Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter may soon go through

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,602
1,827
118
Yes, the answer is always more pearl-clutching algorithms.

Automodding is what got me permabanned from Twitter and I have mixed feelings on that.
The answer is cheaper moderation, one way or another. You'll lose some people with auotomod, but its really not a big problem, most of them have minuscule following and don't drive traffic to the site. You keep the real people moderation for large influential person that might be worth keeping around.

Ultimately if Joe Smhuck make a post about, I dunno, brutally murdering rapist to his 10 followers, its not worth figuring out if the particular wording make it into a call to harm and bannable or a free expression of speech that should be protected. You just autoban and move on.

There is no universe where nobody would have noticed any of that.
The point isn't for people to not notice, the point is to not make a spectacle of it. By making it about his distorted version of free speech, Musk guaranteed that people would go on the platform and try to push as far as possible. This, in turn, brought in journalist to report on this, who contacted advertiser to see if they sanctioned this, which forced them to cut their advertisement, which made twitter lose more money than it saved. But had the official message be "were cutting moderation staff but keeping the standard just as high, if not higher", it wouldn't have started the whole thing and advertiser would have just shrugged it off.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
The answer is cheaper moderation, one way or another.
Why is it?

The cost of moderation is relatively small. The cost of wages is relatively small. We're talking about a company with tens of billions.

Cutting expenditure can slow losses in some circumstances, but it doesn't fuel growth. And cutting things that are 1) not very expensive anyway; and 2) extremely important for the company does neither.

Look bud, he cut mods and tech teams, and subsequently lost >20billion dollars. You can't really escape the fact that that's a very strong counter-example to the notion that cutting gets you growth.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,602
1,827
118
Why is it?

The cost of moderation is relatively small. The cost of wages is relatively small. We're talking about a company with tens of billions.

Cutting expenditure can slow losses in some circumstances, but it doesn't fuel growth. And cutting things that are 1) not very expensive anyway; and 2) extremely important for the company does neither.

Look bud, he cut mods and tech teams, and subsequently lost >20billion dollars. You can't really escape the fact that that's a very strong counter-example to the notion that cutting gets you growth.
He cut a lot more than just moderation team, but ultimately the mod team is the most cutable. You can't cut the people who keep the server running and you can't cut the people who are find advertiser, those are literally what keeps the system running. You can try to replace those with automated version, but the people keeping the server running are also the people who also keep the automated system running, so can't automate those, while recruiting advertising is mostly a mostly a social thing, which automated system aren't very good at for now. Moderation on the other hand is fairly easy to automate because its already largely automated, its also actually a pretty significant chunck of the workforce because you need a lot of people to churn trough all the text if you want a careful and thoughtful moderation, so its pretty expensive.

The valuation at 42 billions was always a pretty big joke, there's a reason he did everything he could to not have to buy it at that price. Especially since then every tech company lost a massive portion of their valuation. I think facebook lost something like 75% of its value over the same time without going trough massive layoff like twitter. But again, most of his problem came from making a spectacle of it and accruing too much attention, if he didn't do that there almost certainly wouldn't have been an exodus of advertiser. As always, Musk his is own biggest obstacle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
He cut a lot more than just moderation team, but ultimately the mod team is the most cutable.
And yet shoddy moderation is one of the reasons for the decrease in value. Coincidence?

You can't cut the people who keep the server running and you can't cut the people who are find advertiser, those are literally what keeps the system running.
He literally did cut the server tech support team.

Moderation on the other hand is fairly easy to automate because its already largely automated, its also actually a pretty significant chunck of the workforce because you need a lot of people to churn trough all the text if you want a careful and thoughtful moderation, so its pretty expensive.
It's easy to automate... to a very, very low standard. Moderation is literally about tone, intent, impact; things that cannot be judged consistently by an algorithm. Automated moderation as it presently exists is utter dogshit.

The valuation at 42 billions was always a pretty big joke, there's a reason he did everything he could to not have to buy it at that price. Especially since then every tech company lost a massive portion of their valuation. I think facebook lost something like 75% of its value over the same time without going trough massive layoff like twitter. But again, most of his problem came from making a spectacle of it and accruing too much attention, if he didn't do that there almost certainly wouldn't have been an exodus of advertiser. As always, Musk his is own biggest obstacle.
Did everything he could to not have to buy it at that price... you know, except just not offer to buy it at that price in the first place.

