So what's the over/under on how long she lasts? I figure maybe 6 months. Elon will either drive her away quickly with his micro-management or she's go full red pill and drive the company into the ground just as fast as if he was running it alone.
Maybe she should shadow Gwynne Shotwell over at SpaceX for a few months first to learn how to deal with Elon. Shotwell is an amazing leader over there, she does an amazing job running SpaceX and keeping Elon in check.
So - your point is Elon made a bad pick and then you used another Musk company example as how to do it right?
Everyone has a blind spot. Musk’s might be in dealing with social issues.
So what's the over/under on how long she lasts? I figure maybe 6 months. Elon will either drive her away quickly with his micro-management or she's go full red pill and drive the company into the ground just as fast as if he was running it alone.
Maybe she should shadow Gwynne Shotwell over at SpaceX for a few months first to learn how to deal with Elon. Shotwell is an amazing leader over there, she does an amazing job running SpaceX and keeping Elon in check.
So - your point is Elon made a bad pick and then you used another Musk company example as how to do it right?
Everyone has a blind spot. Musk’s might be in dealing with social issues.
Musk's blind spot is attributable to his autism spectrum disorder (Asperger's Syndrome). He doesn't understand people, or human interactions, or socialization. He's obsessed with controlling his environment, no matter the effect on anything else. This is classic autistic behavior.
This. Article could really do without that last line.
It’s not like a hostile press didn’t earn it.
No doubt, they've (press) been over-the-top daffy in response to Musk buying Twitter.
My concern is that this person's track record doesn't look good when it comes to free-speech concerns and trying to keep the politics from driving Twitter back into the hole.
9secondkox2 said: Can’t wait to see it become “X.” Will dominate.
I'm honestly concerned about that, too. I want Twitter to be Twitter. I'm not sure I want (or need) it to become the 'everything' app.
"Elon has committed to being accessible to everyone for continual feedback," Yaccarino said near the end of the interview. "If freedom of speech, as he says, is the bedrock of this country, I'm not sure there's anyone in this room who could disagree with that."
Indeed. Who could disagree with that?
They might say that, but actions speak louder than words. Pre-Elon Twitter was about anything but free-speech. Everyone seems willing to say free-speech is a bedrock, but few seem to actually back that up.
... under his control Twitter will continue to devolve into the cesspool he is making it.
I've been on Twitter for quite a long time, and it has never been better on almost any metric I can think of. What's the beef?
fastasleep said: LOL you Musk sycophants are really something else. Nobody grounded in reality could look at Twitter right now and say this with a straight face. It's a five alarm dumpster fire sinking into a cesspool.
How so?
Stabitha_Christie said: Above all else Twitter is an adverting platform. Having a successful adverting executive run an advertising company does make sense.
I'd rather it be a service. Advertising ruins most things. But, maybe given the financial realities, that isn't possible at this point.
williamlondon said: Doesn't matter if advertisers won't spend money with twitter because it's such a fucking RWNJ cesspit now (despite how wonderful she *might* be), especially now that they're looking at bringing the advertiser repeller (Fucker Carlson) to the platform.
The key here is how bad the other platforms are screwing up. Carlson has a massive audience. If Twitter becomes a successful platform for distribution of shows to compete with YouTube, etc. w/o the baloney, it could become quite successful.
That said, I think there are even better platforms, as even Twitter will unlikely be as hands-off as it could be, in terms of success for such shows.
mark fearing said: What? It’s doing well? Half the audience or more left it. Advertisers left it. He bought it, overpaid because of ego, and they will write it off as it falls apart.
Sorry, that's total baloney. A few people left. Advertisers virtue-signaled and have been returning. He probably did vastly overpay, but he seems to have done that at least partly in principal (which, makes him a hero for that aspect, at least).
crofford said: So - your point is Elon made a bad pick and then you used another Musk company example as how to do it right?
Probably not a bad point, as Tesla and SpaceX have been quite successful.
williamlondon said: Doesn't matter if advertisers won't spend money with twitter because it's such a fucking RWNJ cesspit now (despite how wonderful she *might* be), especially now that they're looking at bringing the advertiser repeller (Fucker Carlson) to the platform.
As someone else pointed out, what a moron for paying $44B for a platform and turning it into something he could have bought (Parler) for ~$200. Musk thinks he's Midas, the results say the opposite.
You seem to be reading my comment as some sort of endorsement of Twitter or Musk. It isn't the guy is a complete nob and I'm fairly convinced that Twitter will implode or be sold off at an incredible loss. My point that if your business is adverting then having someone that has success at an executive level isn't a bad choice to run it. She is qualified for the job. Plenty of qualified and talented have not failed to save a floundering company.
