←back to thread

538 points donohoe | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.617s | source
Show context
Hoasi ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.44513350[source]
>A lot of the users who X need to stay on the platform, journalists and politicians, are still there

Twitter/X is the reason DJT became President. It happened accidentally (ie against the wishes of Twitter management) in 2016, they successfully suppressed him in 2020, and then Elon gave MAGA that platform in 2024, leading to DJT's successful election.

As long as X is seen a kingmaker, someone will find it profitable to own/maintain, even if it doesn't convert Ads like Meta/Google.

replies(4): >>44513482 #>>44513686 #>>44513978 #>>44518822 #
petersellers ◴[] No.44513686[source]
> Twitter/X is the reason DJT became President.

I really don't think so, at least not in isolation. It probably contributed a small part but the right wing media machine is multi-faceted. There were a lot of podcasters (i.e. Joe Rogan), comedians and youtubers all publicly in support of a second DJT presidency and I think that had a much bigger factor overall than Twitter.

replies(2): >>44513840 #>>44521857 #
throwaway48476 ◴[] No.44513840[source]
The media gets their news from Twitter and Twitter drives the questions the media asks. It's indirectly a bigger factor than you give it credit for.
replies(2): >>44514237 #>>44517033 #
1. sillyfluke ◴[] No.44514237[source]
To be fair, as I understand it they're saying the podcasters were most likely the ones that pushed him over the edge this time around. "Small part" meaning 10-15 percent is not too bad for twitter. And I do think rightwing podcasters and tiktok got the young male votes out more than twitter did this time around.

I also doubt hispanics and other minorities voted for Trump because they were obsessively on twitter. Not being able to make ends meet, a weekend at Bernie's president, and the over-the-top blank check given to Israel played more of a role than Elon buying twitter.

replies(1): >>44515602 #
2. SonOfLilit ◴[] No.44515602[source]
Did any Trump voters think he will be harder on Israel than Biden or Kamala?

In Israel the debate was "should we be rooting for Trump because of how much of a blank check he will give our government, or against him because of the damage he will do to the free world that we are part of and also the blank check that he will give our government?"

Since this prediction turned out basically correct, I wonder if across the seas people had different expectations?

replies(2): >>44518989 #>>44519597 #
3. guappa ◴[] No.44518989[source]
Did Kamala ever say anything at all against what israel is doing?
4. sillyfluke ◴[] No.44519597[source]
>Did any Trump voters think he will be harder on Israel than Biden or Kamala?

I don't think they would phrase it like that, but I think they thought he had a better chance of ending the war.

I listed the reasons in order of importance. People voted against the incumbent because they couldn't make ends meet first and foremost.

But as for Israel, one would be hard pressed to find any gaps between the blank check Biden gave and the blank check Trump is giving Israel now. After Biden left office, people close to or in his administration admitted there was zero pressure applied to Israel for a ceasefire, despite public statements by the admin in support of a ceasefire at the time. But there were Muslim mayors and politicians as well as regular citizens in Michigan, some with family in Palestine, who thought it would be madness to vote for more of the same, knowing full well that Trump might not be better. They ultimately thought betting on Trump's ego and meglomania and his desire for getting the Nobel peace prize had the potential to shake the things up and was the preferrable option out of the two terrible choices. Now I don't think that was the right calculation at the time, but I wouldn't fault anyone who didn't want to try the same thing and expect different results.