No.1551
why he did it though. Who knows
No.1552
did it actually go through this time
No.1554
>>1551seriously. I'm not too sure about what the teens are doing, but I was under the impression that it was dying until Trump started shiptoasting like a madman and that it started reclining again when he got banned.
No.1557
>>1554i dunno what the heck is in that word salad you just wrote, but twitter is about following people's diary and that's only interesting if there's someone who writes an interesting diary.
>>1556it's not really a big deal that he's rich... it's not like the other people weren't rich... he's just kind of out of touch with reality.
I could see Musk being contracted by the government to make changes to the platform to benefit the US. This deal might be more of a cover for a figure with a lot of government connections to gain access to one of the more foreign infiltrated international social media
No.1558
>>1551My theory is that he's doing what he believes is right and is crazy and rich enough to do what he wants. Much like how Bezos bought the washington post.
>>1556Despite this being another billionaire consolidating power around him, their is inherent value in the fact that he seems to be ideologically apposed to the oligarchic faction that controls the other main web communication sites; there will be an increase in the overall diversity of ideas simply due to this fact.
>>1557>Musk being contracted by the government to make changes to the platform to benefit the USI hope you don't think that wasn't already happening with every "large" social media site. While this is a every present concern with pretty much every "large" corporate entity I don't think it's really worth bringing up as both the buyer and company were most certainly already incorporated in the US government apparatus. The only change here will probably be some departmental reorganizations within the alphabet agencies over who is in charge of who.
No.1559
>>1558>I hope you don't think that wasn't already happening with every "large" social media site.yes
No.1561
>>1556its alright hon, you and your sisters are already brainstorming new places to migrate to
No.1562
>>1561i'll invite them to kissu
No.1563
make sure to subscribe to twitter+ for $10/mo to gain exclusive perks!
- blue checkmarks
- see only posts by blue checkmarks
- see posts by free tier users
- edit your posts
- ...and much more!
No.1564
Should I care about it ?
No.1565
>>1563I really don't see why people seem to dread this change and act like twitter's going corporate when for all intents and purposes it already was. Also I don't get why people suddenly care about twitter as it's a complete shithole that deserves to die anyways.
Besides that though, before musk bought it, it was already a slave to the interests of shareholders, so it really makes no difference except now it probably won't be a slave to shareholders.
No.1567
Twitter is a shithole and hopefully it does die from this if not I hope atleast it scares away all the tards probably not though
No.1571
>>1565like it or not, twitter continues to gain active users:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/970920/monetizable-daily-active-twitter-users-worldwide/however, it struggles to make a profit after trump was banned:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/operating-incomei doubt musk would leave this unsustainable business model alone
No.1574
Twitter was already a shithole, how much more shithole can it get? As long as I can follow my favorite artists and, since he's talking all about free speech, they don't get banned for lolicon or the likes, I'm happy.
No.1576
>>1571social media isn't profitable under any pretense other than mass data sales. That Twitter wasn't making money is if anything a good thing.
No.1577
>>1575That also sounds like a good idea.
No.1578
you guys are so melodramatic
No.1579
>>1556>chanditjunkWhat is this word
No.1580
>>1573Ever since the oscars was talked about in the happenings thread, Kissu's been going downhill ever since
No.1581
Literally nothing will happen like always. As long as the board of directors doesn't change the same policies will go through.
The most radical thing he's said is he wants to remove botting from the platform which is a nobble goal that might end up having a lot of false positives. Everything else is your typical US drama
No.1582
>>1581I don't think anyone expected anything different.
No.1584
>>1582well, if you want to get into US drama then people think it means he's trying to bail the far-right failures with creating a Twitter clone, but that's yet to be anything more than a QAnon wet dream
No.1586
Twitter destroys the quality of images so much. Use Pixiv or Mastodon to follow artists
No.1597
has it really come to the point where people are spamflooding threads they disagree with? on pissu?
No.1598
They are sad people who have forgotten how diverse the content on 4/qa/ was.
No.1599
It's more trying to recapture the ramadan thread
No.1600
>>1580This surely would've had a thread that lasted one discussion on 4/qa/, don't see why anyone really cares... In fact now the meta talking points are more taking over for the actual discussion because I think everyone already said their piece.
