this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1114 points (92.0% liked)

Technology

59197 readers
3391 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Starting August 7th, advertisers that haven’t reached certain spending thresholds will lose their official brand account verification. According to emails obtained by the WSJ, brands need to have spent at least $1,000 on ads within the prior 30 days or $6,000 in the previous 180 days to retain the gold checkmark identifying that the account belongs to a verified brand.

...

Threatening to remove verified checkmarks is a risky move given how many ‘Twitter alternative’ services like Threads and Bluesky are cropping up and how willing consumers appear to be to jump ship, with Threads rocketing to 100 million registrations in just five days. That said, it’s not like other efforts to drum up some additional cash, like increasing API pricing, have gone down especially well, either. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton — let’s see if it pays off for him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrr_464@lemmy.world 283 points 1 year ago (14 children)
[–] enu@lemm.ee 217 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At this point, I'd say: Providing entertainment to the internet while also helping grow the fediverse

[–] theTrainMan932@infosec.pub 69 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Having never been on twitter myself I'm especially entertained, watching and laughing from a far corner of the internet

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Twitter has a bad reputation from the "buzzworthy" people. It was nowhere near as bad as the terminally online would have you believe. I'd even say it was a GREAT site before 2016.

It's a social media platform. You (used to) choose whose tweets you saw. As such, it was easy to curate your account to stick to one kind of content. I never saw politics or sports, I only followed funny people. And I had every major brand straight up blocked

The 140 character days were like text Vine where you made a joke through constraints and I loved it

[–] EnglishMobster@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Notably, Vine was created by Twitter.

And then Vine was axed by Twitter. (One of the dumbest mistakes Twitter ever made - look how successful TikTok is, and think that Twitter literally had that a decade ago and decided to shut it down.)

So really, Vine was just video Twitter, instead of Twitter being text Vine.

[–] theTrainMan932@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wasn't really involved with social media back then sadly, but yes I did get that general impression. Before all the toxicity really overtook it around 2020 it did seem quite pleasant.

Shame really, corporate greed taking something quite nice and milking it so hard it's absolutely ruined. Then again, it gives way to things like bluesky so i guess it has its upsides!

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See that's the thing ...toxicity DIDN'T take over, you just heard about it more.

This internet hate machine loves to pretend that the angry tweet screenshots they see reposted over and over are representative of the site as a whole while all the funny tweet screenshots they've laughed at are one in a million. But if you look at the usernames on the political ones it's usually the same handful of people...like that guy who starts every other tweet with "Holy fucking shit, Trump just..." Or the Brooklyn dad guy

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 007v2@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the combination of sheer incompetence and his overlord bosses wanting to kill Twitter. Which is wild to me, since it could have been used as a propaganda tool for him ultimately worth more than the money he paid for it, despite the ‘worth’ of the company. The guy lives in a bubble with yes men surrounding him. He is the epitome of the meme “is it me that’s wrong? - no everyone else is out of touch”.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

A right-wing propaganda tool needs people outside of the right wing to look at it. He’s far too embedded into that space to be able to appeal to other groups.

[–] jsveiga@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Since he started his act about buying Twitter I saw that as a personal vendetta to harm it - the ultimate tantrum for being mocked at there and not being under his control. He said he'd buy then backed off just to hurt Twitter's value, but then when he was forced to buy it for the first offer value, he got even more butthurt.

It's pretty clear that everything he's done since is to get revenge and destroy it. It's insane that some people keep praising his decisions towards Twitter as anything but ridiculous.

He's the rich brat who doesn't get brown nosed by the waiter in front of his date, then proceed to buy the restaurant just to fire the guy.

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh, with Elon, I prefer to assume stupidity over malice, because he also had already done shit to hurt his own image before he owned Twitter. Who was he being malignant against then? Himself? To own, uh, his supported??? Everything falls in place by just doing the single logical step of "he dumdum".

[–] jsveiga@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What about stupid malice, or maliciously stupid? :-)

Does a bully think being a bully hurts their image?

As an extreme narcissist, he can't fathom the idea that anything he does can hurt his image. Surrounded by devoted minions, everything he does boosts his ego. He's mauling Twitter, and thinks this projects a powerful image of himself.

I never liked this guy, I think he's an narcissistic spoiled brat, but even then I can't believe he could possibly be so stupid to think that things like throwing away the Twitter brand for "X" make sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Saudi Arabia put up 20 billion or so of the 44 he used to purchase twitter. The reason behind this is widely speculated to be Saudi Arabia wanting to destroy twitter because it was instrumental in the Arab Spring uprising.

[–] oneofthemladygoats@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

They didn't put new money into the purchase, they rolled their pre-existing shares over. Dorsey did the same FYI.

Y'all are giving this idiot waaaay too much credit when it comes to scheming behind the scenes. It was a really poorly thought out pump and dump, nothing more. There's no big evil master plan; he's just really that stupid, and rich enough to constantly fail upwards. With Xitter we're just seeing his xitty ideas in their purest form, without the influence of the handlers he has to manage his bullxit at his other companies.

Although I have to say, the accidental brilliance of going with branding that's so phonologically flexible is pretty fantastic, the jokes can write themselves now. But I doubt advertisers are going to appreciate the fact that their interactions on Xitter are colloquially becoming known as xcrements now...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 27 points 1 year ago

He is ensuring his place in history as a seminal business case study.

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can think of two explanations.

  1. He wants to intentionally run Twitter into the ground and destroy it. Probably because people were mean to him on it or something

  2. He’s completely lost his mind and is just being stupid.

Hanlons Razor makes me think it’s 2

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For the first one, just shutting it down would have been enough.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Right now he'd have plausible deniability for his debtors

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Extorting his advertisers, it seems. It's hella funny.

load more comments (1 replies)

The most generous thing I can think of is that it's a social experiment to see just how many ways he can undercut a successful brand and platform before it completely implodes.

[–] Deadeyegai@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

tHe SmArTeSt MaN iN tHe UnIvErSe. Doing small brain things again

[–] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

It's the result of brain damage from Covid.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

He previously said that Twitter was in the red when he bought it. So pretty much everything he's been doing has been clearly aimed at either reducing Twitter's expenses or increasing its revenue. Better to have a smaller company that is profitable than a bigger company that is not profitable.

Whether it's working or not, time will tell. But that's the likely motivation behind most of it.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

He's got a really big loan payment to pay in October, everything is about that to keep it going for another year

[–] Eladarling@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Something about this move makes me feel like he was bragging to somebody about how he managed to own a single letter domain, and his conversation ended up somehow here, with him doubling down on what wasn't even a good joke to begin with.

This is purely speculative, obviously, but it just makes me think it's him putting his money where his mouth is to save face to someone else (who is likely bemused at best)

load more comments (1 replies)