Interesting stuff
.
.
dunno how sustainable it is
but maybe his business plan is working...
It's weird how there is so much negativity towards Elon and Twitter anything he does seems to be attacked, firing workers or making any changes.
The guy is one of the worlds most successful business man, if it's possible to make twitter work, for the company to make money and be a platform where people are treated equally and as fairly as possible, he will make it happen, but he marches to the beat of his own drum and likes to tinker things in real time and it won't happen over night.
BTW. Interesting that Facebook an established business this week laid off 13% (11,000) employees but that got little press.
There’s plenty of media reporting the layoffs at meta , if you can’t recognise that Elon has fucked up then you’re not paying attention. Oh and BTW Elon doesn’t consider himself a businessman, he see’s himself as an engineer.
ID, perhaps you don't understand the gravity of this evolving catastrophe with Twitter. There's a very real chance that one of the world's biggest social media platforms could be gone within 6-12 months. Irrespective of whether you like Twitter or Elon, that's a staggering development just two weeks in.
I think Elon's ego got way ahead of himself, and subsequently he's found himself in a difficult position - owning Twitter, but having made grand statements about free speech, which unfortunately (for him) can't be reconciled in a commercial world. And he's taken on a shitload of debt to finance the purchase (interest repayments alone are $1.2 billion per year, which is way more than the business makes in revenue).
Re: Facebook - it's had stacks of press. And for sure, this week's lay-offs are terrible.
But, for a little more context, Facebook's employee count was 71,970 in December 2021. Last week (prior to the lay-offs) they totaled around 87,000. Which means they've hired 15,000 people in the last eleven months. So, they're still up 4,000 employees since last December.
indo-dreaming wrote:It's weird how there is so much negativity towards Elon and Twitter anything he does seems to be attacked, firing workers or making any changes.
BTW. Interesting that Facebook an established business this week laid off 13% (11,000) employees but that got little press.
Not that weird. Though undoubtedly successful with Tesla and SpaceX he's been cocky and pugnacious so there'll be many people looking to see him brought down a peg or two. Such thinking isn't reserved for him, it's human nature.
His mouth got him into this train wreck. If he said nothing he wouldn't have been legally bound to follow through. I foresee a day when 'musk' becomes a synonym for a horrible fuck up: "You really musked up that takeoff'.
Elon's also proving to be a bit naive when it comes to free speech. It's one thing to spout platitudes about free speech when there's no consequences to yourself - every now and again someone pops up on Swellnet saying as much - but it's another when reality bites. Saying he's a "free speech absolutist" was an absurd position, as is clearly being shown now.
This is an issue of our time so it's no wonder people are following it.
Personally, I have no beef with him but I struggle to reconcile someone so gifted as to create Tesla and SpaceX being so silly as to label themselves a free speech absolutist then spend $44 billion on a platform that needs advertising to survive.
Also, Facebook is a whole other issue. Those employees were hired recently under the Meta expansion, so not part of the core business. A failed side-venture is all.
Seems to be a comprehensive blanket left woke anti-Trump politically-motivated pro-covid pro-censorship anti-free speech motivated war on Musk trying to silence any positive comments or independent thought about Musk and his purchase of twitter.
It’s even playing out in here.
It’s exactly the same censorship event we just went through for 2.5 yrs of covid that cancelled any questioning or independent thought about what’s going on - any wrongthink.
Seems that people are now programmed to try to cancel any views they simply “don’t like” or that doesn’t align with their woke anti-Trump pro-covid etc groupthink or political ideology.
From what I understand a major motivation of Musk purchasing twitter is to go to war with this mass woke left progressive anti-free speech pro-censorship cancel culture that we now live in.
If that’s the case then I hope Musk also buys out meta, google etc and fixes things there too.
gsco wrote:Seems to be a comprehensive blanket left woke anti-Trump politically-motivated pro-covid pro-censorship anti-free speech motivated war on Musk trying to silence any positive comments or independent thought about Musk and his purchase of twitter.
