3 ms·
But it's what he's relying on to try to arrest the free-fall. He doesn't expect everyone to pay £100/year, but he expects a certain number to do so. IMO, the c
by oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
But it's what he's relying on to try to arrest the free-fall. He doesn't expect everyone to pay £100/year, but he expects a certain number to do so.
IMO, the cost of living crisis was one impediment, but the other, more significant one was the politicisation of it all. If he'd stayed neutral, and offered reliable, useful functionality behind that subscription, I would gladly have paid £5-10/month for the service. As it happens, I will almost certainly never subscribe to Twitter/𝕏 now.
- badwolf 3y ago> try to arrest the free-fall Important to remember that he is the one who pushed the Twitter car over the cliff into financial free-fall with his leveraged buyout.
- okeuro49 3y ago> more significant one was the politicisation of it all. If he'd stayed neutral It's documented that twitter before Musk was working with the US democratic party. Saying certain things that the far-left disagreed with could also result in a ban. However it's easy to see how moving Twitter to the centre, appears to be political move right from the perspective of the Left.
- oneeyedpigeon 3y agoWell, I was offering my opinion of why Twitter is failing from a business perspective, not from a moral or political one. You could well argue that the political bias is now open, and that such an outcome is a good thing. But from a business point of view, I maintain that it is bad for the company — overt politicisation is attractive to some, of course, but for a mass-market platform like Twitter/X, alienating approximately half of your potential audience is just bad business.