They simply were too slow in implementing them. Some of them eg. payments are due to all of the regulatory challenges that Twitter faces as a top tier social network. Others are just incompetence eg. not doing more with Vine.
They needed a better executor. Problem is Musk immediately fired everyone. And has constantly underestimated the complexity of the system. So bit hard to see how they were ever going to do better as Twitter 2.0.
Speaking only for myself, but I'd honestly contest that.
The only thing that will definitely hold true is that there is an audience of tens of millions of Americans who feel mocked by "the Elites." They will shower adoration on anyone with Elite creds - be it academic, media, or business - who tells them there really is a conspiracy to oppress them and that they're the straight shooter who will go to battle for them. That is a very seductive amount of positive feedback when the other things you're doing aren't home runs.
I mean. I still think he is trying to do that. Is he succeeding? I don’t think so.
If it all hits the ground and twitter is no more a going concern will he claim that was his plan all along? Probably. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Even on the day he offered to buy twitter he was offering more money than the stock was worth. That is only rational if you believe you have a plan to run it better.
According to reports he is spending a lot of his time managing twitter in quite a hands-on way. Do you think he is not trying to make it better in his own mind?
I think it's a case of the gambler having enough money to buy the casino.
They are well within their rights to do so, but that's the exact opposite of competing purely in the market of ideas.
1. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
It doesn't inspire confidence in that their previous stance was truly motivated by their love of the unrestricted diffusion of ideas.
Every time someone mentions this I ask for examples, and generally all I ever receive in reply are examples of people disagreeing with them. I begin to think that those who shout about 'abuse' are incensed that those they formerly silenced by bending the rules are now using those rules against them, particularly to voice their legitimate opinions, and they're using their institutional power elsewhere to try to tank Twitter as a result.
In short: I know full well that this has nothing to do with free speech arguments and everything to do with institutional actors being incensed that they can't use Twitter as their own propaganda institution anymore. I won't pretend that Elon is a friend of the proletariat, but I'm also not going to pretend that those opposing him somehow are either. This is a slap fight between two groups of bourgeoisie, and petit bourgeoisie actors are trying to convince everyone else it's some sort of fight for liberty, justice, mom and apple pie. Utter nonsense.
In the end, some of you are going to have to accustom yourselves to the idea that you are not gatekeepers of public forums, the people have interests that do not coincide with your own, and no amount of force or fraud is going to change that. Don't like it? Learn to code, I guess.
Then you haven't been watching harassment on trans and other LGBT people, being told to die in horrible ways (I'm sure you can point to other high-profile people getting that kind of threats, but this one gets such abuse merely for existing).
Fully agree that having public forums gatekeeped by centralized actors deciding what you can communicate is worrisome; we should get distributed ways to announce the existence of your personal publications to people that may be interested in its subject - like like the Usenet newsgroups of old (which are still in operation, but are not known to the general public).
I was one of them. But slowly we saw him fuck it up, and then double down. Twitter is toast unless Elon is dumped by his investors