Hacker News Reader

Comment by tmpz22 | Hacker News Reader

You can't put the Elon BS aside because it continually impacts the efficacy of ads on the X/Twitter.

A larger percentage of the ads are scams surrounding trends like NFTs because of his dictated moderation and staffing changes.

Views are amplified for himself and his preferred posters - which for all you know may land your company's logo next to Alex Jones.

> Putting all of the Elon BS aside. Can someone in marketing shine some light on how does X compare to other platforms?

Brand/PR/Reputation is a liability and most big enterprises will continue to optimize for diminishing liabilities by moving to more reliable platforms.

View on HN

I think you miss the point of putting something aside.

It doesn't mean you have to ignore it or say it doesn't exist.

You can ask what else can be said about X besides the given topic that you are putting aside.

The “BS” label is important though: that hints that GP does indeed think it can be ignored/doesn’t exist. A retort to this isn’t unwarranted if you believe that Musk’s actions does impact ad spending.

my point is that the topic of Musk's actions and impacts absolutely can be ignored if that isnt the question you are interested in.

For example, I can ask and be interested in how the cost per click/sale on twitter compares to meta, without diving into they question of why.

That is certainly how I took the question at least.

I agree, for the purpose of scholarly dissection of the subject, it’s perfectly fine.

My point was that lining it up by calling it “BS” invites counter arguments, which is what happened here. If you’re not happy to implicitly accept the “BS”, you’ll have to address it.

Dropping the “BS” label would have led to a more focused discussion. It matters _how_ you ask a question.

I see your point and agree that clarity may have helped. I read "BS" a little differently, as acknowledgement that all of the Elon stuff is a shambolic mess.

It also seems to be the case that some people didnt just disagree with the BS classification, but fundamentally disagree that anything besides Elon is a valid topic of conversation.

IT does matters how you ask a question, but some people will reject or change the topic no matter how you ask it.

Right, it might read as "Musk's bullshit" or "the bullshit aimed at Musk." Either way, the ambiguity doesn't help. It might tick off both Musk-huggers and Musk-whippers, depending on how they read it.

Case example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38848821

Comes off as abrasive IMO. Someone might as well reply "I don't care that you don't care" then. You're more likely to get a good response from cutting all of that out and just leaving the meat: "I want to know about the current ROI for Twitter advertising, in standard marketing metrics."

The abrasiveness picks up in your replies. It comes off as if you went in looking for a fight. I don't know if you did or not, but the quality of the response reflects the attitude in which your question was posed. In my opinion.

And he's saying there's almost no point in asking that question because Elon's way of running the company has been so impactlful to the platform that considering it without him is pointless.

That is just refusing to engage with the question on its own merits, and preferring to talk about Musk.

It is simple to think of interesting questions and topics besides Musk.

It is fine if someone doesn't want to answer it, but a respondant doesn't get to call it pointless, because objective and goal lies with the asker.

Yes.

Musk fired the majority of people working at Twitter, changed the brand, unbanned very controversial users, alienated most of the advertisers, etc etc etc. Talking about Twitter without talking about his leadership is to have a conversation without merit. What other topics are there? He owns the company. Every policy change over the past year has been his personal decision.

I don't care about Musk or find that interesting. I want to know about the current ROI for Twitter advertising, in standard marketing metrics.

I don't care about corporate policy, history, personalities, or why things are the way they are.

You seem interesting to talk to.

I can't say the same if you think Musk is the only conversation topic of merit. It is not only restrictive, but boring and has been beaten to death

Most of the major corporations who were advertising on Twitter seem to be worried about their brand getting placed next to some neo-nazi shit right now. That is directly related to decisions Musk has made. Additionally, he took it private so it's not like we can read their quarterly reports. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about this company without talking about the new owner. Any conversation that doesn't somehow relate to him is going to be incomplete. That's much less true if we were talking about Meta, or Google, or Apple. But we're talking about Twitter, which is currently in the process of being managed into the ground.

It seems like you simply cant imagine that someone else might have a different conversational topic or interest. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

It is like people that interject wokeism, Obama, or Trump into any conversation, even if you are talking about the weather. A conversation about the sunset is not "complete" or "meaningful" without ranting about what they want. They just cant comprehend someone having a different interest.

It seems almost obsessive compulsive. Someone asks what letter comes after X, and they cant talk about Y, because any discussion of the alphabet is "incomplete" or "meaningless" without starting at A, B, & C and discussing it at length. All letters come after A, so all conversations are about A.

IF you tried, can you even come up with 3 questions and answers about twitter without making it about Musk?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com