50 Ways Elon Musk Has Doomed Twitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vft7ARFb7oQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vft7ARFb7oQ
@BrodieOnLinux @BrodieOnLinux re: "doggie coins", why do you and the person you're quoting think Twitter can't survive on cryptocurrency?
I mean, a lot of people really hate it but I bet most of those people have either fled to fediverse or are going to.
I mean, a lot of people really hate it but I bet most of those people have either fled to fediverse or are going to.
@Hyolobrika @sj_zero I don’t really find it that compelling, it just seems like “here are a bunch of different generic things that can go wrong at a big tech service”. I don’t get the impression that this guy has a deep understanding of twitter itself, so I think he’s just throwing all these out there.
@dave @Hyolobrika @sj_zero He's also assuming that the people that left are the people that take care and understand and protect against these failures, where my expectation is that almost everyone EXCEPT the people that deal with these failures left.
Basically it's "Elon is dumb, so he must have dumbly fired everyone important because he's a big dumb dummie that I hate and I'm not able to think rationally about people I hate"
Basically it's "Elon is dumb, so he must have dumbly fired everyone important because he's a big dumb dummie that I hate and I'm not able to think rationally about people I hate"
@dave @Hyolobrika @sj_zero Jennifer Dawe on Twitter always has good pro-business takes. She pegged these kinds of people perfectly.
https://twitter.com/GMShivers/status/1595529485985943552
https://twitter.com/GMShivers/status/1595529485985943552
@Hyolobrika @dave @sj_zero I've read the tweet thread, the thread is assuming maximum possible stupidity from Elon, so it's an accurate representation of the mindset of the person writing it.
@guizzy @dave @Hyolobrika @sj_zero TBH, its become an Olympic discipline shitting on EM by now and anybody whose core notion-argument is "Elon Evil Dumb Tech Bro" is suspect until proven otherwise. Its overdone in the extreme.
And keep in mind I say this as a socialist that is very much predisposed to dislike billionaires.
@neglesaks @dave @Hyolobrika @sj_zero Basically, it's impossible to think Elon came in and fired or failed to retain the technical staff that actually ran the servers without making the assumption that he's extremely stupid and completely incapable of running a technology business.
Whether you like him or not, I think he's proved that he's capable of running businesses.
Whether you like him or not, I think he's proved that he's capable of running businesses.
@guizzy @dave @Hyolobrika @sj_zero I agree. I mean, he is an impulsive guy for shure, and he probably has a bit of a God complex that follows from having his rectum full of cash, but it's plainly dumb to assume that he is dumb.
@neglesaks @guizzy @dave @Hyolobrika @sj_zero
I don't find it too difficult to believe that billionaires can be fairly stupid people (not necessarily in terms of IQ, but overall wisdom, or business sense) who just had a lot of capital to begin with, and/or hit the jackpot once or twice (as in, pure luck), and/or used extremely unethical principles to get to where they are...
Ultimately, Musk doesn't really do much, does he? He buys or finances things, uses them to curate his image if happens to be a successful thing, and has enough capital to bear the losses when it's unsuccessful.
I found this video entertaining, though I've got to admit I can't be sure how truthful it all is because this whole topic isn't my area of expertise:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oVj4kZF-Fgk
I don't find it too difficult to believe that billionaires can be fairly stupid people (not necessarily in terms of IQ, but overall wisdom, or business sense) who just had a lot of capital to begin with, and/or hit the jackpot once or twice (as in, pure luck), and/or used extremely unethical principles to get to where they are...
Ultimately, Musk doesn't really do much, does he? He buys or finances things, uses them to curate his image if happens to be a successful thing, and has enough capital to bear the losses when it's unsuccessful.
I found this video entertaining, though I've got to admit I can't be sure how truthful it all is because this whole topic isn't my area of expertise:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oVj4kZF-Fgk
I feel like it's histrionic nonsense.
For a lot of the stuff listed -- particularly the legal stuff -- the potential for problems may indeed exist, but the the way the post paints everything is like there'll be a cop car immediately dispatched the moment anything happens.
