3 ms·

So what does this achieve? It further validates an armchair diagnosis of rampant meglomania. The deeper/followup question --- why do they think this is good f

So what does this achieve? It further validates an armchair diagnosis of rampant meglomania. The deeper/followup question --- why do they think this is good for business?

jfengel 3y ago
I think that's looking at it backwards. They both have more money than they can spend. They don't need something to be good for business. Rather, they need their business to be good for them. They grow their business to prove that their dicks are bigger -- metaphorically, until now. They might even agree with that armchair diagnosis of megalomania. They'd just disagree that megalomania is a bad thing, if you are in fact the greatest human being in the world. One does have to wonder what it will do for Musk's (metaphorical) dick if he manages to kill off Twitter -- not the lost money, which is pocket change, but the business failure. He certainly has SpaceX and Tesla to fall back on, and if he can push on to Mars everything else will be trivia.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  They grow their business to prove that their dicks are bigger -- metaphorically, until now. So we do finally agree --- in a circular, roundabout manner. They *do* need something to be good for business --- otherwise, they can't grow their business and prove their dick is bigger. In any case; acting like a megalomaniac is counterproductive to achieving this objective.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Indeed, it does seem to be hard to pin down what the victory conditions are. It's clearly not money. It has something to do with control of the public discourse, but Musk is destroying Twitter's influence. It's hard to tell if he knows that. He seems to think he's got some kind of grand long-term plan, but even if he does, his short-term behavior doesn't seem to contribute. If he thinks he bought up an enormous customer base for his "everything app", he seems badly mistaken.

So what does this achieve? It further validates an armchair diagnosis of rampant meglomania. The deeper/followup question --- why do they think this is good for business?

jfengel 3y ago

I think that's looking at it backwards. They both have more money than they can spend. They don't need something to be good for business. Rather, they need their business to be good for them. They grow their business to prove that their dicks are bigger -- metaphorically, until now. They might even agree with that armchair diagnosis of megalomania. They'd just disagree that megalomania is a bad thing, if you are in fact the greatest human being in the world. One does have to wonder what it will do for Musk's (metaphorical) dick if he manages to kill off Twitter -- not the lost money, which is pocket change, but the business failure. He certainly has SpaceX and Tesla to fall back on, and if he can push on to Mars everything else will be trivia.

jqpabc123 3y ago
They grow their business to prove that their dicks are bigger -- metaphorically, until now. So we do finally agree --- in a circular, roundabout manner. They *do* need something to be good for business --- otherwise, they can't grow their business and prove their dick is bigger. In any case; acting like a megalomaniac is counterproductive to achieving this objective.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Indeed, it does seem to be hard to pin down what the victory conditions are. It's clearly not money. It has something to do with control of the public discourse, but Musk is destroying Twitter's influence. It's hard to tell if he knows that. He seems to think he's got some kind of grand long-term plan, but even if he does, his short-term behavior doesn't seem to contribute. If he thinks he bought up an enormous customer base for his "everything app", he seems badly mistaken.