Twitter is a Private Company

Or maybe we can put it more to the point -- it seems that the conclusion we can draw from Musk's venture is that is not possible to run a social media site in accordance with the principles Musk wishes, and also be a successful major business. Fair?


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

The flaw in your argument is that it's premised on the pecuniary definition that "doing well" is measured in dollars. In your deep dive into the mind of Elon Musk, you've either missed (I doubt it) or chosen to ignore (likely) his repeated statements that he doesn't care about losing money in the pursuit of freedom of speech. And since he has the luxury of doing that, when measured by what's important for democracy in America, Twitter has been a resounding success in moving toward Musk's goal of created a digital Town Square where all points of view are welcome.

Interesting -- why do you suppose he brought on Linda Yaccarino? Is she aware, and on board with, Musk's plan to have Twitter fail as a business?

She took the job understanding that Musk's priority is to create the digital town square:

https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-advertising-hate-speech-conference-interview-1235611823/

When Elon Met Linda: NBCU’s Yaccarino Pressed Musk About Twitter’s Advertising and Hate-Speech Policies a Month Before He Hired Her as Twitter CEO

In what may have been an highly unconventional job interview, NBCUniversal ad chief Linda Yaccarino hosted a discussion with Elon Musk about Twitter’s content policies and approach to working with marketers at an industry conference one month before Musk announced that he’d hired her as the social network’s CEO.

The April 18 keynote conversation was billed as a talk about Musk’s “Twitter 2.0: From Conversations to Partnerships” at MMA Global’s Possible marketing event in Miami.

Yaccarino told Musk that marketers want “protection for their ad campaigns,” with content moderation policies ensuring that “provocative speech” is properly labeled. She applauded Twitter’s announcement last month to promote “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” under which the company said it will limit the reach of tweets that violate policies concerning hateful conduct and violent speech.

“Have you de-risked the opportunity or chance of their campaigns landing in these awful, hateful places?” Yaccarino asked.

Musk said Twitter has implemented “adjacency controls” that let marketers block ads from appearing next to “anything that is remotely negative.” Apple and Disney have both remained major Twitter advertisers, according to Musk. The company’s brand-safety initiative is working, he claimed, otherwise “Disney would have pulled their ads [from Twitter] a long time ago and haven’t.”

Musk pushed back on Yaccarino’s suggestion that advertisers should be able to influence what Twitter is building. “If I were to say, ‘Yes, you can influence me’ — that would be wrong. That would be very wrong,” he said.

Yaccarino clarified that she was referring to “an open feedback loop for advertising experts” to help “develop Twitter into a place where they will be excited” about spending more ad dollars. Musk responded, “It’s totally cool to say that you want to have your advertising appear in certain places in Twitter and not other places. But it is not cool to try to say what Twitter will do. And if that means losing advertising dollars, we lose it. But freedom of speech is paramount.”

Yaccarino asked if Musk would reinstate Twitter’s “influence council,” which convened top advertisers to provide recommendations to the company. Musk said he was open to feedback but appeared to rule out establishing such a council. “I would be worried about creating a backlash among the public. Because if the public thinks that their views are being determined by a small number of [ad executives] in America, they will be, I think, upset about that,” he said.

At another point, Yaccarino alluded to Musk’s controversial comments (and urged him to stop tweeting after 3 a.m., which he pledged to strive to do). “I have to push you a little, because there’s a lot of folks in this room, they vote with their pocketbooks… but they can’t cross that transom. They have a challenge with your points of view, your opinions, and [they’re] still holding back from unlocking the full power of Twitter,” Yaccarino said.

Musk blamed “negative amplification in the media” for how some of his remarks have been portrayed, and he also criticized “traditional media” (which he claimed competes with Twitter for ad dollars) for perpetuating the notion that hate speech is rampant on Twitter.

Yaccarino questioned Musk about whether, as the owner of Twitter (and the most-followed individual on the platform), he should “be held to a different or higher standard.” She also pointedly asked whether Musk’s own tweets could be labeled as hate speech under Twitter’s “awful but not unlawful” approach. According to Musk, his tweets are in fact subject to Twitter’s content-labeling policies, as well as the platform’s Community Notes feature that uses crowdsourcing to fact-check content.

