I mostly agree with your analysis, but I take issue with your conclusion. Pre-Musk Twitter provided an invaluable haven for marginalized communities, and a fast-track to elevating important voices and viewpoints. Twitter enabled Zelensky to put children's faces on a horrific war, Twitter enabled threats to US democracy to be clarified prior to the midterms. Twitter enabled Westerners to read first-hand accounts of the desperate struggles for freedom in Iran and China. Personally, these were primary reasons for spending time on Twitter.
Most of us will indeed be fine with an alternative to Twitter (the brand is so damaged, who would buy it, even in a fire sale?), but it's a life-and-death matter to many in the world. Their loss of access is a tragedy, engineered by a man who is a farce.
I agree with you in the short-ish term. And that loss is real, I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. But I think in the medium-to-long term we'll see something emerge that fits these use-cases.
I jokes a couple months ago that, when we look back on the "twitter era" years from now, Elon spending $44 billion to burn the site to the ground will seem like the funniest way it could have ended. I still think that's basically true, even if the humor is lost as we live through it. (Comedy = tragedy plus time, after all.)
The brand being damaged here is Musk, not Twitter. He's gone to heroic lengths to make it all about him, partly so he can take all the credit for what he imagines Twitter 2.0 will become, partly because he seems as passionate about Twitter as all the people lamenting its pointless destruction, and partly because making it all about him in all his businesses is his brand.
I would agree if Musk sold the platform in the next few weeks, but if he continues to conflate the platform with his ego into 2023, I don't see how the brand of Twitter can be resurrected. At any rate, my main concern was the loss of a centralized platform for the vulnerable.
If Twitter escapes the clutches of Musk, the many users like you will see Twitter as it once was and could be again, given the opportunity. Absent Musk there is no sane reason to anyone to continue down his path. Whether there's a billionaire out there willing to try is a separate question, but I don't think Musk stink would be a factor.
The power of Twitter as a centralized platform was largely that it was the preferred platform of journalists and pundits. The vulnerable could access that class to tell a story they hoped would be retransmitted beyond Twitter. I'd guess the idea behind Post is to duplicate that effect in a more targeted way. No one really understands why or how Twitter became what it is/was, so there's no formula to follow to recreate it. Something will, probably by accident.
Much as the way that removing DJT from Twitter helped to decentralize him from the media, I think reducing people's attention from Twitter (and Musk himself) may be the best thing for everyone in terms of reducing the importance of this particular platform (and I was a dedicated user for 15 years). It took up too much of my time and attention for someone whose livelihood had to no connection to his Twitter presence, though that's on me, not anyone else. Two more days and my Twitter account will disappear for ever into the deletion bin and despite any temptations to reactivate it, I intend to leave that chapter behind me. Like you say, Dave, no matter what happens to Twitter in the next 12 months, almost everyone's lives will be largely unaffected, except perhaps in our memories and feelings.
The more I hear about Post ,the less I like it--and the more that the people who are pushing it hard look like shills of some kind or another. It certainly doesn't feel like a solution to anything.
Trying to second-guess reasons for Musk's kamikaze dive into Twitter is fun, but in the end irrelevant, he's burning Twitter as we know it to the ground. As you and others much smarter than me point out, the user base is Twitter, the technology is nothing magic, and he's trashed the old mechanism for managing the user base and replaced it with nothing while focusing on rewriting the code to resemble his first love X, the do-everything app. Clearly he cares nothing for the existing user base, and believes he'll make it up in volume by releasing all the demons in Hell to (re)join Twitter.
It might be instructive to imagine what a profitable Twitter 2.0 might look like, assuming my assertions above are reasonable. A tiered service with less-than-basic free (ads and micropayment transactions, essentially read-only) at the bottom, and a series of subscription options. The foundation is the old Twitter use model, with subscription levels or micropayments opening up different views, levels of access privilege, and access to ancellary services. A robust free-speech zone that handwaves away the ability of various bad actors and their bots to game the system and overwhelm individual targets with propaganda, doxxing, and death threats, unless he reinvents the controls he just threw away. He has to offer content though, and based on who he's inviting in its going to be some content alright. The plan always trips up on his teenage libertarian concept of free speech, which in a virtual commons like Twitter will always descend into the pit that bad actors gaming the system will dig.
My half-formed hunch is that it would be very difficult to make Twitter 2.0 generate much more revenue than existing Twitter. Maybe you could build a great subscription product, but that still only appeals to like 1% of the user base.
So the idea would be to lower the costs. I'm in no position to say how well that would work in practice. But it seems like it could work, if the company mostly focused on offering/maintaining the core product and user experience.
Oh, I agree completely, Musk's business plan is build it and they will come. Why they will come is left as an exercise for the student, apparantly, though Musk is offering lots of reasons to leave Twitter..
I've found Tim Wu's work on this topic pretty convincing. Communication networks will tend towards centralization/monopoly status in the absence of government intervention.
I think we break, or at least adjust, the boom-bust cycle by revisiting anti-trust policy. The good news is that Lina Khan, Tim Wu, and their peers in the "Neo-brandeisian" camp (who are the folks who have best articulated this perspective) now hold major roles in the administration. The bad news is it will take a TON of time for them to make lasting progress, so we have to hope they get/work to support them receiving that sort of time.
