Despite negative feedback from advertisers, Musk confirms plan to further reduce Twitter/X's utility

Well her boss says she doesn’t have a real job, so…


We should not. Even prior to moving over to Twitter she was a MAGA.

So no pity for her


On the one hand, he very much wants to destroy Twitter, in a sense - he disliked the old Twitter and wants to replace it with his own version (the fascist-friendly everything app, where people are forced to listen to him). But it’s a fundamentally stupid, unworkable vision, and he’s enacting it so incompetently that it’s destroying any possible future for Twitter in any form. If he wanted to destroy Twitter out of spite, there are more straightforward ways of doing so, given he completely owns and controls it. (He also got loans from banks that very much want their money back, so he’s not got outside forces demanding he destroy the thing.)

If one is sufficiently stupid and motivated by narcissistic impulses, then that means one consistently makes bad decisions. “Accidentally” makes it seem random - but it’s the opposite of that. It’s about unintentionally making destructive choices every time, because the same poor decision making is being brought to bear every time.

His business history shows when he’s given information, he likes to ignore that information in favor of his own preconceptions (because he sees himself as knowing better than… everyone, information be damned). Simple push back from underlings doesn’t work - he requires whole dedicated teams of handlers to keep him from doing stupid things. He’s got no such team at Twitter.

Given banks loaned him money for this, and he’s saddled Twitter itself with the loan repayments, I’m guessing there’s legal liability if he just turns off Twitter (and prevents the banks from getting any of their money back)? On the other hand, I imagine there are plenty of fairly direct ways of destroying Twitter that he has available to him that wouldn’t get him in trouble.

Elno recently called CEO a “made-up title.” Which is… quite telling.


He said that, more than once, long before he bought Twitter.


You absolutely can, if you’re equipped with:






He was idiot rich first; he can afford to flip millions of coins, whereas you and I would only get one chance.


In reality, most of us spend our whole lives working towards the value and credibility of something. And it can come down fast.

Very few of us get to “disrupt” something valuable and credible for fun and profit though, and those who do can make mistakes like the rest of us could hardly imagine.


Abso fucking lutely.


The only thing I want to add to this well-reasoned response is that I encourage any remaining skeptics to pause a moment and…


How is he so bad at this? He’s a man with a few business ventures that were once considered quite valuable, and Twitter had some cultural value despite its lack of profitability. Even if those successes were due to others, that’s not hard to replicate. Just hire intelligent and capable people to run operations.

It’s just difficult to wrap my head around the fact that this once respected man is so incredibly dumb. I had no high esteem for him before all of this, but any I had plummeted. I mean, given his clout, Twitter revenue probably would have increased had he announced nothing and did nothing at all.


Just to be clear, there’s no equivalence between coin flips and these decisions. A fair coin flip is 50:50 – your chances of winning are even. But a business decision rarely has 50% odds. Most are much closer to certainty (in the case of a well run company), or to failure (in the case of a poorly managed business.)

Musk has now built up a public history of decisions regarding Twitter. The visible results are a series of disasters. Curiously, there isn’t enough data on success to calculate the odds of him making a good decision.

Why this is important is that using the coin flip analogy lots of people think “it’s a string of bad luck, he’s bound to make a good decision sometime, right?” But that’s not right - we have no evidence to suggest he will ever make a good decision.


Everything I know about Elon Musk is from BBS comments, so take with a grain of mutant salt, but apparently the companies he was involved with had the good people they needed already, and he just glommed onto them. As an actual decision maker, he’s always been a disaster, and if anything the smart HR decisions at those companies were always to push him out (paypal) of silo him (spaceX).

His talent is apparently presenting himself as genuinely excited and invested in what his companies were building and doing (and taking credit for things). This was endearing to people, and encouraging against the general reputation of CEOs as disinterested managers who don’t care how the machine makes the money as long as it does so.


Almost a year ago, Brianna Wu helped clear up this matter:


Probably, but does he have the wit to do it without leaving his fingerprints on the kill switch? Because if it just broke, I imagine his backers would look into that.

Sam Bankman-Fried has entered the chat. Flaw?


I think I’ve mentioned my theory on here before, but I think she’s CV building. Everyone knows Musk is tanking the platform. He will get the blame. No one can rein in that brain genius. But she’ll have a year or two of being a CEO. C-level execs only fail upward.


She’s be at the top of the Andreessen Horowitz contact list when they need someone to babysit their next boy-child innovator startup with billions of virtual VC funds.


Ooh, I know this one!

Because he’s a vain egotistical asshole.

Did I get it right?


I was thinking that selling off the components of Twitter (e.g. the database of users, what they’ve learned about them via datamining, advertising network) separately could have fulfilled both requirements of utterly destroying Twitter while also making money for his lenders. Sure, he’d pay them back only a fraction of what he borrowed, but that’s going to be true anyways…


After all, it worked out so well the last time!

These people are all so stupid

1 Like