No free speech for the peasants who cannot think rationally... Musk reaction might be childish but this is exactly how you should treat these executives. Whoever was insane enough to promote them to that place, but this is the only rational way to engage with people like that if they are drifting somewhere in space. Perhaps Musk is indeed the only one with the means to bring them back, literally and figuratively.
(this post title could be seen as slightly sensationalist - but then, perhaps so could the entire Project Veritas campaign)
There's an interesting tidbit in this video which I think accurately reveals the top-level monetization strategy that proponents of "Twitter free speech edition" have in mind.
Essentially the thinking is that the limited margins Twitter operates with are in fact partly/largely due to content restriction policies, and that by removing these restrictions, profitability will increase.
That's likely based on two intuition-based (rather than evidence-based) ideas: one, that there is a staffing cost involved in content restriction, and two, that social media competitors which are perceived as having lax-or-ineffective content policies appear to be more profitable.
Twitter themselves likely have the statistics to know for certain, but I'd guess that the staffing costs for content moderation aren't a major overall factor for the business. Their latest earnings report[1] -- in which I think "General and Administrative" probably includes such costs -- would seem to back that up.
Removing content moderation could conceivably "increase engagement" short term (due to fraught and problematic interactions on the platform) and maybe some of that could lead to increased advertising revenue. But advertisers don't like to see their brands associated with problematic environments -- note that as of May 2022, Truth Social has not secured any advertising partners[2][3] -- so it's unclear whether that would convert into revenue, and it would introduce community risk.
I also think that the reason other platforms may be more profitable in terms of revenue-per-user is not due to content moderation or the way that their users interact, but instead due to the granularity of information that the platforms hold about each user. The more they know, the more they can sell to advertisers. I don't like that business model personally, but I do believe that it's a more reasonable explanation for the revenue-per-user differential.
Overall my sense is that the situation seems like a way to create significant gravity to draw in far-right and free-speech advocates in an attempt to topple what has - for all its' faults - generally been a progressive institution.
Open question: perhaps Twitter themselves have already run data science experiments regarding community sustainability and advertising performance in the absence of content moderation? At a distance, in general, the company and board appear more prepared than the folks who are attempting to disrupt or wrestle control of the platform.
Disclaimer: I'm not a shareholder in Twitter nor any other social media platforms.
It probably isn't a good strategy to concentrate on advertisers and their wishes for content. Advertisers don't like brands next to controversies, sure. But ultimately they will go where users are. We have seen a lot of social media companies fail because they suddenly switched to appease advertisers instead of users. But if the latter leave advertisers will too.
> problematic environments
The unproblematic environments are often quite boring. There are different audiences though. Advertising classically associated with celebrities. For some these work for other they don't. The audience most interested in celebrities a clean and sanitized environment might work in the long term.
> free-speech advocates
Absolutely nothing wrong with that and most social media platforms were successful because this was a main focus. The concept has to be defended against detractors since the beginning of time. Nobody is forced to listen to anyone they don't like, especially on the internet where you can find the content that personally suits you everywhere. Of course it is Twitters decision to make, but they certainly began with giving everyone a voice but have changed course in recent years.
> Advertising classically associated with celebrities.
Yep, that seems true - it makes sense that many audiences would like to emulate and be like the celebrities they admire, and many celebrities would like to earn a living and/or build an audience.
Some of Twitter's early community-building strategies[1] provided neatly for both sides of that environment.
> Advertisers don't like brands next to controversies, sure. But ultimately they will go where users are.
To some degree, yep they will - for brand exposure. But for measurable, return-on-investment style advertising -- the kind that will retain your marketing job when your company accountants begin asking questions -- I think it's less about the audience size and more about relevance.
(slightly off-topic: unfortunately, well-targeted online advertising is more-or-less invisible to anyone except the publisher and recipient at the point-in-time when copy is displayed, and can be anywhere on a spectrum from genuinely valuable to manipulative. I think search is the answer here: put the relevant advertising into a search engine operated and transparent to an independent operator, and allow people to dip into that -- using their own chosen search criteria -- when they want something. but I digress)
> It probably isn't a good strategy to concentrate on advertisers and their wishes for content.
Sure, agreed - however in the context of Twitter's post-takeover strategy, future revenue sources are relevant.
Both revenue and user metrics are claimed to have fairly dramatic potential for increase - so is there an implication that free speech is going to help to achieve that? And/or will paying to maintain business accounts on Twitter be measurably worthwhile -- or, similarly, measurably not worthwhile? And what will happen to advertising revenue?
There may be an answer (and, ideally supporting information) that fits the claims, but I don't see it currently.
>> free-speech advocates
> Absolutely nothing wrong with that and most social media platforms were successful because this was a main focus.
That seems unclear to me. I think most platform entrants develop successfully if they identify and correctly-time launch of a technology or medium that makes it {easier/cheaper} for people to communicate to each other, and not because they claim to provide an uncensored environment.
Examples could include the practical realization that data access is cheaper and more universal than {SMS/telephony} in many places (consumer-side) or that the infrastructure to provide internet-based messaging can be provisioned far more cheaply as computing and network hardware scales up (provider-side)[2].
However I would agree that most new platforms will do their best to appear private and unfiltered to new users -- they don't want to distract from the ability for people to communicate with each other, which is intended to feel fresh, authentic and intimate.
People who are street smart understand what's going on:
Something that has repeated itslef many times through history. Musk aims to build a big socio-political movement around him, almost cult-like. Making tons of promises about how if only he was put in charge of everything under the sun we'd be immediately projected into a world of fairy tales and hyperloops.