It’s even playing out in here.
It’s exactly the same censorship event we just went through for 2.5 yrs of covid that cancelled any questioning or independent thought about what’s going on - any wrongthink.
Seems that people are now programmed to try to cancel any views they simply “don’t like” or that doesn’t align with their woke anti-Trump pro-covid etc groupthink or political ideology.
From what I understand a major motivation of Musk purchasing twitter is to go to war with this mass woke left progressive anti-free speech pro-censorship cancel culture that we now live in.
If that’s the case then I hope Musk also buys out meta, google etc and fixes things there too.
Wot.
indo-dreaming wrote:The guy is one of the worlds most successful business man, if it's possible to make twitter work, for the company to make money and be a platform where people are treated equally and as fairly as possible, he will make it happen, but he marches to the beat of his own drum and likes to tinker things in real time and it won't happen over night.
I suppose you are referring to this:
Please note that Twitter will do lots of dumb things in coming months.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 9, 2022
We will keep what works & change what doesn’t.
How about this then?
“Hello and welcome to your SpaceX flight. Please note that will do lots of dumb things in the coming hours. We will keep what works & change what doesn’t. Enjoy your flight!”
— The Shovel (@TheShovel) November 10, 2022
stunet wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:It's weird how there is so much negativity towards Elon and Twitter anything he does seems to be attacked, firing workers or making any changes.
BTW. Interesting that Facebook an established business this week laid off 13% (11,000) employees but that got little press.
Not that weird. Though undoubtedly successful with Tesla and SpaceX he's been cocky and pugnacious so there'll be many people looking to see him brought down a peg or two. Such thinking isn't reserved for him, it's human nature.
His mouth got him into this train wreck. If he said nothing he wouldn't have been legally bound to follow through. I foresee a day when 'musk' becomes a synonym for a horrible fuck up: "You really musked up that takeoff'.
Elon's also proving to be a bit naive when it comes to free speech. It's one thing to spout platitudes about free speech when there's no consequences to yourself - every now and again someone pops up on Swellnet saying as much - but it's another when reality bites. Saying he's a "free speech absolutist" was an absurd position, as is clearly being shown now.
This is an issue of our time so it's no wonder people are following it.
Personally, I have no beef with him but I struggle to reconcile someone so gifted as to create Tesla and SpaceX being so silly as to label themselves a free speech absolutist then spend $44 billion on a platform that needs advertising to survive.
Also, Facebook is a whole other issue. Those employees were hired recently under the Meta expansion, so not part of the core business. A failed side-venture is all.
Musk never created Tesla.
stunet wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:It's weird how there is so much negativity towards Elon and Twitter anything he does seems to be attacked, firing workers or making any changes.
BTW. Interesting that Facebook an established business this week laid off 13% (11,000) employees but that got little press.
Not that weird. Though undoubtedly successful with Tesla and SpaceX he's been cocky and pugnacious so there'll be many people looking to see him brought down a peg or two. Such thinking isn't reserved for him, it's human nature.
His mouth got him into this train wreck. If he said nothing he wouldn't have been legally bound to follow through. I foresee a day when 'musk' becomes a synonym for a horrible fuck up: "You really musked up that takeoff'.
Elon's also proving to be a bit naive when it comes to free speech. It's one thing to spout platitudes about free speech when there's no consequences to yourself - every now and again someone pops up on Swellnet saying as much - but it's another when reality bites. Saying he's a "free speech absolutist" was an absurd position, as is clearly being shown now.
This is an issue of our time so it's no wonder people are following it.
Personally, I have no beef with him but I struggle to reconcile someone so gifted as to create Tesla and SpaceX being so silly as to label themselves a free speech absolutist then spend $44 billion on a platform that needs advertising to survive.
Also, Facebook is a whole other issue. Those employees were hired recently under the Meta expansion, so not part of the core business. A failed side-venture is all.
Musk never created Tesla.