Earlier in the conversation, Musk said, “In order for civilization to advance, we’ve got to have freedom of speech,” prompting applause in the room. “It’s a bigger deal than you’d think.” The “acid test” for free speech, he continued, is, “Are people you don’t like allowed to say things you don’t like?”

Now that she is on Musk’s payroll, it will be interesting to see if Yaccarino changes her tune. After resigning from NBCU this week, Yaccarino is set to join Twitter (which is officially now called X Corp.) before the end of June. As CEO, she’ll be in charge of business operations including ad sales, while Musk said he will lead “product design & new technology” as CTO. Musk, of course, remains the owner of Twitter and singular decision-maker about the company’s strategy and operations.

On Friday, a Twitter commenter addressing Musk expressed alarm that Yaccarino, during the conference session in Miami, “was most excited about your initiative to limit reach of tweets which are deemed hateful” and fretted that she would be inclined to “pander” to advertisers that “push woke ideology on the world.” Musk replied, “I hear your concerns, but don’t judge too early. I am adamant about defending free speech, even if it means losing money.”

Meanwhile, one week before Yaccarino’s move to Twitter was revealed, NBCU announced content and ad deals with Twitter and Snapchat, with each company individually signing on to promote the media company’s Paris 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games. The pact with Twitter is set to include an exclusive live show produced by NBC Olympics featuring highlights, athlete interviews and “interactive engagements to drive conversation amongst fans.”


PVW said:

Or maybe we can put it more to the point -- it seems that the conclusion we can draw from Musk's venture is that is not possible to run a social media site in accordance with the principles Musk wishes, and also be a successful major business. Fair?

I think he thinks it's possible to run Twitter profitably according to his principles, but if it loses money, so be it. I don't know if Twitter was before he bought it.


paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

Or maybe we can put it more to the point -- it seems that the conclusion we can draw from Musk's venture is that is not possible to run a social media site in accordance with the principles Musk wishes, and also be a successful major business. Fair?

I think he thinks it's possible to run Twitter profitably according to his principles, but if it loses money, so be it. I don't know if Twitter was before he bought it.

Whatever Musk believes, I think we can agree with Smedley that, from a business perspective, Musk under Twitter has been a failure so far?


I'll recall you to my previous post, where I gave three reasons, in priority order, of why I was not a fan of Musk's purchase of Twitter. Point number two was the fear that other business leaders would see the Musk model as a success and try and emulate him.

Now maybe Musk is, as you say, perfectly willing to run Twitter into the ground in pursuit of his political or cultural views. The vast majority of business owners and executives are not. For that reason, it's significant that Twitter has been a business disaster under Musk, as greatly reduces the risk of others trying the same model.


paulsurovell said:

Musk-haters very cranky about this.

You have to admire all the Musk-haters here, then, for keeping it to themselves.

I don't know if Twitter was before he bought it.

Twitter had two profitable years, 2018 and 2019. Those profits did not exceed the cumulative losses from its other years.


On my third point, where Musk's fans claim he's fighting for free speech and democracy, and Musk's detractors claim he's destroying it, the truth is I'm unsure how much influence Twitter ever actually had. Disinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda absolutely do spread via social media. And many actors interested in spreading these -- from governments (including ours) to political groups to businesses spend time and money to make that happen, so there must be some ROI for doing so.

So I don't think social media has zero importance. At the same time, I'm not convinced it's as important as claimed. Twitter, especially, was always very small compared to other platforms. Joe Biden, very much not a Very Online person, beat out several candidates in the primary who were far more digitally conversant, then went on to beat notoriously online Trump.

Twitter before Musk wasn't great for democracy. Under Musk it's worse. It's not great when a super rich famous person starts amplifying hate against vulnerable groups! But I don't think social media is going to be either what kills democracy or saves it.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

Or maybe we can put it more to the point -- it seems that the conclusion we can draw from Musk's venture is that is not possible to run a social media site in accordance with the principles Musk wishes, and also be a successful major business. Fair?

I think he thinks it's possible to run Twitter profitably according to his principles, but if it loses money, so be it. I don't know if Twitter was before he bought it.

Whatever Musk believes, I think we can agree with Smedley that, from a business perspective, Musk under Twitter has been a failure so far?

As Dave S informs us, Twitter had been unprofitable for nearly three years prior to Musk's purchase. Has it been a "failure" that in his first 8 months he hasn't turned it around? 


PVW said:

On my third point, where Musk's fans claim he's fighting for free speech and democracy, and Musk's detractors claim he's destroying it, the truth is I'm unsure how much influence Twitter ever actually had.

As one of his detractors, do you claim he's destroying free speech and democracy? If so, how so?

PVW said:

Disinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda absolutely do spread via social media. And many actors interested in spreading these -- from governments (including ours) to political groups to businesses spend time and money to make that happen, so there must be some ROI for doing so.

Twitter has mechanisms that challenge disinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda, such as Community Notes and the rebuttals of posters. Unlike major media which pushes disinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda with impunity:



PVW said:

So I don't think social media has zero importance. At the same time, I'm not convinced it's as important as claimed. Twitter, especially, was always very small compared to other platforms. Joe Biden, very much not a Very Online person, beat out several candidates in the primary who were far more digitally conversant, then went on to beat notoriously online Trump.

Twitter before Musk wasn't great for democracy. Under Musk it's worse. It's not great when a super rich famous person starts amplifying hate against vulnerable groups! But I don't think social media is going to be either what kills democracy or saves it.

Such amplification is not great, and should be called out, but it's also not great when that allegation is made -- as in @nohero's fiasco -- without any evidence, or when the allegation elevates a specific case or cases as a generalization.


Some people are born to be followers…


paulsurovell said:

She took the job understanding that Musk's priority is to create the digital town square:

I can’t think of any change made by Musk which moves the Twitter more towards that. Many of his changes have had the opposite effect. 


paulsurovell said:

As Dave S informs us, Twitter had been unprofitable for nearly three years prior to Musk's purchase. Has it been a "failure" that in his first 8 months he hasn't turned it around? 

Vastly overpaying for a business that struggles but manages to occasionally turn a profit and driving it into the ground is a failure, yes.


Musk did try to get out of buying Twitter even before he bought it, due to tech stock valuations falling by about a third between the time he offered to buy it and the closing. That wasn't his fault, just bad luck on the timing. But yeah, since then there has clearly been company-specific underperformance in terms of ad revenue and other metrics that's at least partly due to Musk. So overall, yes IMO it is accurate to call the deal a disaster so far, one that Musk would undo today if he was able to. 

But Twitter is still going and who knows, maybe he still will right the ship longer-term. It's an overstatement to say he "drove it into the ground", because it's not in the ground yet. My Twitter UX has declined as I've said previously, but the platform is still a go-to source of information and entertainment for me, and many others I'm sure. 


joanne said:

Smedley, is it possible that perhaps your definition of ‘full bore anti-trans’ doesn’t match those of other readers and posters? Certainly mine isn’t matched by what I’ve read, but I can understand the points those people are making. 

Yes certainly. Which was why I was (and still am) genuinely curiously as to why the Twitter thread in question was deemed "full bore anti-trans", as it didn't seem to so me.  


RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

Obfuscation it is.

Look, there are folks who wouldn't mind gotcha'ing me and would be happy to serve up this information and "straight answers" you speak of, on a silver platter, with a side of crow. The fact that nobody is serving this up is kinda telling that it doesn't exist.

It was served up. It’s a message board, scroll back a day and read the posts. 

Pretty please with sugar on top, please provide us all with the time of day of the posting  where "It was served up."

Thanks in advance.

My only guess is that nohero did respond with "straight answers" as he says, but he accidentally left the post saved in drafts or something. 


Smedley said:

So overall, yes IMO it is accurate to call the deal a disaster so far, one that Musk would undo today if he was able to. 

But Twitter is still going and who knows, maybe he still will right the ship longer-term. It's an overstatement to say he "drove it into the ground", because it's not in the ground yet.

Fair enough -- I'll dial back the hyperbole -- "the deal is a disaster so far" is accurate enough.

At this point, to have a chance to turn things around would require that Musk step back and truly let Yaccarino run things, as the problem with today's Twitter is clearly Musk. From what we've seen of Musk so far, I have my doubts he can do this.


Smedley said:

joanne said:

Smedley, is it possible that perhaps your definition of ‘full bore anti-trans’ doesn’t match those of other readers and posters? Certainly mine isn’t matched by what I’ve read, but I can understand the points those people are making. 

Yes certainly. Which was why I was (and still am) genuinely curiously as to why the Twitter thread in question was deemed "full bore anti-trans", as it didn't seem to so me.  

if you are genuinely curious, have you sought out some unbiased reporting on Walsh's "expose"? Admittedly it's not that easy, since most of the stories out there are coming from the same bias as Walsh. But there are at least a couple of stories out there from reporters without an ax to grind. And it might also help satisfy your curiosity if you can find comments from trans activists to get their reaction to the story.



Why not just ask people who are transgender for the answers to your questions? All this pyschobabble crap about being curious is bull kaka. If you’re genuinely curious you wouldn’t rely on someone like Walsh. Unbelievable!!


ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Yes certainly. Which was why I was (and still am) genuinely curiously as to why the Twitter thread in question was deemed "full bore anti-trans", as it didn't seem to so me.

if you are genuinely curious, have you sought out some unbiased reporting on Walsh's "expose"?

That kind of curiosity requires doing some self-directed work, rather than expecting others to explain themselves. If Smedley has already tried that tack (great minds think alike) and still doesn’t understand where “full bore anti-trans” came from, I’d think that’d be the end of it.


paulsurovell said:

As one of his detractors, do you claim he's destroying free speech and democracy? If so, how so?


Since, as I said, I think actions offline are far more important than online, I'd point to his support of Gov. DeSantis. I suppose this actually blurs that offline/online distinction a bit, but perhaps in an illuminating way. Musk is prominently amplifying DeSantis, which if DeSantis were just some guy spouting hateful rhetoric would be arguably of limited damage. But DeSantis is governor of a large important state, with real power -- power he has been using to attack vulnerable groups and undermine key constitutional principle such as the first amendment. He's making a presidential run where, if he wins, the scope of his power (and so the scope of his ability to cause harm to people and to our constitutional order) would be vastly expanded.

So perhaps that's a useful way to think about where social media fits in terms of importance and impact -- where it translates into action offline.

Another example here might be Trump's deplatforming from various social media sites (including Twitter) after Jan 6. I'd say that was the right call because he had used his online platforms as a key part of bringing the attack on the capitol about, and there was every sign that he would continue to use these platforms to foment further violence going forward.

What's tricky is discerning where and how strong the connection between speech and action is. People can and will disagree on where to strike the balance between open discourse and the risk of harm. But I think that by the time you're amplifying and lending aid to people with formal power to cause harm, and a proven track record of doing so, you're beyond the realm of ambiguity.

Recalling Ken White's distinction between free speech rights, culture, and decency, I'd note I'm talking primarily about culture here -- I'm not making an argument for the government to be taking any action. Probably compared to some on this board, I'm more tolerant of indecent speech as part of free speech culture.


PVW said:

Probably compared to some on this board, I'm more tolerant of indecent speech as part of free speech culture.

On that last point, one thing worth noting is that one's tolerance does depend a great deal on where one sits. As a cisgender white male in a prosperous suburb, a lot of indecent speech doesn't personally threaten me. I might well have a different perspective if my circumstances were different. So when I say that I'm probably more tolerant of indecent speech, I just mean that as an observation, not as any implicit rebuke or disagreement with others with a different perspective. I think navigating these issues is tricky and reasonable people can disagree.


ml1 said:

Smedley said:

joanne said:

Smedley, is it possible that perhaps your definition of ‘full bore anti-trans’ doesn’t match those of other readers and posters? Certainly mine isn’t matched by what I’ve read, but I can understand the points those people are making. 

Yes certainly. Which was why I was (and still am) genuinely curiously as to why the Twitter thread in question was deemed "full bore anti-trans", as it didn't seem to so me.  

if you are genuinely curious, have you sought out some unbiased reporting on Walsh's "expose"? Admittedly it's not that easy, since most of the stories out there are coming from the same bias as Walsh. But there are at least a couple of stories out there from reporters without an ax to grind. And it might also help satisfy your curiosity if you can find comments from trans activists to get their reaction to the story.

Ive seen some stuff, mostly righty praise as you say, and some backlash bc it's Walsh. Feel free to post these stories from reporters without an ax to grind that you refer to. Or keep your info classified and top-secret.


DaveSchmidt said:

That kind of curiosity requires doing some self-directed work, rather than expecting others to explain themselves. 

so a poster can state opinions, but it's not for anyone else to request clarification or elaboration on said opinions, rather it's on them to Google and take their best guess.

That's an interesting new protocol for an online message board, but okay. I expect to see you policing this going forward. 


Smedley said:

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

Obfuscation it is.

Look, there are folks who wouldn't mind gotcha'ing me and would be happy to serve up this information and "straight answers" you speak of, on a silver platter, with a side of crow. The fact that nobody is serving this up is kinda telling that it doesn't exist.

It was served up. It’s a message board, scroll back a day and read the posts. 

Pretty please with sugar on top, please provide us all with the time of day of the posting  where "It was served up."

Thanks in advance.

My only guess is that nohero did respond with "straight answers" as he says, but he accidentally left the post saved in drafts or something. 

You could read my later responses, instead of making this comment. 


Smedley said:

DaveSchmidt said:

That kind of curiosity requires doing some self-directed work, rather than expecting others to explain themselves. 

so a poster can state opinions, but it's not for anyone else to request clarification or elaboration on said opinions, rather it's on them to Google and take their best guess.

That's an interesting new protocol for an online message board, but okay. I expect to see you policing this going forward. 

Or, you could read all the responses and the links provided. Then you could ask follow up questions if it was still unclear, instead of claiming that nobody provided any “clarification or elaboration”.


Smedley said:

so a poster can state opinions, but it's not for anyone else to request clarification or elaboration on said opinions, rather it's on them to Google and take their best guess.

That's an interesting new protocol for an online message board, but okay. I expect to see you policing this going forward.

Naturally, anyone can request. But if I don’t get a reply that satisfies my curiosity, and I’m still curious, sure, I think it’s now on me to satisfy it, or move on. Unless my real motive is to pin someone down, which it isn’t when I’m curious.

And don’t worry, there are no police. It’s just an opinion about curiosity. Even if it were an unsupported slur, I’m not shutting you down.


Smedley said:

so a poster can state opinions, but it's not for anyone else to request clarification or elaboration on said opinions, rather it's on them to Google and take their best guess.

That's an interesting new protocol for an online message board, but okay. I expect to see you policing this going forward. 

you expressed a strong curiosity. If I'm really curious about something I don't wait for someone else to give me their take. I do a little reading and develop my own POV based upon my interpretation of the facts. 

YMMV of course. 


-----


[ embed didn't work ]


DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

so a poster can state opinions, but it's not for anyone else to request clarification or elaboration on said opinions, rather it's on them to Google and take their best guess.

That's an interesting new protocol for an online message board, but okay. I expect to see you policing this going forward.

Naturally, anyone can request. But if I don’t get a reply that satisfies my curiosity, and I’m still curious, sure, I think it’s now on me to satisfy it, or move on. Unless my real motive is to pin someone down, which it isn’t when I’m curious.

Well perhaps there can be two motives. One, curiosity, and two, not pinning someone down, but calling out the BS of claiming there was an answer when there wasn't. A certain poster gets a lot of grief in the Rose Garden thread for non-responses (rightfully so), so why not have consistent standards. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.