Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
Was it? I read a lot of comments saying that mass-firing people is going to cause immediate degradation in some areas like content moderation (which we have seen) and eventual unpredictable failures in others. If you saw people predicting a sudden crash I'd take their opinion with a pinch of salt in the future, sounds like quite a reactionary take.
> then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon
Well some people have been trying out Mastodon, some have been tinkering with Tumblr or Instagram, and some communities have started to solidify around discord servers and other places. One near-universal thing I've seen is more popular accounts being very vocal about sharing their links to other services with the aim of making Twitter non-essential - so if it goes down, or they'd rather leave then they could do so without starting completely from scratch.
> now it’s that all the advertisers would leave.
To be fair it sounds like a lot of them have, prompting this very letter ...
> Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people
Maybe. It remains to be seen whether axing so many so suddenly was survivable in the long-term financially or operationally, though.
either way none of what's being done or talked about recently makes me want to start using twitter, maybe they will figure something out i guess
And yeah if you weren't a Twitter user before, you're probably not signing up at this moment in time :)
Maybe people just don't need another "online community"
a lot of tech companies is laying off people. Amazon, Facebook...etc.
DoorDash is laying off 1,250 corporate workers. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/doordash-lays-off-1250-emplo...
i believe the winter (recession) is coming if not then something is going on that most if not all tech companies is doing layoff or freeze hiring.
This part anyway is not really hypothetical.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/25/1139180002/twitter-loses-50-t...
If Twitter was a new app just launched, I would think it was a seriously sketchy back alley and not a town square.
Why would they come back? Musk is the Donald Trump of tech - plenty of devoted fans, but not someone brands want to associate themselves with. Even if he wanted to, it doesn't seem that Musk can stop impulsively tweeting controversial things.
Post Musk, Twitter's debt was already going for 70 cents on the dollar, and that's before the news of this week
Claims that were classified as COVID misinformation include:
- surgical masks don't work against aerosol viruses
- lockdowns and curfews will not stop covid
- natural immunity due to prior infection is more effective
- mRNA shots don't stop transmission
- mRNA shots don't stop infection
- mRNA shots cause myocarditis
One by one these have been revealed as true, with naysayers looking like ass-covering idiots, or worse, paid shills for big pharma.
If at this point you still have any faith left in the biomedical establishment, the one who doesn't belong on Twitter is you, because you will hysterically fall for the next big thing just the same.
For example, claim (6) about myocarditis is usually used to say that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. This is a wrongheaded examination of the risks:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/risk-of-myocarditis-followi...
> Given that >90% of cases of myocarditis will completely recover, that means in young men the vaccines prevent six deaths per million doses while causing <4 cases of myocarditis that have less than complete recovery. In all other groups the results are much more dramatic, saving hundreds of lives for every case of myocarditis (including the mild cases).
> We also have to keep in mind that COVID-19 infection itself causes myocarditis. ... That’s 1,500 cases of myocarditis per million COVID-19 infections, vs 40 per million in the high-risk group of young men from mRNA vaccines, and 1-2 per million doses in lower risk groups. The risk is literally 1-2 orders of magnitude (10-100x) greater from getting infected than from the vaccine.
P.S. Claim (3) misses the entire point? The point of vaccines is to not get as sick and possibly avoid getting sick altogether. "Natural immunity" requires you to have a "prior infection" as you say.
An intramuscular shot cannot create a targeted immune response in the mucus membranes of the airways. This was known, and ignored, making the idea of getting a shot to protect grandma a complete lie.
The goal posts have moved so much that even the word vaccine was redefined, thus tainting the concept and creating a ton of justified skepticism. Like really, do you not realize how ridiculous you sound to ordinary people, trying to rule lawyer your way past this elephant in the room?
The point about myocarditis remains that informed consent should have been asked for, and that they shouldn't have authorized an emergency medicine when due diligence wasn't done. Quite frankly, I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab. I don't believe we live in an environment atm where the truth is being investigated objectively. And this is an entirely reasonable belief, given the undeniable corruption and lies.
Like, you know how it takes 2 weeks after your shot before you count as vaccinated? Guess which category vaccine injuries in the first two weeks were attributed to in many cases... that is the level intellectual honesty we're dealing with here. It's detestable.
As for natural immunity: the point here is that forcing people with prior exposure to get jabbed anyway was immoral and unnecessary. This is the _very important_ point you are missing. And you think you're making sense!
Human rights were violated, in the name of shoddy science, endorsed by people who are much more eager to dunk on the rubes and appear sophisticated, than actually establishing reasonable and objective standards.
Go sit in shame, and stfu. Nobody wants to hear it.
> I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab.
A million EU residents died of covid in 2 years. Even ignoring the cause of death, ~500k more EU residents died in 2020 than usual, predating the roll-out of the vaccines. (link will only plot individual countries, not the EU total).
https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid#excess-mor...
I know this isn't focused on the (supposed) harms of the vaccines, but I don't think you're really appreciating how many people Covid killed.
AFAIK, most of the people I follow are still tweeting; I just don't see as many now.
Pre-2015 Twitter wasn't the apocalypse before all the content moderation policies were rushed in as a response to widespread narrative that a bunch of people in swing states changed their votes because of Russian accounts.
It's not the apocalypse now. You can block hateful trolls anytime you want.
At the end of the day, there's a chunk of the US population who believes that they are much, much smarter than most of their countrymen, and that their unique ability to identify misinformation isn't shared by these buffoons in swing states who don't vote the way they want them to. There's a huge swathe of people like that in the software industry.
Exactly. 7,500 is far too much to run a site like Twitter which at the time, it was already running itself to the ground. But it seems just like the so-called mass advertiser migration from Facebook, that never happened will be no different with Twitter despite the unusual levels of vacuous claims of Twitter's immediate 'imploding', which that has been greatly exaggerated by very emotionally charged people.
Twitter was already dead. Twitter 2.0 on the other hand seems more alive than ever, and I'm laughing at both the Twitter chaos and those pretending to leave Twitter whilst keeping their accounts.