The commercial world/history is littered with previously highly successful international companies buying non core business only to find their expertise, IP, capital is spread too thinly. Most survive at a loss after divestment but some don’t. Let’s see how this lands
gsco wrote:Seems to be a comprehensive blanket left woke anti-Trump politically-motivated pro-covid pro-censorship anti-free speech motivated war on Musk trying to silence any positive comments or independent thought about Musk and his purchase of twitter.
It’s even playing out in here.
Where's it playing out in here?
seems to me that the main thing people are petrified about with Musk buying twitter is him opening it back up to actual free speech and removing a lot of the (particularly politically motivated) censorship
Edit: where's it playing out in here? Seems that everyone is trying to cancel indo for having independent thoughts.
Business case should be evaluated independent of Elon’s character which was very questionable well before the twitter deal. The company is in jeopardy because it took on an enormous amount of debt to finance the deal. Although I will question the valuation I will not question the structure of the deal which in my view makes perfect sense. Debt should be loaded onto the business and if business has great product offering it will survive the rest of time. If not, it will fall into oblivion.
gsco wrote:seems to me that the main thing people are petrified about with Musk buying twitter is him opening it back up to actual free speech and removing a lot of the (particularly politically motivated) censorship
Edit: where's it playing out in here? Seems that everyone is trying to cancel indo for having independent thoughts.
Well, twitter crowd not agreeing with Elon? It’s a very biased platform. What’s new there?
gsco wrote:Seems that everyone is trying to cancel indo for having independent thoughts.
Ha ha ha....we're having a conversation, mate.
Cancelled....FMD.
Haha yea Indo would have to be the most uncancelled guy on here, he's got a comment for everything.
The recent vid below is a bit TL:DW (Too Long: Didn't Watch) but it does provide an insight into EM's goals if anyone is remotely interested in the bigger picture of Musk mania, and that certainly includes the current Twitter debacle.
gsco wrote:Seems to be a comprehensive blanket left woke anti-Trump politically-motivated pro-covid pro-censorship anti-free speech motivated war on Musk trying to silence any positive comments or independent thought about Musk and his purchase of twitter.
It’s even playing out in here.
It’s exactly the same censorship event we just went through for 2.5 yrs of covid that cancelled any questioning or independent thought about what’s going on - any wrongthink.
Seems that people are now programmed to try to cancel any views they simply “don’t like” or that doesn’t align with their woke anti-Trump pro-covid etc groupthink or political ideology.
From what I understand a major motivation of Musk purchasing twitter is to go to war with this mass woke left progressive anti-free speech pro-censorship cancel culture that we now live in.
If that’s the case then I hope Musk also buys out meta, google etc and fixes things there too.
absolutely!
it started well before covid, and even before trump...
trump was a sympton of a certain political line of thought that has had massive issues adjusting to a world where everyone has essentially a pc in their pocket with access to the internet
these events, trump and covid, just triggered the censorious even more... much to their detriment...
but musk is also absolutely naive
and trigger happy himself
he's clearly aspurgers, the qualities that make him a genius are also his bane
whether twitter lives or dies...
who gives a shit...
the world will be a better place for elon's actions, however twitter's future pans out...
I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhCy0cJQ-ZHGRerA
Some great writing from prof Galloway, it summarises things nicely.
flollo wrote:Some great writing from prof Galloway, it summarises things nicely.
Thanks for sharing that article, very well written and to the point .
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co apologises after fake Twitter account says insulin is free as Elon Musk rolls back verification https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-12/eli-lilly-twitter-insulin-prices-...
So interesting to observe such a large chunk of the media and society turn on Musk and his purchase of twitter, and start to wage full blown information war on him, particularly by those freaking out about freedom of speech.
Seems that people prefer censorship and thought control.
Is an interesting article flollo, and I think Nassim Taleb's book Fooled by Randomness also is a pertinent perspective here.
"Seems that people prefer censorship and thought control."
bizzarro hey?!
