5 ms·

So should the platform be guided by advertisers? Especially one that’s apparently the de facto public square?

etchalon 4y ago
I don't think "should" is really a function here. "Must" might be. No one has figured out a way to monetize a social network without advertising, at least not at the scale Twitter has to operate.
- headsoup 4y ago
  $8 blue check marks :p Not sure that has long term profitability... I think the statement probably is more like "no one has figured out an easier way to monetize a social network"...
  - etchalon 4y ago
    There are no successful subscription-only social networks. It's been tried. It has not worked.
    - busymom0 4y ago
      Spacex and Tesla were also first time successful concepts. Elon is used to somehow achieving the impossible.
      - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
        Elon was not a founder of Tesla though.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I say everyone can join for free and gets one post a day. $8/month plan includes 10 posts a day, and unlimited for $20. While I have no interest in Twitter, I'm told it's quite addictive, so make the first taste free and then reel them in once they're hooked.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    It would be great if 99% would stay in the free tier.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    I don't think it'd work.
acdha 4y ago
What choice do they have? The company was hovering around profitable (2021 would’ve been without a lawsuit settlement) but that was before they were saddled with a ton of new debt. It’s possible that they could find new revenue models - that pay for checkmark scheme isn’t it but maybe a smart businessman could come up with a better variant - but that takes time and has to be done carefully since they have to keep the lights on in the middle. Driving away advertisers before finding that new revenue source doesn’t leave much time to iterate.
- naveen99 4y ago
  Debt and equity are just different ways for investors to invest in a company. If company isn’t generating any return on investment, keeping the lights on is not sustainable.
wwweston 4y ago
If that's it's business model then sure, that's how it works. A "de facto public square" would be public in conception, construction, and support from the start, which is one of the ways we know that Twitter is no such thing. Though it would likely also have some rules for how speech is/isn't conducted. And all things considered, advertiser-friendliness is a sort of low-resolution but approximate passable democratic mechanism for marking boundaries of civilized discourse.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > advertiser-friendliness is a sort of low-resolution but approximate passable democratic mechanism for marking boundaries of civilized discourse This reminds me that progressives have historically always supported corporations as complex hierarchies, scientific enterprises, run (ideally) by “experts.”
  - wwweston 4y ago
    Nowhere was a claim forwarded it was progressive or ideal. The claim is more or less that advertisers have some of the same concerns that elected representatives do because consumers have something like a vote. But then again, if you're scare-quoting expertise, maybe that's not the conversation you're here to have.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      I'm scare-quoting expertise because it seems like you think there's an expert way to run a corporation. And that's a very progressive sensibility towards corporations, and precisely why they actually like them (what's more appealing to a progressive other than a huge centrally-planned organization run by credentialed experts) despite claiming otherwise.
      - wwweston 4y ago
        LOL. If you think that progressives are generally friendly towards corporations then you've never actually talked with a progressive, have you? And corporations are not generally progressive in outlook either, there are too many values higher up on ladder of concerns. Advertisers are one subset that bring a rough approximation of democratic to their decisions, knowing that each person in the market they hope to reach will be deploying something like a vote with their dollars. As with any democratic approximation, it's only progressive to the extent that population is, though it's poor compared to other democratic mechanisms. You can take issue with whether democratic decisions are good decisions, of course, but that's likely to be an unpopular opinion for obvious reasons. And hey, I hear the person currently running twitter recently went so far as to say vox populi vox dei. Was his expertise in running corporations part of what you meant to scare quote, or is your challenge to expertise, shall we say, selective?
NineStarPoint 4y ago
That depends on Musk’s goals. If his goal is to make money to pay off the massive amount of debt he gained as part of buying twitter, (as the attempted quick roll out of twitter blue would indicate), then yes he probably needs to care about what advertisers think. If he just wanted to leverage his position as one of the richest men in the world to ensure that twitter was a haven for free speech and screw the profitability, then no he wouldn’t need to be guided by advertisers. He probably can’t both want immediate returns on his investment and to quickly rock the boat though.
bergenty 4y ago
In this case yes because you need to be profitable.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Television and radio pretty much works that way. Print media too.

