it so if you mouse over a checkmark, it displays a flag based on what country the payment for the account originates from.) Additionally, I don't believe bot detection is an inherently hard problem. And if every bot detected means the bot creator has to pay another $8 for their next bot, then bot detection becomes profitable for Twitter. I doubt this ends up being the cheapest way for Russia to influence US elections.
  - activitypea 4y ago
    I am not giving up my identity to continue being a Don Hughes reply guy.
esoterica 4y ago
Did you see how hard Elon tried to get out of the Twitter deal? Remember how he made up fake excuses about bots to try and torpedo the merger? Even Elon doesn't think Elon can make the Twitter deal work.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  We don't know for sure that's why he tried to get out of the deal. Maybe he decided he actually wanted to focus on Tesla/SpaceX, or was trying to gain leverage for a lower acquisition price. If he didn't think he could improve on the status quo for Twitter, the thing to do would be to trim as much staff as possible to cut costs and then continue with the current ad revenue based model, without making any changes or introducing new features. Twitter was making on the order of $5B/year in ad revenue. Pushing costs below $5B/year should not be difficult given the nature of the service provided. Alternatively, if what you say is true and he doesn't think he can make it work, he could try to "back out" by flipping Twitter to another buyer, or just take it public again. Revealed preferences suggest he thinks he can outperform those alternatives.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

kivle 4y ago

You missed one: * Russia buys Blue for all of their Twitter bot-farms, giving Twitter tons of extra income, and Russia even better influence over US voters.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
$8 should be plenty sufficient to cover some sort of identity verification service -- assuming possession of a distinct US credit card number isn't sufficient on its own. (Could make it so if you mouse over a checkmark, it displays a flag based on what country the payment for the account originates from.) Additionally, I don't believe bot detection is an inherently hard problem. And if every bot detected means the bot creator has to pay another $8 for their next bot, then bot detection becomes profitable for Twitter. I doubt this ends up being the cheapest way for Russia to influence US elections.
- activitypea 4y ago
  I am not giving up my identity to continue being a Don Hughes reply guy.

esoterica 4y ago

Did you see how hard Elon tried to get out of the Twitter deal? Remember how he made up fake excuses about bots to try and torpedo the merger? Even Elon doesn't think Elon can make the Twitter deal work.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
We don't know for sure that's why he tried to get out of the deal. Maybe he decided he actually wanted to focus on Tesla/SpaceX, or was trying to gain leverage for a lower acquisition price. If he didn't think he could improve on the status quo for Twitter, the thing to do would be to trim as much staff as possible to cut costs and then continue with the current ad revenue based model, without making any changes or introducing new features. Twitter was making on the order of $5B/year in ad revenue. Pushing costs below $5B/year should not be difficult given the nature of the service provided. Alternatively, if what you say is true and he doesn't think he can make it work, he could try to "back out" by flipping Twitter to another buyer, or just take it public again. Revealed preferences suggest he thinks he can outperform those alternatives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]