Meta lost a hell of a lot, but nowhere near as big a proportion of its market cap, and has since rebounded quite significantly. Not so Twitter. There is zero advertiser confidence in Twitter right now, either the product or the management-- and shite quality moderation, tech instability, and unpredictable policy are big parts of that (as are reputation damage risks).
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
I forgot to add that except for two years Twitter experienced net losses each time. I think it's similar to other corporations, and the only reason they were considered "healthy" is because of financial speculation which increased their valuation.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
I forgot to add that except for two years Twitter experienced net losses each time. I think it's similar to other corporations, and the only reason they were considered "healthy" is because of financial speculation which increased their valuation.
Investors will often back companies for their prospects, not their current performance. As you say, most tech corporations make a loss early on - funding growth is expensive. Investors will support that as long as the company grows, as the cost should be met by the increase in value of the company. There's no particular reason to think Twitter was in trouble as investors were willing to support it, and its huge userbase and prominence in social discourse are worth a lot. It made a profit in 2018 and 2019, so there's no obvious reason to think the company is a hopeless loss-maker.

We should note that one of the biggest concerns for advertisers (>90% of Twitter's revenue) for years was abuse and misuse of the platform, because advertisers hate to be associated with dodgy content. This is an important context for Musk's takeover and firing the moderators: Twitter had installed extensive moderation to keep advertisers confident in the service. There's was only one way that was going to end in the short term.

Obviously, Musk's plan is to reduce reliance on advertising via subscription. To put that in context, Musk aims for half of Twitter's revenue to come from subscription. Twitter currently needs about $6 billion revenue a year to make a profit, which would be every monthly Twitter user paying $20 a year. So half of revenue by subscription is 50% of users paying $20 year, or 5% of users paying $200 a year, etc. The thing is, getting even that many users to subscribe is really hard, as Musk is experiencing. I have to wonder whether this is something that old Twitter had already looked at, and may have decided not viable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,557
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Could someone please clarify this ? It did and still confuses me, elephant-in-the-room-like.

Nobody wants Musk to own Twitter, politically it's a terrifying orwellian prospect, financially it's a disaster. Twitter's staff and users ditched it en mass when Musk arrived. Him changing his mind about buying twitter was a relief. So why already, did Twitter sue him and force him to buy it ?
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,878
9,322
118
Could someone please clarify this ? It did and still confuses me, elephant-in-the-room-like.

Nobody wants Musk to own Twitter, politically it's a terrifying orwellian prospect, financially it's a disaster. Twitter's staff and users ditched it en mass when Musk arrived. Him changing his mind about buying twitter was a relief. So why already, did Twitter sue him and force him to buy it ?
Because he offered to buy it for more than it was worth, so the then owners of twitter saw a nice payday fall into their laps. Then ego and stupid made him sign the deal, meaning he couldnt back out anymore without breach of contract, which probably would have cost him far less, but again, ego and stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan and Absent

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Nobody wants Musk to own Twitter, politically it's a terrifying orwellian prospect, financially it's a disaster. Twitter's staff and users ditched it en mass when Musk arrived. Him changing his mind about buying twitter was a relief. So why already, did Twitter sue him and force him to buy it ?
Okay - key point here, Twitter did not sue Musk to force him to buy the company.

The board ultimately answer to the shareholders. At the point Musk put his offer in, Twitter was arguably overvalued, so it's attractive to the shareholders to sell up and take the money. Anyway, the sale was basically agreed. Then in the intervening months, Musk tried to back out. However, Musk had to either buy it at the agreed price or walk away - but the contract meant that Musk had to pay $1 billion to walk away. That was what Twitter sued him for - to make him pay up for walking. Musk instead continued with the sale.