I don't think "should" is really a function here. "Must" might be. No one has figured out a way to monetize a social network without advertising, at least not at the scale Twitter has to operate.

headsoup 4y ago
$8 blue check marks :p Not sure that has long term profitability... I think the statement probably is more like "no one has figured out an easier way to monetize a social network"...
- etchalon 4y ago
  There are no successful subscription-only social networks. It's been tried. It has not worked.
  - busymom0 4y ago
    Spacex and Tesla were also first time successful concepts. Elon is used to somehow achieving the impossible.
    - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
      Elon was not a founder of Tesla though.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I say everyone can join for free and gets one post a day. $8/month plan includes 10 posts a day, and unlimited for $20. While I have no interest in Twitter, I'm told it's quite addictive, so make the first taste free and then reel them in once they're hooked.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  It would be great if 99% would stay in the free tier.
- etchalon 4y ago
  I don't think it'd work.

acdha 4y ago

What choice do they have? The company was hovering around profitable (2021 would’ve been without a lawsuit settlement) but that was before they were saddled with a ton of new debt. It’s possible that they could find new revenue models - that pay for checkmark scheme isn’t it but maybe a smart businessman could come up with a better variant - but that takes time and has to be done carefully since they have to keep the lights on in the middle. Driving away advertisers before finding that new revenue source doesn’t leave much time to iterate.

naveen99 4y ago
Debt and equity are just different ways for investors to invest in a company. If company isn’t generating any return on investment, keeping the lights on is not sustainable.

wwweston 4y ago

If that's it's business model then sure, that's how it works. A "de facto public square" would be public in conception, construction, and support from the start, which is one of the ways we know that Twitter is no such thing. Though it would likely also have some rules for how speech is/isn't conducted. And all things considered, advertiser-friendliness is a sort of low-resolution but approximate passable democratic mechanism for marking boundaries of civilized discourse.

taolegal 4y ago
> advertiser-friendliness is a sort of low-resolution but approximate passable democratic mechanism for marking boundaries of civilized discourse This reminds me that progressives have historically always supported corporations as complex hierarchies, scientific enterprises, run (ideally) by “experts.”
- wwweston 4y ago
  Nowhere was a claim forwarded it was progressive or ideal. The claim is more or less that advertisers have some of the same concerns that elected representatives do because consumers have something like a vote. But then again, if you're scare-quoting expertise, maybe that's not the conversation you're here to have.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    I'm scare-quoting expertise because it seems like you think there's an expert way to run a corporation. And that's a very progressive sensibility towards corporations, and precisely why they actually like them (what's more appealing to a progressive other than a huge centrally-planned organization run by credentialed experts) despite claiming otherwise.
    - wwweston 4y ago
      LOL. If you think that progressives are generally friendly towards corporations then you've never actually talked with a progressive, have you? And corporations are not generally progressive in outlook either, there are too many values higher up on ladder of concerns. Advertisers are one subset that bring a rough approximation of democratic to their decisions, knowing that each person in the market they hope to reach will be deploying something like a vote with their dollars. As with any democratic approximation, it's only progressive to the extent that population is, though it's poor compared to other democratic mechanisms. You can take issue with whether democratic decisions are good decisions, of course, but that's likely to be an unpopular opinion for obvious reasons. And hey, I hear the person currently running twitter recently went so far as to say vox populi vox dei. Was his expertise in running corporations part of what you meant to scare quote, or is your challenge to expertise, shall we say, selective?

NineStarPoint 4y ago

That depends on Musk’s goals. If his goal is to make money to pay off the massive amount of debt he gained as part of buying twitter, (as the attempted quick roll out of twitter blue would indicate), then yes he probably needs to care about what advertisers think. If he just wanted to leverage his position as one of the richest men in the world to ensure that twitter was a haven for free speech and screw the profitability, then no he wouldn’t need to be guided by advertisers. He probably can’t both want immediate returns on his investment and to quickly rock the boat though.

bergenty 4y ago

In this case yes because you need to be profitable.

lr4444lr 4y ago

Television and radio pretty much works that way. Print media too.