[tlogan]

Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better. Not everybody believed that he will succeeded but it seems like majority belived that he will at least try hard. Like improve app to purchase things (one click checkout), integrate with real time news, some free speech, sports, … so many ideas

[threeseed]

The thing is that Twitter 1.0 had the exact same ideas. Every one of them that Musk has thought of to date.

They simply were too slow in implementing them. Some of them eg. payments are due to all of the regulatory challenges that Twitter faces as a top tier social network. Others are just incompetence eg. not doing more with Vine.

They needed a better executor. Problem is Musk immediately fired everyone. And has constantly underestimated the complexity of the system. So bit hard to see how they were ever going to do better as Twitter 2.0.

[tpush]

> Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better.

Speaking only for myself, but I'd honestly contest that.

[drc500free]

Personally, I assumed he had multiple overlapping motivations. Prove that he knew tech products better than SV insiders, own a major media platform to push his viewpoint, save a media platform from "woke" people and let people like Trump back on, silence his critics, make money, pretend he really intended to purchase something he didn't actually want to. I'm not sure that even he knows why he does what he does, because so much of it is impulsive and can't be attributed to a coherent plan with specific goals.

The only thing that will definitely hold true is that there is an audience of tens of millions of Americans who feel mocked by "the Elites." They will shower adoration on anyone with Elite creds - be it academic, media, or business - who tells them there really is a conspiracy to oppress them and that they're the straight shooter who will go to battle for them. That is a very seductive amount of positive feedback when the other things you're doing aren't home runs.

[Uninen]

I confess, I was one of those people who believed that he’d try hard to make a positive change. The reality seems to be exactly what the most cynical takes were; it’s all about money and petty personal things. It’s a shame. The wasted potential is enormous.

[krisoft]

> Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better.

I mean. I still think he is trying to do that. Is he succeeding? I don’t think so.

If it all hits the ground and twitter is no more a going concern will he claim that was his plan all along? Probably. Doesn’t mean it is true.

Even on the day he offered to buy twitter he was offering more money than the stock was worth. That is only rational if you believe you have a plan to run it better.

According to reports he is spending a lot of his time managing twitter in quite a hands-on way. Do you think he is not trying to make it better in his own mind?

[lancesells]

> Even on the day he offered to buy twitter he was offering more money than the stock was worth. That is only rational if you believe you have a plan to run it better. > According to reports he is spending a lot of his time managing twitter in quite a hands-on way. Do you think he is not trying to make it better in his own mind?

I think it's a case of the gambler having enough money to buy the casino.

[equalsione]

But this sounds incredibly like “buy the dip!” The situation with twitter is dire. Nothing indicates that any of the things listed are remotely achievable.

[TuringTest]

How can they brag about freedom of expression and then forbid promoting their competitors through their site? [1]

They are well within their rights to do so, but that's the exact opposite of competing purely in the market of ideas.

1. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...

[EarlKing]

...except they don't do that. This is no different than Reddit's own policies on spam and self-promotion. You're expected to use the site for discussion and building community, not directing people elsewhere. If the latter is your goal then you can pay for advertising. What's changed here is that people who previously were given free reign to promote themselves without paying a dime are now being told they need to pay up. I'm finding it hard to sympathize with them.

[TuringTest]

Well I find hard to sympathize with the people saying that horrible abuse will not be moderated because "free speech", yet mentioning the fact that you use other social media apps will get your account banned as "unpaid self-promotion".

It doesn't inspire confidence in that their previous stance was truly motivated by their love of the unrestricted diffusion of ideas.

[EarlKing]

> horrible abuse

Every time someone mentions this I ask for examples, and generally all I ever receive in reply are examples of people disagreeing with them. I begin to think that those who shout about 'abuse' are incensed that those they formerly silenced by bending the rules are now using those rules against them, particularly to voice their legitimate opinions, and they're using their institutional power elsewhere to try to tank Twitter as a result.

In short: I know full well that this has nothing to do with free speech arguments and everything to do with institutional actors being incensed that they can't use Twitter as their own propaganda institution anymore. I won't pretend that Elon is a friend of the proletariat, but I'm also not going to pretend that those opposing him somehow are either. This is a slap fight between two groups of bourgeoisie, and petit bourgeoisie actors are trying to convince everyone else it's some sort of fight for liberty, justice, mom and apple pie. Utter nonsense.

In the end, some of you are going to have to accustom yourselves to the idea that you are not gatekeepers of public forums, the people have interests that do not coincide with your own, and no amount of force or fraud is going to change that. Don't like it? Learn to code, I guess.

[TuringTest]

> Every time someone mentions this I ask for examples, and generally all I ever receive in reply are examples of people disagreeing with them

Then you haven't been watching harassment on trans and other LGBT people, being told to die in horrible ways (I'm sure you can point to other high-profile people getting that kind of threats, but this one gets such abuse merely for existing).

Fully agree that having public forums gatekeeped by centralized actors deciding what you can communicate is worrisome; we should get distributed ways to announce the existence of your personal publications to people that may be interested in its subject - like like the Usenet newsgroups of old (which are still in operation, but are not known to the general public).

[ssnistfajen]

People believed he could make Twitter better based on the assumption that he will implement these changes. I personally thought it'd be great if we could tailor our own recommendation algorithms. Turns out none of those happened and this has been a dumpster fire all along.

[alfiedotwtf]

> Majority of people here on HN were also convinced he will try to make Twitter better.

I was one of them. But slowly we saw him fuck it up, and then double down. Twitter is toast unless Elon is dumped by his investors

[mjmsmith]

See also Donald Trump, 2016.