Such things always end up in a nothingburger.
The whole debate around Twitter, Right vs. Left etc. are stuff that a society gets entrenched into when people have too much free time on their hands and start worrying about macro stuff which doesn't really affect their lives at all.
5 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 21.1 ms ] threadThere's an interesting tidbit in this video which I think accurately reveals the top-level monetization strategy that proponents of "Twitter free speech edition" have in mind.
Essentially the thinking is that the limited margins Twitter operates with are in fact partly/largely due to content restriction policies, and that by removing these restrictions, profitability will increase.
That's likely based on two intuition-based (rather than evidence-based) ideas: one, that there is a staffing cost involved in content restriction, and two, that social media competitors which are perceived as having lax-or-ineffective content policies appear to be more profitable.
Twitter themselves likely have the statistics to know for certain, but I'd guess that the staffing costs for content moderation aren't a major overall factor for the business. Their latest earnings report[1] -- in which I think "General and Administrative" probably includes such costs -- would seem to back that up.
Removing content moderation could conceivably "increase engagement" short term (due to fraught and problematic interactions on the platform) and maybe some of that could lead to increased advertising revenue. But advertisers don't like to see their brands associated with problematic environments -- note that as of May 2022, Truth Social has not secured any advertising partners[2][3] -- so it's unclear whether that would convert into revenue, and it would introduce community risk.
I also think that the reason other platforms may be more profitable in terms of revenue-per-user is not due to content moderation or the way that their users interact, but instead due to the granularity of information that the platforms hold about each user. The more they know, the more they can sell to advertisers. I don't like that business model personally, but I do believe that it's a more reasonable explanation for the revenue-per-user differential.
Overall my sense is that the situation seems like a way to create significant gravity to draw in far-right and free-speech advocates in an attempt to topple what has - for all its' faults - generally been a progressive institution.
Open question: perhaps Twitter themselves have already run data science experiments regarding community sustainability and advertising performance in the absence of content moderation? At a distance, in general, the company and board appear more prepared than the folks who are attempting to disrupt or wrestle control of the platform.
Disclaimer: I'm not a shareholder in Twitter nor any other social media platforms.
[1] - https://s22.q4cdn.com/826641620/files/doc_financials/2022/q1...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social#Revenue
[3] - https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/02/22/truth-social-what-do...
> problematic environments
The unproblematic environments are often quite boring. There are different audiences though. Advertising classically associated with celebrities. For some these work for other they don't. The audience most interested in celebrities a clean and sanitized environment might work in the long term.
> free-speech advocates
Absolutely nothing wrong with that and most social media platforms were successful because this was a main focus. The concept has to be defended against detractors since the beginning of time. Nobody is forced to listen to anyone they don't like, especially on the internet where you can find the content that personally suits you everywhere. Of course it is Twitters decision to make, but they certainly began with giving everyone a voice but have changed course in recent years.
> Advertising classically associated with celebrities.
Yep, that seems true - it makes sense that many audiences would like to emulate and be like the celebrities they admire, and many celebrities would like to earn a living and/or build an audience.
Some of Twitter's early community-building strategies[1] provided neatly for both sides of that environment.
> Advertisers don't like brands next to controversies, sure. But ultimately they will go where users are.
To some degree, yep they will - for brand exposure. But for measurable, return-on-investment style advertising -- the kind that will retain your marketing job when your company accountants begin asking questions -- I think it's less about the audience size and more about relevance.
(slightly off-topic: unfortunately, well-targeted online advertising is more-or-less invisible to anyone except the publisher and recipient at the point-in-time when copy is displayed, and can be anywhere on a spectrum from genuinely valuable to manipulative. I think search is the answer here: put the relevant advertising into a search engine operated and transparent to an independent operator, and allow people to dip into that -- using their own chosen search criteria -- when they want something. but I digress)
> It probably isn't a good strategy to concentrate on advertisers and their wishes for content.
Sure, agreed - however in the context of Twitter's post-takeover strategy, future revenue sources are relevant.
Both revenue and user metrics are claimed to have fairly dramatic potential for increase - so is there an implication that free speech is going to help to achieve that? And/or will paying to maintain business accounts on Twitter be measurably worthwhile -- or, similarly, measurably not worthwhile? And what will happen to advertising revenue?
There may be an answer (and, ideally supporting information) that fits the claims, but I don't see it currently.
>> free-speech advocates
> Absolutely nothing wrong with that and most social media platforms were successful because this was a main focus.
That seems unclear to me. I think most platform entrants develop successfully if they identify and correctly-time launch of a technology or medium that makes it {easier/cheaper} for people to communicate to each other, and not because they claim to provide an uncensored environment.
Examples could include the practical realization that data access is cheaper and more universal than {SMS/telephony} in many places (consumer-side) or that the infrastructure to provide internet-based messaging can be provisioned far more cheaply as computing and network hardware scales up (provider-side)[2].
However I would agree that most new platforms will do their best to appear private and unfiltered to new users -- they don't want to distract from the ability for people to communicate with each other, which is intended to feel fresh, authentic and intimate.
[1] - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/twitter-beyond-14...
[2] - https://www.infoq.com/presentations/whatsapp-scalability/
Something that has repeated itslef many times through history. Musk aims to build a big socio-political movement around him, almost cult-like. Making tons of promises about how if only he was put in charge of everything under the sun we'd be immediately projected into a world of fairy tales and hyperloops.
Such things always end up in a nothingburger.
The whole debate around Twitter, Right vs. Left etc. are stuff that a society gets entrenched into when people have too much free time on their hands and start worrying about macro stuff which doesn't really affect their lives at all.