I hate to go full rwnj, but fuck it...
'the left's agenda doesn't work without censorship'
sure is seeming that way...
the fear is palpable
(that's fake left btw ...it must be... both you and I display some very left wing tendencies)
Supafreak wrote:I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhC...
Doesn’t it cost $10 to make a dose of insulin?
Who’s the lowlife?
etarip wrote:Supafreak wrote:I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhC...
Doesn’t it cost $10 to make a dose of insulin?
Who’s the lowlife?
Yeah, insulin should be free
stunet wrote:gsco wrote:Seems that everyone is trying to cancel indo for having independent thoughts.
Ha ha ha....we're having a conversation, mate.
Cancelled....FMD.
While i appreciate the support gsco, i dont feel like anyone is trying to cancel me or even attack me in any way, no issues at all with the conversation.
gsco wrote:So interesting to observe such a large chunk of the media and society turn on Musk and his purchase of twitter, and start to wage full blown information war on him, particularly by those freaking out about freedom of speech.
Seems that people prefer censorship and thought control.
Is an interesting article flollo, and I think Nassim Taleb's book Fooled by Randomness also is a pertinent perspective here.
100% agree, it's funny how now people interpret free speech as total non moderation or hate speech, when he has been clear that's not the case.
thermalben wrote:ID, perhaps you don't understand the gravity of this evolving catastrophe with Twitter. There's a very real chance that one of the world's biggest social media platforms could be gone within 6-12 months. Irrespective of whether you like Twitter or Elon, that's a staggering development just two weeks in.
I think Elon's ego got way ahead of himself, and subsequently he's found himself in a difficult position - owning Twitter, but having made grand statements about free speech, which unfortunately (for him) can't be reconciled in a commercial world. And he's taken on a shitload of debt to finance the purchase (interest repayments alone are $1.2 billion per year, which is way more than the business makes in revenue).
Re: Facebook - it's had stacks of press. And for sure, this week's lay-offs are terrible.
But, for a little more context, Facebook's employee count was 71,970 in December 2021. Last week (prior to the lay-offs) they totaled around 87,000. Which means they've hired 15,000 people in the last eleven months. So, they're still up 4,000 employees since last December.
I'm betting this view is one your just regurgitating from an article you read somewhere, that really is just somebody else's opinion it doesn't actually make it true, it's exactly what I'm talking about there is so much spin on this from media outlets that is shaping peoples views and narratives around the topic..
Everyone from journalist to people on social media are currently expert's on buying and running twitter and an expert on making calls on Elon.
Do you really think Elon wouldn't have known all the figures and financial risk and challenges ahead???
Do you really think the richest man in the world would not have a team of people crunching figures and looking at all kinds of different scenarios???
He/they would have known there would be sponsors leaving which also makes things harder, and of course he would have known many would leave twitter. (although that link of Sypkans on Twitter numbers being so high is surprising if true)
Obviously Elon also knows if you create a better product you get the exact opposite you get more people and more advertisers.
He has moved fast in important areas like cutting staff and id expect getting more productivity from those remaining and also implementing new ideas quickly, but it's way way way to early to judge if his vision will be successful both from a users view and a business income view, just because he launches some grey tick and then retracts it means little in the scheme of things, give him a few months maybe even six months or more then let's start judging things.
You can also bet he has surrounded himself with the very best people in all the fields needed and you would expect he has all kinds of plans to improve things and produce income.
Based on his past success its more likely he will turn it into a money making business in a year or two and create a much more user friendly platform in the next few months where people will be able to share and debate ideas in a much more free way.
In regard to free speech, this also where people are also being misleading often suggesting its going to be a free for all or suggestions its going to be a platform for hate speech, or taking some current incidence and people trying to push limits or launch an attack as a sign its now a free for all, he never suggested it was going too be a free for all, just that it would be moderated much more fairly and not moderated based on ideology which twitter is very renowned for.