You're thinking clearly. It is these 'knee-jerk Elon haters' who aren't. Kind of like Apple, I've been extremely critical of Elon at points, while appreciating the good things he does. It's a sign of intellectual maturity, which I guess is rare these days.
mark fearing said: What? It’s doing well? Half the audience or more left it. Advertisers left it. He bought it, overpaid because of ego, and they will write it off as it falls apart.
Sorry, that's total baloney. A few people left. Advertisers virtue-signaled and have been returning. He probably did vastly overpay, but he seems to have done that at least partly in principal (which, makes him a hero for that aspect, at least).
Lots to unpack here. First. Twitter lost 89% of its ad revenue since Musk took over, and lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers. That's not virtue-signaling, that's flight. They have lost 4% of users so far in 2023, and a projected 5% in 2024 (Business Insider) for a total of 32 million dropping out or switching. In the US, average daily active users declined 15%.
As far as overpaying "in principal" (I assume you mean "principle"), rich people, even Musk, don't do that, that's why they're rich. They use their wealth to leverage the best deal. Hmm, he didn't do that. We assume he's extremely wealthy because we are told he is, based on evaluation of his properties. Of course, until someone writes him a check, it's just an evaluation, not cash.
As far as SpaceX being successful, absolutely. Profitable, maybe not. According to Motley Fool, they made 0,2% on $1 billion in revenue. Tesla, on the other hand, is quite profitable--but the profit right now is from selling regulatory credits to other auto makers, not from selling cars.
13485 said: Lots to unpack here. First. Twitter lost 89% of its ad revenue since Musk took over, and lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers. That's not virtue-signaling, that's flight. They have lost 4% of users so far in 2023, and a projected 5% in 2024 (Business Insider) for a total of 32 million dropping out or switching. In the US, average daily active users declined 15%.
As far as overpaying "in principal" (I assume you mean "principle"), rich people, even Musk, don't do that, that's why they're rich. They use their wealth to leverage the best deal. Hmm, he didn't do that. We assume he's extremely wealthy because we are told he is, based on evaluation of his properties. Of course, until someone writes him a check, it's just an evaluation, not cash.
As far as SpaceX being successful, absolutely. Profitable, maybe not. According to Motley Fool, they made 0,2% on $1 billion in revenue. Tesla, on the other hand, is quite profitable--but the profit right now is from selling regulatory credits to other auto makers, not from selling cars.
Not sure if you've watched the fairly recent Babylon Bee interview with Musk. He seemed to be pretty honest about what is going on. Yeah, Twitter is in financial trouble, but they were before he bought them. We'll see how things move forward, but ultimately, big business can't keep up with this stupidity forever. Yes, it's virtue-signaling.
As far as principal, I think he was troubled enough by the censorship situation, or he'd have timed his purchase a lot better. Whether I like this or that about Musk (ex: I've been highly critical of him over AI driven cars, even to the extent of thinking he should face criminal charges), he's a hero in this regard. That's a lot of money he could lose (I suppose it could even potentially ruin him... as you say, he doesn't have that much cash, it's leveraged). He has big plans, of course, but they might not work out.
I've been on Twitter for quite a long time, and it has never been better on almost any metric I can think of. What's the beef?
More bannings of people because the guy at the top doesn't like what they said, on Twitter or elsewhere, check
More Disinformation, check
More Racism, check
More Misogyny, check
More Bullying and general Hate Speech, check
Wow, you're right, so many metrics have never been higher. It's a regular Neo-Nazi Incel paradise.
LOL, please turn off your TV.
fastasleep said: Oh, just using every metric known to humankind. Twitter is worth a third of what he paid for it, for all of the reasons you're too demonstrably too dense to see. It's not even a question, you just refuse to accept the facts.
It is because it was never even close to worth as much as he paid for it in the first place. I don't think it was primarily a business decision, even if he wanted to buy it for business reasons (which he did). And, how priceless is exposing the government(s) and proving much of the 'conspiracy theory' to be correct?
13485 said: Lots to unpack here. First. Twitter lost 89% of its ad revenue since Musk took over, and lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers. That's not virtue-signaling, that's flight. They have lost 4% of users so far in 2023, and a projected 5% in 2024 (Business Insider) for a total of 32 million dropping out or switching. In the US, average daily active users declined 15%.
As far as overpaying "in principal" (I assume you mean "principle"), rich people, even Musk, don't do that, that's why they're rich. They use their wealth to leverage the best deal. Hmm, he didn't do that. We assume he's extremely wealthy because we are told he is, based on evaluation of his properties. Of course, until someone writes him a check, it's just an evaluation, not cash.
As far as SpaceX being successful, absolutely. Profitable, maybe not. According to Motley Fool, they made 0,2% on $1 billion in revenue. Tesla, on the other hand, is quite profitable--but the profit right now is from selling regulatory credits to other auto makers, not from selling cars.
