3 ms·

> NPR doesn't like this label since it doesn't take how much government funding they receive into account… No. As the article you linked to notes, the problem

> NPR doesn't like this label since it doesn't take how much government funding they receive into account… No. As the article you linked to notes, the problem is that Musk's label was designed to suggest that NPR is state-controlled media rather than the independent non-profit that they are. And of course, Musk doesn't apply the label to his companies, which have received billions in government funding and support. It didn't help that Musk encouraged his Muskovites to attack NPR while this played out. All of this is a distraction from the point of the story, which is that being on X is virtually worthless for brands.

adamrezich 3y ago
> And of course, Musk doesn't apply the label to his companies, which have received billions in government funding and support. which of his government-funded companies are media companies such that a "State-Sponsored Media" label would be warranted?
- PhasmaFelis 3y ago
  Missing the point. If Musk's companies are no more "state-sponsored media" than NPR is, than it's hypocritical to label them differently than NPR.
- phatfish 3y ago
  Does social media count? Apparently it's now where everyone gets their news. Which reminds me, didn't Musk hit up the Saudis or some other middle eastern sovereign wealth fund when he was forced to actually buy Twitter?
mike_hock 3y ago
[flagged]
- EA-3167 3y ago
  > The reaction proved the label right. So wait, if someone calls you a Nazi and you refuse to engage with them, does that also prove their claim right? I'm pretty sure NPR leaving didn't prove anything, other than the fact that NPR made the rather sane decision to skip pre-boarding on the Titanic.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> All of this is a distraction from the point of the story, which is that being on X is virtually worthless for brands. This is assuming that the benefit is from instantaneous rather than long-term conversions, which is more likely to not be the case for something like a media outlet. How you get users from something like Twitter is when other people retweet your stuff so it gets discovered by people who aren't already familiar with you. For established outlets that happens regardless of whether you have an official account. Maybe it happens less because Twitter users might have followed the official account and then seen and retweeted more stuff. But even there what you're really after is discovery to gain more long-term listeners, which isn't going to show up as a short-term effect anyway.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > This is assuming that the benefit is from instantaneous rather than long-term conversions, which is more likely to not be the case for something like a media outlet. Assuming that Musk/Twitter aren't surreptitiously limiting the reach of media outlets he doesn't like, like they did with the NYT[1]. Ironic, how Musk accused Publicly listed Twitter of "shadow banning" during the manufacturer "Twitter files" fiasco. Long term conversions isn't something media outlets can bank on on Twitter. 1. https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-appears-throttle-york-times-001536618.html https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-appears-throttle-york-times-0...
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Twitter has been doing this since long before Musk. The mechanism is opaque because they barely admit to it even happening much less how it works, so we don't even know if it's humans making the decisions or algorithms. The real test is if Musk will get it to stop doing that. How long does that take in a large bureaucracy full of legacy code and potentially hostile employees? Plausibly longer than he's controlled the company. > Long term conversions isn't something media outlets can bank on on Twitter. Long-term conversions don't need the platform to like you tomorrow. That's what makes them long-term. Once they know you exist they keep coming back to your own service.
Minor49er 3y ago
> As the article you linked to notes, the problem is that Musk's label was designed to suggest that NPR is state-controlled media rather than the independent non-profit that they are. Isn't that precisely what I pointed out in my comment?

adamrezich 3y ago

> And of course, Musk doesn't apply the label to his companies, which have received billions in government funding and support. which of his government-funded companies are media companies such that a "State-Sponsored Media" label would be warranted?

PhasmaFelis 3y ago
Missing the point. If Musk's companies are no more "state-sponsored media" than NPR is, than it's hypocritical to label them differently than NPR.
phatfish 3y ago
Does social media count? Apparently it's now where everyone gets their news. Which reminds me, didn't Musk hit up the Saudis or some other middle eastern sovereign wealth fund when he was forced to actually buy Twitter?

mike_hock 3y ago

[flagged]

EA-3167 3y ago
> The reaction proved the label right. So wait, if someone calls you a Nazi and you refuse to engage with them, does that also prove their claim right? I'm pretty sure NPR leaving didn't prove anything, other than the fact that NPR made the rather sane decision to skip pre-boarding on the Titanic.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> All of this is a distraction from the point of the story, which is that being on X is virtually worthless for brands. This is assuming that the benefit is from instantaneous rather than long-term conversions, which is more likely to not be the case for something like a media outlet. How you get users from something like Twitter is when other people retweet your stuff so it gets discovered by people who aren't already familiar with you. For established outlets that happens regardless of whether you have an official account. Maybe it happens less because Twitter users might have followed the official account and then seen and retweeted more stuff. But even there what you're really after is discovery to gain more long-term listeners, which isn't going to show up as a short-term effect anyway.

sangnoir 3y ago
> This is assuming that the benefit is from instantaneous rather than long-term conversions, which is more likely to not be the case for something like a media outlet. Assuming that Musk/Twitter aren't surreptitiously limiting the reach of media outlets he doesn't like, like they did with the NYT[1]. Ironic, how Musk accused Publicly listed Twitter of "shadow banning" during the manufacturer "Twitter files" fiasco. Long term conversions isn't something media outlets can bank on on Twitter. 1. https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-appears-throttle-york-times-001536618.html https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-appears-throttle-york-times-0...
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Twitter has been doing this since long before Musk. The mechanism is opaque because they barely admit to it even happening much less how it works, so we don't even know if it's humans making the decisions or algorithms. The real test is if Musk will get it to stop doing that. How long does that take in a large bureaucracy full of legacy code and potentially hostile employees? Plausibly longer than he's controlled the company. > Long term conversions isn't something media outlets can bank on on Twitter. Long-term conversions don't need the platform to like you tomorrow. That's what makes them long-term. Once they know you exist they keep coming back to your own service.

Minor49er 3y ago

> As the article you linked to notes, the problem is that Musk's label was designed to suggest that NPR is state-controlled media rather than the independent non-profit that they are. Isn't that precisely what I pointed out in my comment?