I mostly agree with your analysis, but I take issue with your conclusion. Pre-Musk Twitter provided an invaluable haven for marginalized communities, and a fast-track to elevating important voices and viewpoints. Twitter enabled Zelensky to put children's faces on a horrific war, Twitter enabled threats to US democracy to be clarified prior to the midterms. Twitter enabled Westerners to read first-hand accounts of the desperate struggles for freedom in Iran and China. Personally, these were primary reasons for spending time on Twitter.
Most of us will indeed be fine with an alternative to Twitter (the brand is so damaged, who would buy it, even in a fire sale?), but it's a life-and-death matter to many in the world. Their loss of access is a tragedy, engineered by a man who is a farce.
I agree with you in the short-ish term. And that loss is real, I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. But I think in the medium-to-long term we'll see something emerge that fits these use-cases.
I jokes a couple months ago that, when we look back on the "twitter era" years from now, Elon spending $44 billion to burn the site to the ground will seem like the funniest way it could have ended. I still think that's basically true, even if the humor is lost as we live through it. (Comedy = tragedy plus time, after all.)
The brand being damaged here is Musk, not Twitter. He's gone to heroic lengths to make it all about him, partly so he can take all the credit for what he imagines Twitter 2.0 will become, partly because he seems as passionate about Twitter as all the people lamenting its pointless destruction, and partly because making it all about him in all his businesses is his brand.
I would agree if Musk sold the platform in the next few weeks, but if he continues to conflate the platform with his ego into 2023, I don't see how the brand of Twitter can be resurrected. At any rate, my main concern was the loss of a centralized platform for the vulnerable.
If Twitter escapes the clutches of Musk, the many users like you will see Twitter as it once was and could be again, given the opportunity. Absent Musk there is no sane reason to anyone to continue down his path. Whether there's a billionaire out there willing to try is a separate question, but I don't think Musk stink would be a factor.
The power of Twitter as a centralized platform was largely that it was the preferred platform of journalists and pundits. The vulnerable could access that class to tell a story they hoped would be retransmitted beyond Twitter. I'd guess the idea behind Post is to duplicate that effect in a more targeted way. No one really understands why or how Twitter became what it is/was, so there's no formula to follow to recreate it. Something will, probably by accident.
Much as the way that removing DJT from Twitter helped to decentralize him from the media, I think reducing people's attention from Twitter (and Musk himself) may be the best thing for everyone in terms of reducing the importance of this particular platform (and I was a dedicated user for 15 years). It took up too much of my time and attention for someone whose livelihood had to no connection to his Twitter presence, though that's on me, not anyone else. Two more days and my Twitter account will disappear for ever into the deletion bin and despite any temptations to reactivate it, I intend to leave that chapter behind me. Like you say, Dave, no matter what happens to Twitter in the next 12 months, almost everyone's lives will be largely unaffected, except perhaps in our memories and feelings.
The more I hear about Post ,the less I like it--and the more that the people who are pushing it hard look like shills of some kind or another. It certainly doesn't feel like a solution to anything.
Yeah, all I can say for it is "uhhhh, maybe this will look attractive later?"
Although it seems like five months, it’s only been five weeks since NilayPatel called it ;)
I want to frame that Nilay Patel piece on a wall someplace. Absolute perfection.
Trying to second-guess reasons for Musk's kamikaze dive into Twitter is fun, but in the end irrelevant, he's burning Twitter as we know it to the ground. As you and others much smarter than me point out, the user base is Twitter, the technology is nothing magic, and he's trashed the old mechanism for managing the user base and replaced it with nothing while focusing on rewriting the code to resemble his first love X, the do-everything app. Clearly he cares nothing for the existing user base, and believes he'll make it up in volume by releasing all the demons in Hell to (re)join Twitter.
It might be instructive to imagine what a profitable Twitter 2.0 might look like, assuming my assertions above are reasonable. A tiered service with less-than-basic free (ads and micropayment transactions, essentially read-only) at the bottom, and a series of subscription options. The foundation is the old Twitter use model, with subscription levels or micropayments opening up different views, levels of access privilege, and access to ancellary services. A robust free-speech zone that handwaves away the ability of various bad actors and their bots to game the system and overwhelm individual targets with propaganda, doxxing, and death threats, unless he reinvents the controls he just threw away. He has to offer content though, and based on who he's inviting in its going to be some content alright. The plan always trips up on his teenage libertarian concept of free speech, which in a virtual commons like Twitter will always descend into the pit that bad actors gaming the system will dig.
My half-formed hunch is that it would be very difficult to make Twitter 2.0 generate much more revenue than existing Twitter. Maybe you could build a great subscription product, but that still only appeals to like 1% of the user base.
So the idea would be to lower the costs. I'm in no position to say how well that would work in practice. But it seems like it could work, if the company mostly focused on offering/maintaining the core product and user experience.
Oh, I agree completely, Musk's business plan is build it and they will come. Why they will come is left as an exercise for the student, apparantly, though Musk is offering lots of reasons to leave Twitter..
I've found Tim Wu's work on this topic pretty convincing. Communication networks will tend towards centralization/monopoly status in the absence of government intervention.
I think we break, or at least adjust, the boom-bust cycle by revisiting anti-trust policy. The good news is that Lina Khan, Tim Wu, and their peers in the "Neo-brandeisian" camp (who are the folks who have best articulated this perspective) now hold major roles in the administration. The bad news is it will take a TON of time for them to make lasting progress, so we have to hope they get/work to support them receiving that sort of time.