Again lets give it some time before we judge if he has succeeded in this area, while i don't use twitter i dont think it would be that hard to improve things, all you have to do is use some common sense because in the past some prominent people have been de platformed for ridiculous things like saying factual things like men can't have babies or not using correct pronouns.
BTW. The idea that Twitter will be gone in 6 to 12 months is just ridiculous, its not going anywhere, business like My Space or Friendster or even other tech companies like Alta vista, Napster or even I Tunes have lost popularity or completely disappeared mostly due to not evolving and other business providing a better product that replaces them or in I Tunes case streaming, Musk is aiming to do the opposite and evolve the business to be better and more profitable.
Nah ID, I didn't regurgitate anything. All my own thoughts.
I have zero experience as a billionaire, zero experience as a genius, but more than twenty years experience running a small media business. Sure, Musk's problems are exponentially greater than mine, but they're all derivatives: trying to find a way to pay the bills in a declining advertising environment, by launching a subscription model.
Hell, I wrote an article about it five and a half years ago: https://www.swellnet.com/news/swellnet-dispatch/2017/07/14/we-need-have-...
Fortunately, I don't have interest repayments of $1.2 billion per year to worry about.
@indo the core of the problem is the debt that twitter needs to service. It will be hard to come up with that kind of money so Elon started quite aggressively from day 1. Traditionally, twitter (or any other startup of this size) would be raising capital through equity rather than debt but that is not the case in this situation. When it comes to equity - a lot of investors will be happy if their asset valuations grow over time even if they don’t see any immediate cash payments. So, there is no immediate cash flow impact to business operations. Asset valuations would obviously grow if business operations deliver good financial outcomes. Contrary to that, bank loans need to paid as per contractual agreements. Equity doesn’t change, you can be 100% equity owner with a large volume of debt. And as repayments need to be made the impact on the current cash flow is immediate regardless of the success of your operation.
This is where Elon is changing the game (I’m not sure if it’s for better or worse). He’s taken the public company from the share market and turned it private through debt. That debt will obviously have to be repaid and if needed, raising more equity will be much harder in this setup. This deal is not a move you see everyday. And regardless of what everyone thinks about free speech and all this other stuff, at the core business level the business is going through a radical change. And it will either end up in a rubbish bin or it will be taught in business schools as a crazy transformation case study.
These two links (1 & 2) give some details about how the twitter purchase is financed.
There's about $13billion in syndicated debt of various arrangements/facilities and provided by various lenders:
Interestingly, there's also about $5.2billion from other equity investors:
I would question the idea that these debt and other equity financiers are providing money blindly and just "hoping for the best" that they will get paid back and/or make a profit... And I would also question the idea that Musk is now just "throwing around ideas" and/or "making stuff up" and/or "winging it" in order to magically make twitter profitable, and really has no idea about what he's doing...
Actually a quick look at twitter's basic financials indicates that expense items are growing disproportionately to revenues. Twitter seems to have been getting run into the ground as a public company due to expense/cost blowouts.
Based on these numbers it doesn't look hard to rein in costs to the extent of finding $1billion/yr in loan payments.
Actually it wouldn't be hard to go through all of twitter's financial reports to identify exactly where costs have been blowing out and savings could be made.
Is it possible that most peoples' negative speculation about twitter being about to "go under" due to Musk "winging it" is really just what they truely madly deeply wish to happen due to fear of pro-Trump and anti-covid free speech...?
Supafreak wrote:I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhC...
Isn’t that exactly what every suit working trading activities does day in day out? Spew out realms of misinformation to suit their trade.
What’s the difference?
bonza wrote:Supafreak wrote:I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhC...
Isn’t that exactly what every suit working trading activities does day in day out? Spew out realms of misinformation to suit their trade.
What’s the difference?