Not sure if you've watched the fairly recent Babylon Bee interview with Musk. He seemed to be pretty honest about what is going on. Yeah, Twitter is in financial trouble, but they were before he bought them. We'll see how things move forward, but ultimately, big business can't keep up with this stupidity forever. Yes, it's virtue-signaling.
As far as principal, I think he was troubled enough by the censorship situation, or he'd have timed his purchase a lot better. Whether I like this or that about Musk (ex: I've been highly critical of him over AI driven cars, even to the extent of thinking he should face criminal charges), he's a hero in this regard. That's a lot of money he could lose (I suppose it could even potentially ruin him... as you say, he doesn't have that much cash, it's leveraged). He has big plans, of course, but they might not work out.
I've been on Twitter for quite a long time, and it has never been better on almost any metric I can think of. What's the beef?
More bannings of people because the guy at the top doesn't like what they said, on Twitter or elsewhere, check
More Disinformation, check
More Racism, check
More Misogyny, check
More Bullying and general Hate Speech, check
Wow, you're right, so many metrics have never been higher. It's a regular Neo-Nazi Incel paradise.
LOL, please turn off your TV.
fastasleep said: Oh, just using every metric known to humankind. Twitter is worth a third of what he paid for it, for all of the reasons you're too demonstrably too dense to see. It's not even a question, you just refuse to accept the facts.
It is because it was never even close to worth as much as he paid for it in the first place. I don't think it was primarily a business decision, even if he wanted to buy it for business reasons (which he did). And, how priceless is exposing the government(s) and proving much of the 'conspiracy theory' to be correct?
Comments
My concern is that this person's track record doesn't look good when it comes to free-speech concerns and trying to keep the politics from driving Twitter back into the hole.
I'm honestly concerned about that, too. I want Twitter to be Twitter. I'm not sure I want (or need) it to become the 'everything' app.
They might say that, but actions speak louder than words. Pre-Elon Twitter was about anything but free-speech. Everyone seems willing to say free-speech is a bedrock, but few seem to actually back that up.
I've been on Twitter for quite a long time, and it has never been better on almost any metric I can think of. What's the beef?
How so?
I'd rather it be a service. Advertising ruins most things. But, maybe given the financial realities, that isn't possible at this point.
The key here is how bad the other platforms are screwing up. Carlson has a massive audience. If Twitter becomes a successful platform for distribution of shows to compete with YouTube, etc. w/o the baloney, it could become quite successful.
That said, I think there are even better platforms, as even Twitter will unlikely be as hands-off as it could be, in terms of success for such shows.
Sorry, that's total baloney. A few people left. Advertisers virtue-signaled and have been returning. He probably did vastly overpay, but he seems to have done that at least partly in principal (which, makes him a hero for that aspect, at least).
Probably not a bad point, as Tesla and SpaceX have been quite successful.
You're thinking clearly. It is these 'knee-jerk Elon haters' who aren't. Kind of like Apple, I've been extremely critical of Elon at points, while appreciating the good things he does. It's a sign of intellectual maturity, which I guess is rare these days.
As far as overpaying "in principal" (I assume you mean "principle"), rich people, even Musk, don't do that, that's why they're rich. They use their wealth to leverage the best deal. Hmm, he didn't do that. We assume he's extremely wealthy because we are told he is, based on evaluation of his properties. Of course, until someone writes him a check, it's just an evaluation, not cash.
As far as SpaceX being successful, absolutely. Profitable, maybe not. According to Motley Fool, they made 0,2% on $1 billion in revenue. Tesla, on the other hand, is quite profitable--but the profit right now is from selling regulatory credits to other auto makers, not from selling cars.
- More bannings of people because the guy at the top doesn't like what they said, on Twitter or elsewhere, check
- More Disinformation, check
- More Racism, check
- More Misogyny, check
- More Bullying and general Hate Speech, check
Wow, you're right, so many metrics have never been higher. It's a regular Neo-Nazi Incel paradise.As far as principal, I think he was troubled enough by the censorship situation, or he'd have timed his purchase a lot better. Whether I like this or that about Musk (ex: I've been highly critical of him over AI driven cars, even to the extent of thinking he should face criminal charges), he's a hero in this regard. That's a lot of money he could lose (I suppose it could even potentially ruin him... as you say, he doesn't have that much cash, it's leveraged). He has big plans, of course, but they might not work out.
LOL, please turn off your TV.
It is because it was never even close to worth as much as he paid for it in the first place.
I don't think it was primarily a business decision, even if he wanted to buy it for business reasons (which he did).
And, how priceless is exposing the government(s) and proving much of the 'conspiracy theory' to be correct?