It's hard not to conclude that Musk made an ill-considered offer. On realising this, he spent months trying to undermine Twitter in attempt to force it to decrease the price he had agreed to buy it at. These attempts failed. So Musk was left having to pay significantly more than Twitter was worth, or losing $1 billion for basically nothing. I suspect he'd have been better paying $1 billion, but his ego got in the way because it would have been an admission that he'd made a huge mistake.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,902
9,590
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Because he offered to buy it for more than it was worth, so the then owners of twitter saw a nice payday fall into their laps. Then ego and stupid made him sign the deal, meaning he couldnt back out anymore without breach of contract, which probably would have cost him far less, but again, ego and stupid.
It wasn't even the first time his mouth got him in trouble. He got wolloped by the SEC because he publicly speculated about taking Tesla private, which of course boosted its stock price because that involves stock buybacks (at a huge premium with the price he thought up). The government doesn't like when CEOs manipulate the market like that, but Elon Musk apparently believes he can say and do whatever he wants and never suffer consequences because he's rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,147
3,890
118
The government doesn't like when CEOs manipulate the market like that, but Elon Musk apparently believes he can say and do whatever he wants and never suffer consequences because he's rich.
Well, the amount of times he's avoided the consequences does back that up, though with a margin of error, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,094
1,376
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
On the other hand, doing favours for keeping foreign fascist regimes in power likely pays way better than kunto-subs and diminishing ads. Moderation ain't so difficult now, is it?


Twitter has been accused of bowing to government pressure in India by blocking scores of prominent journalists, politicians and activists from its platform in recent weeks.

The Indian government issued notices to Twitter to remove people in the aftermath of an internet shutdown in Punjab during the search for a fugitive Sikh separatist leader.


Twitter agreed to block more than 120 accounts, including the Canadian politician Jagmeet Singh, the Canadian poet Rupi Kaur, several journalists and an Indian MP. Twitter also blocked the handle of the BBC’s Punjabi bureau.

Jaskaran Sandhu, the Toronto-based co-founder of Baaz News, an outlet focused on the Sikh diaspora, received an email from Twitter on 21 March that said his account had been withheld in India. In the email, seen by the Guardian, no specific tweet or activity by Sandhu was cited by Twitter for its action.


Rahul Gandhi
Indian opposition leader expelled from parliament after defamation conviction


“The Indian government has made it a norm to take draconian measures and crack down on dissent coming from Sikh or other minority communities,” Sandhu said. “Twitter’s actions are just another example [that imply] civil liberties and democratic rights are under attack.”

“My entire account, not any tweet, has been banned in India. It is blanket censorship. And there is absolute silence from Twitter on this.”

Freedom House, a US-based nonprofit organisation, has accused the prime minister Narendra Modi’s government of “driving India toward authoritarianism” and in 2021 downgraded India’s status from ‘free’ to ‘partly free’.

India, the third-largest market for Twitter after the US and Japan, is proving to be one of its biggest challenges. Responding to a tweet about censorship in India, Elon Musk, who completed a takeover of Twitter in October and calls himself a “free speech absolutist”, tweeted: “It is not possible for me to fix every aspect of Twitter worldwide overnight, while still running Tesla and SpaceX, among other things.”

Social media platforms including Twitter had been seen as one of the remaining avenues for Indian people to express dissent, after traditional media houses largely caved in to pressure from the government to toe its line.

Twitter sued the government in July over takedown orders, after the government introduced legislation in 2021 aimed at regulating every form of digital content, including online news, social media, and streaming platforms and empowering itself to remove content it deemed “objectionable”.

Prateek Waghre, the policy director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, said much of the content being withheld was reportage that did not portray the government in a positive light. “There is no contention. It is just absurd,” he added.

Since his takeover, Musk has reportedly slashed Twitter’s workforce by 90% in India. “There is a question if Twitter still has people to vet these requests,” Waghre said. “The question is also on the willingness of a pushback, which has certainly reduced [since Musk takeover].”

Raqib Hameed Naik, the founder of Hindutva Watch, a US-based site that tracks hate crimes in India, described the situation as “very grim”.

“Big tech has completely surrendered to the authoritarian regime of PM Narendra Modi,” he said. “Twitter’s conduct in India sets a worrying trend of silencing media, critics and dissenters worldwide.”

Sandhu said he was not optimistic about India’s ability to “uphold minimal requirements for a healthy democracy”, describing the system as “rotten to the core”.
Free-what now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,480
7,055
118
Country
United States
Musk being mad makes sense, he's losing an unbelievable amount of social clout and a massive amount of theoretical actual capital.

But why are his fans mad?


Edit: lmao
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan