[tmpz22]

You can't put the Elon BS aside because it continually impacts the efficacy of ads on the X/Twitter.

A larger percentage of the ads are scams surrounding trends like NFTs because of his dictated moderation and staffing changes.

Views are amplified for himself and his preferred posters - which for all you know may land your company's logo next to Alex Jones.

> Putting all of the Elon BS aside. Can someone in marketing shine some light on how does X compare to other platforms?

Brand/PR/Reputation is a liability and most big enterprises will continue to optimize for diminishing liabilities by moving to more reliable platforms.

[s1artibartfast]

I think you miss the point of putting something aside.

It doesn't mean you have to ignore it or say it doesn't exist.

You can ask what else can be said about X besides the given topic that you are putting aside.

[fnordsensei]

The “BS” label is important though: that hints that GP does indeed think it can be ignored/doesn’t exist. A retort to this isn’t unwarranted if you believe that Musk’s actions does impact ad spending.

[s1artibartfast]

my point is that the topic of Musk's actions and impacts absolutely can be ignored if that isnt the question you are interested in.

For example, I can ask and be interested in how the cost per click/sale on twitter compares to meta, without diving into they question of why.

That is certainly how I took the question at least.

[fnordsensei]

I agree, for the purpose of scholarly dissection of the subject, it’s perfectly fine.

My point was that lining it up by calling it “BS” invites counter arguments, which is what happened here. If you’re not happy to implicitly accept the “BS”, you’ll have to address it.

Dropping the “BS” label would have led to a more focused discussion. It matters _how_ you ask a question.

[s1artibartfast]

I see your point and agree that clarity may have helped. I read "BS" a little differently, as acknowledgement that all of the Elon stuff is a shambolic mess.

It also seems to be the case that some people didnt just disagree with the BS classification, but fundamentally disagree that anything besides Elon is a valid topic of conversation.

IT does matters how you ask a question, but some people will reject or change the topic no matter how you ask it.

[fnordsensei]

Right, it might read as "Musk's bullshit" or "the bullshit aimed at Musk." Either way, the ambiguity doesn't help. It might tick off both Musk-huggers and Musk-whippers, depending on how they read it.

[s1artibartfast]

Case example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38848821

[__loam]

And he's saying there's almost no point in asking that question because Elon's way of running the company has been so impactlful to the platform that considering it without him is pointless.

[s1artibartfast]

That is just refusing to engage with the question on its own merits, and preferring to talk about Musk.

It is simple to think of interesting questions and topics besides Musk.

It is fine if someone doesn't want to answer it, but a respondant doesn't get to call it pointless, because objective and goal lies with the asker.

[__loam]

Yes.

Musk fired the majority of people working at Twitter, changed the brand, unbanned very controversial users, alienated most of the advertisers, etc etc etc. Talking about Twitter without talking about his leadership is to have a conversation without merit. What other topics are there? He owns the company. Every policy change over the past year has been his personal decision.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't care about Musk or find that interesting. I want to know about the current ROI for Twitter advertising, in standard marketing metrics.

I don't care about corporate policy, history, personalities, or why things are the way they are.

[__loam]

You seem interesting to talk to.