←back to thread

Linda Yaccarino is leaving X

(www.nytimes.com)
539 points donohoe | 1 comments | 09 Jul 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | 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 #
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[09 Jul 25 18:30 UTC] 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 #
BeetleB ◴[09 Jul 25 19:36 UTC] No.44513978[source]▶
This is far more nuanced (and disputed) than you make it out to be.

> It happened accidentally (ie against the wishes of Twitter management) in 2016

I think the whole Cambridge Analytica fiasco played a bigger role, and I don't think they utilize Twitter. On top of that, frankly, TV and his behavior at rallies/debated helped him a lot more than Twitter did in 2016. I don't know a single MAGA supporter who was even on Twitter in 2016.

> they successfully suppressed him in 2020

How? He was banned after the election.

> and then Elon gave MAGA that platform in 2024, leading to DJT's successful election.

DJT was not on Twitter in 2024. Did it really make a difference when he had his own social network? We all have our opinions, but is there actual data supporting this for the 2024 election?

replies(2): >>44514418 #>>44518100 #
throwpoaster ◴[09 Jul 25 20:28 UTC] No.44514418[source]▶
> How? He was banned after the election.

By suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election.

replies(3): >>44514492 #>>44514866 #>>44519185 #
BeetleB ◴[09 Jul 25 20:35 UTC] No.44514492[source]▶
It's a stretch to say this would have made a major impact. Biden won fairly comfortably. COVID was Trump's bad luck.
replies(1): >>44515921 #
wredcoll ◴[09 Jul 25 23:58 UTC] No.44515921[source]▶
Bad luck? Covid was the definition of an easy layup. It's like bush and 9/11, should be a trivial re-election.
replies(4): >>44516516 #>>44517041 #>>44517177 #>>44519749 #
theonething ◴[10 Jul 25 11:22 UTC] No.44519749[source]▶
> Covid was the definition of an easy layup.

I don't understand this at all.

Covid was devastating for the whole world. I don't see how it is an "easy layup" for anybody or any country. Was there any country or scenario where it was an "easy layup"?

replies(1): >>44524135 #
1. gjm11 ◴[10 Jul 25 18:39 UTC] No.44524135[source]▶
wredcoll doesn't mean that COVID-19 was good for the US, any more than they mean that 9/11 was good for the US. They mean (rightly or wrongly) that it should have been easy for the sitting US government to respond to it in a way that made itself look good and helped it get re-elected, just as G W Bush was able to respond to 9/11 in a way that made him look good and helped him get re-elected.

(I'm not convinced that that's right, but it isn't refuted by the fact that COVID-19 was devastating for the world in general and the US in particular.)