←back to thread

Linda Yaccarino is leaving X

(www.nytimes.com)
542 points donohoe | 4 comments | 09 Jul 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.624s | source
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 #
andrewflnr ◴[09 Jul 25 19:43 UTC] No.44514035[source]▶
His mistakes cost less than they could have, sure, but to call it "pretty successful" I think it would have be better than if he just... didn't do much. He didn't have to be as open and aggressive about firing people or opening up the content policy. Openly insulting advertisers, for instance, was a completely unforced error. I think doing less would have kept more value (leaving ethics/morality entirely aside), and if that's true it's silly to say he managed well.
replies(1): >>44514367 #
1. consumer451 ◴[09 Jul 25 20:22 UTC] No.44514367[source]▶
> pretty successful

What are the metrics of success in this case? Making more money, a failure. Moving the Overton window to the very far-right, success.

I would argue that the goal is quite obviously the latter, and Musk was very open about this. Given that was the goal, his takeover of Twitter was extremely successful!

replies(3): >>44516404 #>>44517245 #>>44520821 #
2. andrewflnr ◴[10 Jul 25 01:40 UTC] No.44516404[source]▶
He sure claimed to also want to make money on it. With how much debt he took on, he didn't have much choice. Even with the political goal, he could have moved the overton window better by less ridiculous means. (And as I mentioned in another comment, his attempts to squirm out of the sale are evidence against it being a big master plan; for that to be a fakeout requires an unlikely level of depth.)
3. petesergeant ◴[10 Jul 25 04:38 UTC] No.44517245[source]▶
> I would argue that the goal is quite obviously the latter, and Musk was very open about this

I mean he sued in order to not to have to buy it. To describe this as the _goal_ rather than just him making what he considers to be the best of a bad situation feels like a reach.

4. matthewdgreen ◴[10 Jul 25 13:28 UTC] No.44520821[source]▶
He also damaged one of the most valuable companies in existence. I don’t think “moving the Overton window slightly to the right in 2024,” if that’s what he did, is going to be as durable.