My point which I didn’t make clear was anybody by paying the blue tick fee could impersonate anybody for kicks or personal gain . Here’s a lefties take on the Twitter fiasco.https://newrepublic.com/article/168746/elon-musk-twitter-doomed-debt.Assume for one moment that Musk was somehow able to restore advertiser goodwill. Thanks to his new de-verification program, “verified” users are now free to impersonate companies and post whatever they like under that company’s name for a short period of time until they get suspended. (This has already happened.) It is only a matter of time before someone realizes that they can short a company’s stock, impersonate a journalist, tweet that the Justice Department indicted that company’s CEO for securities fraud, and reap the rewards of any price drop before people catch on. Why would any company pay for promoted tweets on a site where users can’t automatically trust that they are authentic?
Yeah cool. Good question. Bothers me not re Twitter business model or its survival. Reckon the world would move on within days if it all fell over. Just slow the fuck down for a bit. Refocus (refund) on traditional investigative journalist enquiry. Who knows.
I was just questioning the what appears to be confected outrage over the chaos. Chaos typically celebrated as edgy hilarity.
Supafreak wrote:It is only a matter of time before someone realizes that they can short a company’s stock,
Already happened.
The power of $8 pic.twitter.com/JHSy8aLJXy
— Esther C, MD MPH (@choo_ek) November 11, 2022
"...Is it possible that most peoples' negative speculation about twitter being about to "go under" due to Musk "winging it" is really just what they truely madly deeply wish to happen due to fear of pro-Trump and anti-covid free speech...?"
absolutely possible...
like absolutely possibly most definitely probable that's exactly what they want
pretty funny watching all the butthurts that totally love his cars (and are totally addicted to twitter) are all perplexed about what to drive and do now...
(whilst voicing it all on twitter...)
"...Actually a quick look at twitter's basic financials indicates that expense items are growing disproportionately to revenues. Twitter seems to have been getting run into the ground as a public company due to expense/cost blowouts.
Based on these numbers it doesn't look hard to rein in costs to the extent of finding $1billion/yr in loan payments..."
so no more waterslides in the lunchroom perhaps?
seems he really didn't think the new $8 blue ticky thingy through...
however, his justification for changing it was more than justified... 'it just wasn't working' ...ie. many of those with the 'reputable source' blue tick, were the biggest spreaders of misinformation...
totally not working
sypkan wrote:"...Is it possible that most peoples' negative speculation about twitter being about to "go under" due to Musk "winging it" is really just what they truely madly deeply wish to happen due to fear of pro-Trump and anti-covid free speech...?"
absolutely possible...
like absolutely possibly most definitely probable that's exactly what they want
Amazing to see conspiracies plucked out of thin air.
Not sure if you noticed, but there's also been a lot of 'negative speculation' about FTX 'being about to go under' in the last few days too (with indications that SBF is trying to 'wing it').
I'm unsure about Sam Bankman-Fried's stance on 'anti-covid free speech', however it was reported six months ago that SBF was looking to "spend $1B in 2024 to thwart Trump comeback".
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sam-bankman-fried-could-spend-up-to-1b-in...
How do you reconcile that?
gsco wrote:These two links (1 & 2) give some details about how the twitter purchase is financed.
There's about $13billion in syndicated debt of various arrangements/facilities and provided by various lenders:
Interestingly, there's also about $5.2billion from other equity investors:
I would question the idea that these debt and other equity financiers are providing money blindly and just "hoping for the best" that they will get paid back and/or make a profit... And I would also question the idea that Musk is now just "throwing around ideas" and/or "making stuff up" and/or "winging it" in order to magically make twitter profitable, and really has no idea about what he's doing...
Actually a quick look at twitter's basic financials indicates that expense items are growing disproportionately to revenues. Twitter seems to have been getting run into the ground as a public company due to expense/cost blowouts.
Based on these numbers it doesn't look hard to rein in costs to the extent of finding $1billion/yr in loan payments.
Actually it wouldn't be hard to go through all of twitter's financial reports to identify exactly where costs have been blowing out and savings could be made.