No.1601
still miss 4/qa/
No.1604
>>1556>seen with the recent war that twitter has been vital with amateur journalismYes, how we would we ever know about the ghost of kyiv sami hyde
No.1605
>>1576facebook/meta makes lots of money from advertisement though, so your statement is false
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/FB/meta-platforms/operating-income No.1606
>>1605And ads are usually loaded with trackers and sometimes more, so both statements are true
No.1607
Huh?? Where did he even get the funding for that? I had thought he already was using much of his share in Tesla as collateral for loans. I'll have to look into it, maybe, I don't really care about twitter.
>>1586I used to think that too so I tested it and provided both images are JPGs it does not, however, if an artist uploads an image only on twitter and not on Pixiv he will never upload the PNG so in that way it does lessen quality.
No.1608
>>1607He made PayPal and sold it for a billion. If you're smart with that it becomes multiple billions.
No.1609
>>1607he got financing(loans) from international banks
No.1613
>>1608>He made PayPalHe didn't make anything and doesn't make anything. He's a money guy, or providing it or persuading other people (like the US taxpayer) to provide it.
The cult of personality around this guy where they regard him as some inventor savant is so bizarre.
No.1614
Do you think he'll work with the UK government about creating accountability for online abuse like they've been begging for for years
No.1615
>>1613To be fair, a lot of that is just people parroting what they are told, which makes it even more amusing that he bought twitter
No.1616
>>1614He's an American who's pushing for less restrictions on what people can post, put two braincells together to figure it out yourself...
No.1617
>>1616To be fair, Twitter isnt as censorship happy as it made it out to be, if you dont use certain words/phrases you can say some pretty heinous shit
No.1618
>>1598I remember. But then, I also hated half of said content. I like Kissu because it's the subset of 4/qa/ that I liked without the noise.
No.1619
>>1614probably, the only way to fully remove botting is to remove every aspect of anonymity remaining on platforms. That means government registries associated with user accounts. Just a possible ugly route one could take on the monumental issue of botnets(doesn't even really solve it but sounds like it does)
No.1620
>>1619Do you honestly think Elon Musk of all people would be willing to go along with that? Because going off of his past actions I say it's extremely unlikely.
No.1621
>>1620I can't say I binge read Musk's Tweets so not sure what you mean, but the guy is basically an arm of the US government. Starlink satelites were one of the first things that Ukraine got as soon as the USA started taking action
No.1623
>>1619An article I just read about it said that he had mentioned human authentication. Youtube looks like it does that too as well, a few time I have gone to watch a video and it has said that I need to prove I am an adult by showing them ID(which I have not and will not do).
No.1624
>>1621Probably did it because he personally wanted to, and not because because the government told him to.
No.1625
>>1624maybe, it's an explanation.
>>1623A lot of internet companies break their backs to get into foreign markets which restrict personal liberty. Wouldn't surprise me if they did more like Google does
No.1626
>>1623>Youtube looks like it does that too as wellI have like 7 gmail accounts and have never been prompted for this ever. Must be some Euro or otherwise regulation requiring that. That's pretty much the thing, companies basically don't do anything until the fines start coming in, and if the fines don't matter they won't do anything. For instance, those cookie selection things are a byproduct of EU regulations, meanwhile countries that go further don't get those same regulations applied. Countries like Germany get specific website versions because their regulations are more stringent than EU ones for some things. That's another thing: scope. If the regulation is just one country, it might make sense to have a specific version for that country only, but when it's an entire bloc like the EU, then it basically trickles down to everyone because that's way more countries involved. On that topic, I don't think there's really been many cases of internet regulations from various countries contradicting each other yet. Maybe aside from stuff like Section 230 in the US (websites are not personally liable for the content posted on them so long as there is an attempt at moderation), versus other countries which may be more stringent, but in that case it comes down to where the servers are located.
No.1627
>>1621Musk is the kind of guy who goes along with things when they suit his needs. He works with the US government, but would definitely drag his feet in if they went against his values.
No.1628
>>1626Maybe, I'm in Australia. It's only happened to me twice and over the most bizarre things. Here is one of them so you can test yourself, it was some video about Bigfoot, I don't actually like this channel though, it just came up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsekrRdN7lY No.1631
>>1618Internet meta /qa/ was perfectly fine.
No.1632
>>1560Yeah at this point it couldn't have happened to a more deserving site.
