32 ms·

Maybe “revenue” is masking the reality of the situation here. No alt right echo chamber is ever in a million years going to be able to provide a good return on

by mhoad 4y ago

Maybe “revenue” is masking the reality of the situation here. No alt right echo chamber is ever in a million years going to be able to provide a good return on investment for $44B. If they go down that path they WILL die which was my original point.

shanebellone 4y ago
Eh, that almost feels like a strawman argument. Pre-Musk Twitter wasn't worth $44b either. By normal metrics, it only needs to be profitable to sustain. It might be more accurate to interpret Twitter as a luxury good (from Elon's perspective). Similar to how other billionaires build lavish yachts. With that being said, there is no argument for his purchase or subsequent actions being construed as a viable investment strategy. The whole debacle looks like child's tantrum.
- mhoad 4y ago
  It’s not a strawman. I’m talking about very concrete facts. 1. There is not a single instance in the entire history of the internet of a profitable alt right social media website that anyone actually uses. 2. The price he paid was indeed so overvalued and has only dramatically dropped in value since then that they can already no longer pay their bills after just 7 weeks.
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    You are but it's ignoring other concrete facts. The concept of alt-right social media is ~2 years old. 1. Facebook took 5 years to become profitable. 2. Twitter took 12 years. 3. Instagram had no revenue before Facebook bought it.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      Gab is nearing age 6. Stormfront and chans with alt-right focus have been around longer than 2 years. Qanon began on 4chan over 5 years ago. Rumble is 9 years old at a $2B market cap with no profits in sight. Parler is over 4 years old and tried to sell itself by tricking Kanye West. Rumble and Gab should be profitable now if you brought up FB becoming profitable at 5. This is all before FB found it’s mobile ads focus and became the behemoth it is now.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  The argument still works even at a $24B valuation (45% discounted). No right wing platform is going to be worth $25B in the foreseeable future.

by mhoad 4y ago

shanebellone 4y ago

Eh, that almost feels like a strawman argument. Pre-Musk Twitter wasn't worth $44b either. By normal metrics, it only needs to be profitable to sustain. It might be more accurate to interpret Twitter as a luxury good (from Elon's perspective). Similar to how other billionaires build lavish yachts. With that being said, there is no argument for his purchase or subsequent actions being construed as a viable investment strategy. The whole debacle looks like child's tantrum.

mhoad 4y ago
It’s not a strawman. I’m talking about very concrete facts. 1. There is not a single instance in the entire history of the internet of a profitable alt right social media website that anyone actually uses. 2. The price he paid was indeed so overvalued and has only dramatically dropped in value since then that they can already no longer pay their bills after just 7 weeks.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  You are but it's ignoring other concrete facts. The concept of alt-right social media is ~2 years old. 1. Facebook took 5 years to become profitable. 2. Twitter took 12 years. 3. Instagram had no revenue before Facebook bought it.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Gab is nearing age 6. Stormfront and chans with alt-right focus have been around longer than 2 years. Qanon began on 4chan over 5 years ago. Rumble is 9 years old at a $2B market cap with no profits in sight. Parler is over 4 years old and tried to sell itself by tricking Kanye West. Rumble and Gab should be profitable now if you brought up FB becoming profitable at 5. This is all before FB found it’s mobile ads focus and became the behemoth it is now.
skinnymuch 4y ago
The argument still works even at a $24B valuation (45% discounted). No right wing platform is going to be worth $25B in the foreseeable future.