You are the one bringing politics into this, not the comment that you are falsely accusing of being politically motivated, with some sort of "free speech" nonsense and an image that has been filled with so many tweets that it's not even legible. Even collecting that image is odd and strange and shows highly politically motivated behavior on your part!
Twitter's valuation with investors was based on the idea of heavy growth. It wasn't even profitable when purchased, and when it did make a profit, it was on the order of $1B/year, nothing that would validate it's market cap.
Musk squashed all potential for growth. Twitter advertisers, users, and the hope of a brighter future are all gone now. A well-established brand has been abandoned for an amorphous X, on which it's pretty much impossible to establish a new brand.
Musk has destroyed so value much from Twitter with bone-headed moves that if he had to answer to investors, he'd be out in a second.
In my opinion, if I had said anything that you could demonstrate to be false, you would quote what I said and present an explanation for why it's false. I believe you're not doing that because you cannot do it.
> You are the one bringing politics into this
No, that's not true. The person I responded to characterized the old, pre-musk twitter as "a place where decent human beings cared to gather" and contrasted that with the current twitter.
What possible non-political interpretation of that viewpoint is there? He is clearly saying that when twitter was run by people on the political-left, and (for example) Trump was banned, that was "decent human beings."
My rebuttal is to show a large list of verified accounts making hateful statements. My point is, those statements were allowed under pre-musk twitter. Hate was allowed before, and it's allowed now.
The only difference is that the person I responded to finds the former brand of it acceptable.
Which part of this analysis is incorrect?
> Even collecting that image is odd and strange
It's odd and strange to pretend that you believe I personally collected those examples. You're well aware of how the internet works. You know that someone else created that image.
Private companies have valuations. Your can pedant on whether it’s appropriate to use the word “market”, but the fact is pretty well known.
Musk paid $44B and it is generally considered to be worth less than $10B today[1], though his open participation in political corruption has resulted in valuations all over the map, including $44B[2].
It’s kind of Schroedinger’s valuation; if he and Trump are having a spat it’s worth less because there’s a risk Trump orders it shut down or seized or whatever, if he and Trump make up the company is a a part of the ruling party’s government apparatus.
But as far as actual product value, outside of a clubhouse for red hats, it’s pretty close to zero. They have to literally sue companies to force them to advertise[3], which would be laughable if creeping fascism wasn’t so bad that it’s actually a successful strategy. Any attempt to claim free speech high ground while suing companies for declining to advertise is incredibly disingenuous.
epistasis|7 months ago
Twitter's valuation with investors was based on the idea of heavy growth. It wasn't even profitable when purchased, and when it did make a profit, it was on the order of $1B/year, nothing that would validate it's market cap.
Musk squashed all potential for growth. Twitter advertisers, users, and the hope of a brighter future are all gone now. A well-established brand has been abandoned for an amorphous X, on which it's pretty much impossible to establish a new brand.
Musk has destroyed so value much from Twitter with bone-headed moves that if he had to answer to investors, he'd be out in a second.
blockmarker|7 months ago
[deleted]
ern_ave|7 months ago
> You are the one bringing politics into this
No, that's not true. The person I responded to characterized the old, pre-musk twitter as "a place where decent human beings cared to gather" and contrasted that with the current twitter.
What possible non-political interpretation of that viewpoint is there? He is clearly saying that when twitter was run by people on the political-left, and (for example) Trump was banned, that was "decent human beings."
My rebuttal is to show a large list of verified accounts making hateful statements. My point is, those statements were allowed under pre-musk twitter. Hate was allowed before, and it's allowed now.
The only difference is that the person I responded to finds the former brand of it acceptable.
Which part of this analysis is incorrect?
> Even collecting that image is odd and strange
It's odd and strange to pretend that you believe I personally collected those examples. You're well aware of how the internet works. You know that someone else created that image.
brookst|7 months ago
Musk paid $44B and it is generally considered to be worth less than $10B today[1], though his open participation in political corruption has resulted in valuations all over the map, including $44B[2].
It’s kind of Schroedinger’s valuation; if he and Trump are having a spat it’s worth less because there’s a risk Trump orders it shut down or seized or whatever, if he and Trump make up the company is a a part of the ruling party’s government apparatus.
But as far as actual product value, outside of a clubhouse for red hats, it’s pretty close to zero. They have to literally sue companies to force them to advertise[3], which would be laughable if creeping fascism wasn’t so bad that it’s actually a successful strategy. Any attempt to claim free speech high ground while suing companies for declining to advertise is incredibly disingenuous.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/30/24258129/musks-44-billion...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/19/value-elo...
3. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/01/nx-s1-5283271/elon-musk-lawsu...
ekianjo|7 months ago
and they are usually massively off.
computerthings|7 months ago
[deleted]
DonHopkins|7 months ago
[deleted]
ern_ave|7 months ago
[deleted]