I hope one day the Japanese just go their own way like they did with Yahoo; only still visiting that trash dump for all the great content from there.
No.1633
>>1632so when's the /qa/ LINE group forming?
No.1634
>>1632>I hope one day the Japanese just go their own way like they did with Yahoo; only still visiting that trash dump for all the great content from there.I disagree. I like having a direct line to Japanese artists.
No.1635
So much for Truth Network ever succeeding
No.1638
>>1632Its kind of funny, they get annoyed with gaijins on pixiv because they have to see their art (although admittedly on Pixiv western art isnt uniquely poor, but for a while last year there were westerners misusing it) whereas on twitter even if directly harassed their english illiteracy shields them from a lot of bullshit
No.1639
Another thing is how twitter will be monetized. With all that money borrowed from banks it needs to be repaid and twitter has traditionally been really bad at making money.
From what I've read it already has some paid stuff, so it'll probably expand into offering more (or restricting currently free usability) with subscriptions or something.
No.1642
>>1639Would it really be possible to pull that off successfully though? People are far too used to social media being free these days, that I can't see more than a tiny fraction of the masses being willing to pay for Twitter (celebrities and businesses and the like would probably be different, but that by itself isn't going to turn them a profit), unless it somehow offered serious advantages over its competitors.
No.1643
>>1639>>1642I'm pretty sure their idea is to have curated content and guaranteed responses, somewhat like OnlyFans + Patreon/Fanbox/Fantia. It could work, but it depends who gets in on the program, and what sort of content people start making paywalled. I think most people wouldn't mind additional stuff in addition to someone's usual posts, but that never ends up being the case.
That said... people have a pretty low threshold for paying for too many services, and Twitter being a latecomer means unless it pushes something revolutionary, it's going to fall into the "I'm not paying for X, because I'm already a patron to too many people on Patreon/Fanbox already" camp.
Regardless, it's not really like Twitter needs to make money. So long as it just doesn't go bankrupt is really all that matters. Elon, at least as stated, doesn't care about profit and Twitter has historically been unprofitable anyways.
No.1644
>>1639Elon Musk has enough money to start his own country. I don't think profitability is that much of a priority to him.
No.1651
>>1643He may claim not to care about profit but that's a lie, nobody takes out such huge loans and spends that kind of money expecting nothing in return.
>>1644Not really, people were unsure that he could even afford to pay for this deal and assumed it was a bluff. Sure, on paper he is obscenely rich. But that wealth is simply the valuation of the shares he has in the companies he owns. To actually use that wealth he would have to sell the shares which would dilute his ownership of the companies and could cause the value to crash. The other way he uses this wealth is by taking out loans that are backed by the value of his shares. Financial analysts were unsure how much more he could access from to this though(hence why they thought this was a bluff) seeing as he had already used so much of his wealth to back loans. A bank would have to be pretty brave to accept it now because the more of his shares he is using to back loans the bigger the damage could be if the share price drops.
No.1652
>>1651>He may claim not to care about profit but that's a lie, nobody takes out such huge loans and spends that kind of money expecting nothing in return.Why do you figure SpaceX is private, then?
No.1653
>>1651He's purposfully sold boatloads of tesla stock to intentionally devalue it in an effort to reduce taxes so I really don't think the entirety of bis wealth is simply tied up in his stock.
No.1654
>>1652If they were to go public then all of their financial information would be required to be made available to the public by law. Right now, their operating costs, the profits they make, etc are a mystery. However, it does seem that they still are essentially in the startup phase and are yet to create a fully profitable business model. They probably will go public one day, but it will be if/when they manage to get Starship and Starlink fully operational and working as intended with the overheads they claim it will have. There are big questions over all of these aspects however.
>>1653He did not sell that many considering what he actually has, he still holds a big enough majority that by company policy he can veto any decision Tesla makes that he does not like, he will not sell below that threshold(if indeed he even can considering how much is tied with loans).
That was not the reason he sold those shares either.
No.1655
>>1652SpaceX might be a complicated situation because it receives billions from the US government while using its facilities and government employees for things. Are any of the other subsidized space companies public?
No.1687
>>1655>Are any of the other subsidized space companies public?Yes: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Rocketdyne, etc. are all publicly traded.
No.2208
Not so 44 billion any more lole