Is it possible that most peoples' negative speculation about twitter being about to "go under" due to Musk "winging it" is really just what they truely madly deeply wish to happen due to fear of pro-Trump and anti-covid free speech...?
This makes more sense than the idea Musk has no idea what he is doing and neither do the finance companies.
Supafreak wrote:bonza wrote:Supafreak wrote:I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhC...
Isn’t that exactly what every suit working trading activities does day in day out? Spew out realms of misinformation to suit their trade.
What’s the difference?
My point which I didn’t make clear was anybody by paying the blue tick fee could impersonate anybody for kicks or personal gain . Here’s a lefties take on the Twitter fiasco.https://newrepublic.com/article/168746/elon-musk-twitter-doomed-debt.Assume for one moment that Musk was somehow able to restore advertiser goodwill. Thanks to his new de-verification program, “verified” users are now free to impersonate companies and post whatever they like under that company’s name for a short period of time until they get suspended. (This has already happened.) It is only a matter of time before someone realizes that they can short a company’s stock, impersonate a journalist, tweet that the Justice Department indicted that company’s CEO for securities fraud, and reap the rewards of any price drop before people catch on. Why would any company pay for promoted tweets on a site where users can’t automatically trust that they are authentic?
This makes no sense at all, when I've listened to interviews and Musk talks about this kind of thing he has said its been too easy to get blue ticks and the system abused and he wants a proper verification process.
My understanding is there will ultimately be different tiers where those with some special status will be able to get say a special blue tick but have a much better verification process and must pay monthly for the tick.
Then other general public can also get ticks of some kind be it blue or grey or whatever but accounts must still be verified with proper personal ID etc, i expect possibly you pay if blue and not if grey or something like that.
This then works into the algorithm where if you pay your post/replies get more exposure but with non paying verified accounts getting some exposure still.
Then at the bottom of the list is non paying non verified accounts that end up getting less exposure.
This means bot accounts go to the bottom of the algorithm and lose exposure as can't be verified or cant pay, and even if they can jump hoops to do so can only do it in small numbers not just created thousands of bot accounts and then get exposure.
All this which he has said basically makes complete sense, it gives an incentive to pay and an incentive to have an account under the name of a real business or person bringing accountably to things which creates a better experience for all.
If you are of some status and don't want to pay, fine you still get the grey tick or whatever you still have to prove you are who say you are and still get a big following based on really being that person.
But a fake account of somebody would be hard to produce and get followers as you cant get the tick or pay so no body will have trust that you are who you say your are and won't get algorithm exposure..
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:bonza wrote:Supafreak wrote:I think this is just the start of what lowlifes will get up too , and think it’s funny. Could also be a way of picking up cheap stock . https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/1591156461656498176?s=46&t=bDP1v5RhC...
Isn’t that exactly what every suit working trading activities does day in day out? Spew out realms of misinformation to suit their trade.
What’s the difference?
My point which I didn’t make clear was anybody by paying the blue tick fee could impersonate anybody for kicks or personal gain . Here’s a lefties take on the Twitter fiasco.https://newrepublic.com/article/168746/elon-musk-twitter-doomed-debt.Assume for one moment that Musk was somehow able to restore advertiser goodwill. Thanks to his new de-verification program, “verified” users are now free to impersonate companies and post whatever they like under that company’s name for a short period of time until they get suspended. (This has already happened.) It is only a matter of time before someone realizes that they can short a company’s stock, impersonate a journalist, tweet that the Justice Department indicted that company’s CEO for securities fraud, and reap the rewards of any price drop before people catch on. Why would any company pay for promoted tweets on a site where users can’t automatically trust that they are authentic?
This makes no sense at all, when I've listened to interviews and Musk talks about this kind of thing he has said its been too easy to get blue ticks and the system abused and he wants a proper verification process.
My understanding is there will ultimately be different tiers where those with some special status will be able to get say a special blue tick but have a much better verification process and must pay monthly for the tick.
