It's bleeding users. Bleeding users = no revenue . He can't sustain it forever from his pocket and lost user means the platform is as worthless as a random mastodon instance that no one knows about.
Likely not worth it — consider the kinds of stuff Elon leads. Twitter is the least prestigious among them. He has far more interesting places to gamble on.
not worth it -- consider the kinds of stuff Elon leads. Twitter is the least prestigious among them
It's practically getting him Cabinet-level power without the accompanying checks in an incoming Trump administration. (Or Vance '28. Et cetera.)
America didn't have a Rupert Murdoch since Hearst. Newsrooms preserved their independence. Twitter doesn't have a newsroom. It doesn't have journalists. It has Elon and his peons. That's powerful.
Comments
Define saved.
Hell, define "Twitter" too. Does GP mean the company? The user community, whatever that is? Some core functionality of the site?
Bankruptcy , Spam , Branding , Workforce .
X/Twitter going bankrupt would be a choice by Musk. He presently shows no indication of having lost love for it.
It's bleeding users. Bleeding users = no revenue . He can't sustain it forever from his pocket and lost user means the platform is as worthless as a random mastodon instance that no one knows about.
Why not? Even if he doesn't restructure the debt he's basically created, in xAI, enough personal wealth to bankroll X/Twitter for a decade.
Likely not worth it — consider the kinds of stuff Elon leads. Twitter is the least prestigious among them. He has far more interesting places to gamble on.
It's practically getting him Cabinet-level power without the accompanying checks in an incoming Trump administration. (Or Vance '28. Et cetera.)
America didn't have a Rupert Murdoch since Hearst. Newsrooms preserved their independence. Twitter doesn't have a newsroom. It doesn't have journalists. It has Elon and his peons. That's powerful.