Companies end up out of compliance with rules and regulations every day. Some of the biggest companies on earth are presently out of compliance, know they're out of compliance, and the regulator knows they're out of compliance, and the world keeps turning. Even if theyre "caught", it isn't the end of the world. Facebook keeps getting hit with gdpr fines, it says "oops", pays them, and moves on with its day. Facebook has 20 times the staff twitter had at its peak.
Moderation issues are a dead issue for me, because Twitter already had terrible moderation. Remember, this is a website that was already fighting in court because it refused to take down child porn. that wasn't because Elon Musk owned the site, he didn't own the site at that time. If you looked for it, there were all kinds of terrible stuff that were fully allowed and the site didn't end. Twitter is where all the bad campaigns to end innocent people originated, because twitter allowed that sort of thing.
Technical issues could be a thing, but notice how many of the risks are "If we make a broken change". In other words, as long as nobody breaks the site, the site won't break. I've had this first-hand, where something works forever and you make a change and then have to deal with the consequences. Even if it's a bad problem, the world doesn't end. Every major website has had issues in the past 24 months. None of them have failed as a result.
From where I'm standing, I think you could probably maintain twitter with a few hundred competent people maximum. You don't have people shoveling coal into the tweet furnaces, and I think the excesses that were revealed regarding twitter staff and twitter offices reflect that. The stories of people who work a day a month and pull full paycheques are probably real.
In the twitter poster's defense, this is histrionic nonsense if you're trying to make a prediction about the next few weeks of twitter existing, but it excellent work if you're trying to manage risks and identify potential problems so you need to list all the things that could happen and the potential consequences so you can mitigate those risks. I've created documents just like this listing all the risks of a thing, looking at the chances of it happening, the thing that happens, and what the potential consequences could be for the purposes of preventing those things from happening. Thing is, when you're doing stuff like that you're intentionally ignoring "rubber meets road" things like I've written above because nobody wants to be the Ford Pinto manager measuring the number of deaths and lawsuits against the cost of the recall.
For a lot of the stuff listed -- particularly the legal stuff -- the potential for problems may indeed exist, but the the way the post paints everything is like there'll be a cop car immediately dispatched the moment anything happens.
Companies end up out of compliance with rules and regulations every day. Some of the biggest companies on earth are presently out of compliance, know they're out of compliance, and the regulator knows they're out of compliance, and the world keeps turning. Even if theyre "caught", it isn't the end of the world. Facebook keeps getting hit with gdpr fines, it says "oops", pays them, and moves on with its day. Facebook has 20 times the staff twitter had at its peak.
Moderation issues are a dead issue for me, because Twitter already had terrible moderation. Remember, this is a website that was already fighting in court because it refused to take down child porn. that wasn't because Elon Musk owned the site, he didn't own the site at that time. If you looked for it, there were all kinds of terrible stuff that were fully allowed and the site didn't end. Twitter is where all the bad campaigns to end innocent people originated, because twitter allowed that sort of thing.
Technical issues could be a thing, but notice how many of the risks are "If we make a broken change". In other words, as long as nobody breaks the site, the site won't break. I've had this first-hand, where something works forever and you make a change and then have to deal with the consequences. Even if it's a bad problem, the world doesn't end. Every major website has had issues in the past 24 months. None of them have failed as a result.
From where I'm standing, I think you could probably maintain twitter with a few hundred competent people maximum. You don't have people shoveling coal into the tweet furnaces, and I think the excesses that were revealed regarding twitter staff and twitter offices reflect that. The stories of people who work a day a month and pull full paycheques are probably real.
In the twitter poster's defense, this is histrionic nonsense if you're trying to make a prediction about the next few weeks of twitter existing, but it excellent work if you're trying to manage risks and identify potential problems so you need to list all the things that could happen and the potential consequences so you can mitigate those risks. I've created documents just like this listing all the risks of a thing, looking at the chances of it happening, the thing that happens, and what the potential consequences could be for the purposes of preventing those things from happening. Thing is, when you're doing stuff like that you're intentionally ignoring "rubber meets road" things like I've written above because nobody wants to be the Ford Pinto manager measuring the number of deaths and lawsuits against the cost of the recall.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2