Then other general public can also get ticks of some kind be it blue or grey or whatever but accounts must still be verified with proper personal ID etc, i expect possibly you pay if blue and not if grey or something like that.
This then works into the algorithm where if you pay your post/replies get more exposure but with non paying verified accounts getting some exposure still.
Then at the bottom of the list is non paying non verified accounts that end up getting less exposure.
This means bot accounts go to the bottom of the algorithm and lose exposure as can't be verified or cant pay, and even if they can jump hoops to do so can only do it in small numbers not just created thousands of bot accounts and then get exposure.
All this which he has said basically makes complete sense, it gives an incentive to pay and an incentive to have an account under the name of a real business or person bringing accountably to things which creates a better experience for all.
If you are of some status and don't want to pay, fine you still get the grey tick or whatever you still have to prove you are who say you are and still get a big following based on really being that person.
But a fake account of somebody would be hard to produce and get followers as you cant get the tick or pay so no body will have trust that you are who you say your are and won't get algorithm exposure..
@indo , you’re still not paying attention to what’s actually going on .
other comment I'd make is haven't people been making public statements aimed at influencing and profiting from asset price movements - both up and down - via all kinds of media for like 100s of yrs?
there's nothing new under the sun here...?
gsco wrote:other comment I'd make is haven't people been making public statements aimed at influencing and profiting from asset price movements - both up and down - via all kinds of media for like 100s of yrs?
there's nothing new under the sun here...
What’s new is people are paying $8 , impersonating others and then eventually getting found out and deleted but meanwhile they have disrupted market or spread misinformation . Musk initially thought this was cool as he still got $8
@Supafreak
Okay so you are telling me, he is saying he will create a system like this that makes complete sense in every way.
-From a business case, encourages people to get verification and pay
-Accountably which creates a better user experience
-Minimises exposure and incentive for bots.
But instead just goes for some system that makes no sense at all
Im no buying it, i think you and others like your article are full of shit and just judging the cake before its baked.
So you’re saying fraudulent market manipulation is a completely new phenomenon caused by Musk buying twitter?
indo-dreaming wrote:This makes no sense at all, when I've listened to interviews and Musk talks about this kind of thing he has said its been too easy to get blue ticks and the system abused and he wants a proper verification process.
My understanding is there will ultimately be different tiers where those with some special status will be able to get say a special blue tick but have a much better verification process and must pay monthly for the tick.
Then other general public can also get ticks of some kind be it blue or grey or whatever but accounts must still be verified with proper personal ID etc, i expect possibly you pay if blue and not if grey or something like that.
This then works into the algorithm where if you pay your post/replies get more exposure but with non paying verified accounts getting some exposure still.
Then at the bottom of the list is non paying non verified accounts that end up getting less exposure.
This means bot accounts go to the bottom of the algorithm and lose exposure as can't be verified or cant pay, and even if they can jump hoops to do so can only do it in small numbers not just created thousands of bot accounts and then get exposure.
All this which he has said basically makes complete sense, it gives an incentive to pay and an incentive to have an account under the name of a real business or person bringing accountably to things which creates a better experience for all.
If you are of some status and don't want to pay, fine you still get the grey tick or whatever you still have to prove you are who say you are and still get a big following based on really being that person.
But a fake account of somebody would be hard to produce and get followers as you cant get the tick or pay so no body will have trust that you are who you say your are and won't get algorithm exposure..
ID, you really need some time using Twitter to understand how catastrophically bad all of these 'ideas' have turned out in just the last week.
Every single one of your points here are demonstrably wrong. Please don't make me find examples for each.
gsco wrote:So you’re saying fraudulent market manipulation is a completely new phenomenon caused by Musk buying twitter?
Gosh, no. Where was that implied?
gsco wrote:So you’re saying fraudulent market manipulation is a completely new phenomenon caused by Musk buying twitter?
Maybe you and indo missed this link that I put up earlier. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-12/eli-lilly-twitter-insulin-prices-...
Have it cunts