When the entities that affect the company's existence the most i.e. regulators and advertisers are asking for more thoughtful, measured and safe changes.
And instead he's obsessed with adding end-user features which based on the woeful Twitter Blue subscription numbers seems like a dead-end strategy.
source: NYT 2019 investigation into the link between the rise of social media and the spread of CSAM
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...
> Users don't benefit from this change.
Twitter blocked links to the New York Post in DM's over their Hunter Biden story. Clearly all users would benefit if they don't MITM 1:1 DM's.
I'm not sure why either.
Twitter is built around public communication.
Why would I pay for encrypted private communication when I already use better existing solution for free ? And even if I pay it's useless unless others pay too (what a fail might have been interesting if it worked as soon as one party was verified).
With this feature they go from a shitty DM to a shitty sometime encrypted DM.
Wouldn't call this a nobrainer ...
The good thing about Twitter DMs is that they don't expose your phone number which means you can - reasonably safely - converse with strangers.
There is a lot more friction involved in getting an anonymous prepaid number, and them proving your identity. On Twitter those issues are solved.
> the metadata isn't encrypted
I wouldn't trust this if I was Snowden, but I would trust this if I was a corporate whistleblower and wanted to get information out to jousnalists as soon as possible.
Him micromanaging a business is a death knell. The guy is probably awake all the time from uppers, and you don't make good decisions where you are sleep-deprived.
If Twitter could still be traded, he could announce his X app with some broken features, buy lots of ads, pay for influencers and reviews, and Twitter price would go up. And he's the kind of person who we know could totally do it.
None of that is mitigated by the fact that Tesla is still up 718% since 2018, not everybody invested back then, nor is everybody, especially shorts and their counterparts in thier trades, long term investors.
Your question makes no sense without price information, and even then, that's way too broad a target to reflect the knowledge of a guy, where just listening is more than enough
b) His track record in general is not without faults.
c) His track record with Twitter is clear for everyone to see. Revenue has plummeted, Twitter Blue subscription numbers are just embarrassing and BlueSky is every day attracting more and more key content creators. Twitter is slowly but surely going to end up being nothing more than a Truth Social / Gab clone.
That's going to be a dramatic decrease in costs. Their revenue since is going to be difficult if not impossible to fairly assess. Many (most?) of the largest advertisers like Apple/Amazon have returned, but likely with discounted enticements which, to my knowledge, are not public. So all one can do is speculate. I think the only fair conclusion is that it's hardly doomsday for Twitter, but it's also not quite time for a victory parade either.
I genuinely hope alternatives, especially decentralized ones, succeed. Competition improves everybody. But the reason Elon spent $40 billion on Twitter is not for the software, but for the users. Network effect is seemingly impossible to overcome, regardless of the merit of a site.
Mainly because of Tesla, which is overvalued also according to him.
>bitter commenter.
This fits for Elon too.
https://fortune.com/2023/05/10/elon-musk-twitter-texas-mall-...