4 ms·

With what money? Nobody's buying ads and the dollars from "Premium" subscriptions are needed to keep the lights on.

• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > With what money? The world’s richest man owns it as a plaything.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Alupis 2y ago
    And there's plenty of advertisers on twitter still - despite this constant, baseless narrative. People want Musk to fail so badly they literally make things up.
    • jsheard 2y ago
      IME a significant portion of those advertisers still on Twitter are absolute bottom of the barrel AliExpress dropshipping outlets. Technically advertisers, but not really the type you want given the choice, so it's no surprise that Fidelity recently estimated Twitters value at ~25% of what Musk paid for it.
      • Alupis 2y ago
        > IME a significant portion of those advertisers still on Twitter are absolute bottom of the barrel AliExpress dropshipping outlets That's your retargeted ads. From my experience, I haven't noticed any changes. > Fidelity recently estimated Twitters value is ~25% This is an entirely made up figure based on guesses and politics. Nobody, including Fidelity, have any clue to the internals of Twitter now that it's private. The world's most important news still breaks on Twitter (including the sitting president's announcement to not run for re-election), despite all the Musk hate.
        • jsheard 2y ago
          I don't see how Fidelity is incentivized to make Twitter look bad, they invested $20 million in the company and their assessment is that their holding is now worth about $5 million. If anything that claim makes Fidelity look like chumps for putting their money there.
          • Alupis 2y ago
            That's a tiny amount of money for Fidelity. Unless they have some secret insider information that can be verified - they are guessing along with everyone else. Nobody will know the value of Twitter until Musk sells it, if ever. That's par for the course of private business. What we do know is literally all of the most important stories continue to break on Twitter. CNN and other MSM companies continue to write articles about specific Tweets, and more. Twitter remains - as it was before - the figurative public forum and no alternative offering has come anywhere close to overtaking it. Nothing has changed.
          • add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
            Why would an investment company have a fiduciary responsibility to account for the value of its holdings lol? (Psst. You're not replying to a serious person.)
            • Alupis 2y ago
              Right, so Fidelity can derive information from zero data? Ah, yes, I forgot investment firms receive standard-issue crystal balls.
              • verdverm 2y ago
                The shareholders of X (which includes Fidelity) receive internal details because they are owners, they are entitled to that information as owners.
          • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
            > don't see how Fidelity is incentivized to make Twitter look bad They’re not. Valuation committees are notoriously deferential to PMs and issuers, particularly for private names.
• ksaj 2y ago
  I think the ones that don't engage enough to make money are subsidized by those who do. And then you have people like George Takai who has a blog that capitalizes on linking people to X threads, who probably makes quite a bit of money on it. Basically the subsidization flow: high engagement and advertisers > lower engagement > free users