3 ms·

He also unbanned a lot of people and got Trump back, got to ride the AI wave with Grok, pushed paid subscriptions and implemented paying people for tweeting. I

He also unbanned a lot of people and got Trump back, got to ride the AI wave with Grok, pushed paid subscriptions and implemented paying people for tweeting. I would argue growing the platform by bringing back people that were brought back for violating the original rules is not a win. Nor is attracting people to the platform that follow those people, Nor is riding the AI train. And even with all of that, the new users, the AI, the paid subscriptions, None none of that actually fixed the major underlying issues that Twitter is not profitable. Jack Dorsey couldn’t fix it and neither did Elon. I think he just realized having a modern media platform he controls is more powerful than it making money. He inherited a platform built by someone else, and keeps the lights on with a skeleton crew. I don’t see that as a success

WalterBright 14d ago
X is the 13th largest social media platform with 650m monthly active users. Sounds like a success to me.
- pohl 14d ago
  But whose success is it? Twitter was ranked 13th largest in 2021 before he bought it. Let that sink in.
  - WalterBright 14d ago
    Twitter had 362 million monthly users in 2021. X has 650 million today. Looks like X has done well.
    - pohl 13d ago
      Moving the goalpost metric from rank to MAUs just to make sure you can properly glaze the fascist. Nice.
      - frankvdwaal 13d ago
        I would also question the reliability of the sources. Who said so? Are they comparing the right numbers? For example, in 2021 Twitter didn't report monthly users, but "monetisable daily active users", a metric that Musk did not understand. I think that 650 million of X comes from a report of the SEC, but it also includes just users of Grok, not just the social media section. So it's a different type of user, over a different time period, for a different service.
        nrr 13d ago
        More to the point, MAUs are a measure of reach and not revenue or business health. Looking at this from an investment standpoint (as if, e.g., I were establishing funding requirements for a pension fund or an annuity or some other such financial vehicle), MAUs are a nice to have because they can establish a counterfactual[0] for volume, but I'd be looking at the performance of X's products relative to the financial performance of X's customers buying those products (e.g., for advertisers, things like conversion and customer acquisition cost come to mind), legal exposure (because of, e.g., CSAM distribution) and other tail risks, and also whether there's an existential risk to the liberal democratic order that enables the financial vehicle I'm working with to operate at all, among other portfolio-level risks. -- 0: Well, kinda. The counterfactual actually comes in when we ask questions like, "If the reach changes, what happens to the economic performance?" Relying on MAUs as a baseline measure of the reachable population based on observation enables us to establish these kinds of counterfactuals.

WalterBright 14d ago

X is the 13th largest social media platform with 650m monthly active users. Sounds like a success to me.

pohl 14d ago
But whose success is it? Twitter was ranked 13th largest in 2021 before he bought it. Let that sink in.
- WalterBright 14d ago
  Twitter had 362 million monthly users in 2021. X has 650 million today. Looks like X has done well.
  - pohl 13d ago
    Moving the goalpost metric from rank to MAUs just to make sure you can properly glaze the fascist. Nice.
    - frankvdwaal 13d ago
      I would also question the reliability of the sources. Who said so? Are they comparing the right numbers? For example, in 2021 Twitter didn't report monthly users, but "monetisable daily active users", a metric that Musk did not understand. I think that 650 million of X comes from a report of the SEC, but it also includes just users of Grok, not just the social media section. So it's a different type of user, over a different time period, for a different service.
      - nrr 13d ago
        More to the point, MAUs are a measure of reach and not revenue or business health. Looking at this from an investment standpoint (as if, e.g., I were establishing funding requirements for a pension fund or an annuity or some other such financial vehicle), MAUs are a nice to have because they can establish a counterfactual[0] for volume, but I'd be looking at the performance of X's products relative to the financial performance of X's customers buying those products (e.g., for advertisers, things like conversion and customer acquisition cost come to mind), legal exposure (because of, e.g., CSAM distribution) and other tail risks, and also whether there's an existential risk to the liberal democratic order that enables the financial vehicle I'm working with to operate at all, among other portfolio-level risks. -- 0: Well, kinda. The counterfactual actually comes in when we ask questions like, "If the reach changes, what happens to the economic performance?" Relying on MAUs as a baseline measure of the reachable population based on observation enables us to establish these kinds of counterfactuals.