←back to thread

Linda Yaccarino is leaving X

(www.nytimes.com)
539 points donohoe | 9 comments | 09 Jul 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 1.273s | source | bottom
Show context
Hoasi ◴[09 Jul 25 15:21 UTC] No.44511157[source]▶
X has been nothing short of an exercise in brand destruction. However, despite all the drama, it still stands, it still exists, and it remains relevant.
replies(23): >>44511323 #>>44511451 #>>44511453 #>>44511457 #>>44511712 #>>44512087 #>>44512184 #>>44512275 #>>44512704 #>>44513825 #>>44513960 #>>44514302 #>>44514688 #>>44516258 #>>44517308 #>>44517368 #>>44517871 #>>44517980 #>>44519236 #>>44519282 #>>44520336 #>>44520826 #>>44522391 #
mrweasel ◴[09 Jul 25 16:05 UTC] No.44511712[source]▶
More and more I think Musk managed to his take over of Twitter pretty successfully. X still isn't as strong a brand as Twitter where, but it's doing okay. A lot of the users who X need to stay on the platform, journalists and politicians, are still there.

The only issue is that Musk vastly overpaid for Twitter, but if he plans to keep it and use it for his political ambitions, that might not matter. Also remember that while many agree that $44B was a bit much, most did still put Twitter at 10s of billions, not the $500M I think you could justify.

The firings, which was going to tank Twitter also turned out reasonably well. Turns out they didn't need all those people.

replies(14): >>44511868 #>>44512165 #>>44512334 #>>44512898 #>>44513148 #>>44513174 #>>44513350 #>>44514035 #>>44514544 #>>44514680 #>>44515018 #>>44516438 #>>44517692 #>>44518854 #
1. egorfine ◴[09 Jul 25 16:58 UTC] No.44512334[source]▶
Same opinion. I absolutely hate what he did to Twitter and never in my life I will call it "X" - BUT - it looks to me as if the engagement is thriving.

Edit: clarified that the engagement is thriving

replies(2): >>44512375 #>>44512500 #
2. BolexNOLA ◴[09 Jul 25 17:01 UTC] No.44512375[source]▶
Thriving? Its valuation has tanked since his purchase and last I read they’re still actively losing users.
replies(1): >>44512501 #
3. isleyaardvark ◴[09 Jul 25 17:11 UTC] No.44512500[source]▶
Estimates are that its revenue has decreased by half. Even if Musk decreased operating expenses enough to keep or even increase profits, a 50% drop in revenue is not at all a good sign for the health of business.
replies(1): >>44513200 #
4. egorfine ◴[09 Jul 25 17:11 UTC] No.44512501[source]▶
Yes I know. But the platform has lots and lots of engagement. Stagnation did not happen. Quite the opposite.
replies(2): >>44515418 #>>44516341 #
5. egorfine ◴[09 Jul 25 18:16 UTC] No.44513200[source]▶
My bad: I have now edited the comment and clarified that I have meant engagement thriving, not financials.
6. BolexNOLA ◴[09 Jul 25 22:38 UTC] No.44515418{3}[source]▶
My understanding is overall engagement is also currently down
7. Intermernet ◴[10 Jul 25 01:22 UTC] No.44516341{3}[source]▶
When I finally left Twitter most of the engagement was obviously bots either repeating other tweets or spamming unrelated dross on high activity threads for engagement farming. The number is high, but the quality is negligible.
replies(1): >>44518698 #
8. egorfine ◴[10 Jul 25 08:33 UTC] No.44518698{4}[source]▶
That was my experience as well.

But then people came back. The "For you" tab has been much more interesting for me than previously and in my industry I see tons of interesting content.

Again, I hate what EM did to Twitter but there's that.

replies(1): >>44526036 #
9. BolexNOLA ◴[10 Jul 25 21:53 UTC] No.44526036{5}[source]▶
That may be the case but from what I’m reading overall engagement is down this year. So I’m not really sure what metrics we’re using to say “they’re thriving” when ad dollars are down, engagement is down, user acquisition is down, valuation is down…