That doesn't match my experience. Sure, there's the usual set of performative announcements of leaving by those who are terminally online and can't really bear to go somewhere without the same level of engagement, but I've seen a bunch of the more interesting people with niche interests leave and not return. In most cases they're starting their communities again on Mastodon, but some have just stopped engaging entirely.
Unsurprising, as the experience is being degraded. I now get far more spam, see more hateful and unmoderated responses to certain people, and the glitches are increasing. I now open the app less often too.
Maybe that'll reverse, it's too early to say. But it's also wrong to dismiss this as flippantly as you have.
One point that's much overlooked is that Twitter has been very dissatisfactory for many users and advertisers (both active and prospective) for a long time, usage and revenue has been flat/poor, and the company was making heavy losses.
So it's largely pointless to hand-wring about what has been lost for users and advertisers in the past few weeks, as it wasn't working anyway. A dramatic change had to come someday, somehow; whether it be the company going insolvent and being acquired or someone coming in to attempt a dramatic turnaround.
So the latter has happened, and Elon is determined to make it much better for users and advertisers over the long term. Will he succeed? Nobody knows! But the drama of the past few weeks is not any indication either way; it's just inevitable upheaval when a turnaround effort begins.
Twitter has been okay for its users and advertisers, not 'very dissatisfactory'. The fact that it has not seen a flight of both in the past 5-10 years is evidence of that. There are arguments that it could have been better, of course, but the nature of a platform like Twitter is that running it is difficult and it's far easier to get things wrong than get things right.
Nor was there an urgent need for Twitter to have as dramatic a change as you say, as the company had healthy enough revenue and profit growth over the past five years and decent levels of cash on hand.
What we're seeing now is far more severe and consequential than the normal upheaval in a turnaround effort, and it's far beyond anything that the company was contemplating in terms of its own restructuring and refocusing efforts. I also question the claim that Musk is determined to make it 'much better' for users and advertisers, at least in a sense that most users and advertisers would agree with rather than Musk's own flawed views of what matters.
On "highly dissatisfactory": many early users have left, or barely post anymore, and many/most users across the spectrum have found discussion to be toxic for years; thus it's not a great platform for a lot of advertisers given the tone of the content, and Twitter hasn't built many (any?) innovative features to improve ad targeting or engagement.
More broadly, the company has been a disappointment from what investors would have hoped for when it listed in 2013, and has been stagnant at best in recent years with no signs of having any idea of how to reinvigorate itself. Yes it may have had cash in the bank and stable usage and advertising revenue, but a company in its position needs to have a clear mission and path of improvement and growth, which it has not had for a long time, if ever since its first few years, really. That cash would start running out with the losses it's been recording lately, and in an increasingly hostile marketplace, raising new funds would have become difficult without solid signs of a bright future.
We can all have our opinions about the merits of what Musk is doing now, but it's all just conjecture and holds little weight until things have played out over a few months and years.
For what it's worth, I'm not any kind of Musk devotee (see other recent comments of mine for more about this); I'm just interested to see how it plays out, and skeptical of people claiming to make long-term predictions based on short-term drama and emotive reporting of it by people who know nothing about building companies.
To a degree but network effects play heavily into this. The quality of the ads being served on a platform affects ad buyers decisions. If you're a smaller company having your ads show up along side ads from established brands gives your company a sense of legitimacy with consumers but having your ads show along side low quality ads for boner pills and obvious scams then discerning consumers will associate your company with those types of advertisers. As the big brands flee so will the smaller ones with the void being ever filled by even lower quality advertisers. Wash, rinse and repeat until all that's left are ads for boner pills and scams. Unless Twitter gets it crap together it's just a race to the bottom at this point.
Are we supposed to demand more ads on Twitter? Musk is a rich man, and if he is forced to invent a new business model for Twitter, one that doesn't revolve around advertisers, then it's a net good.
If they've been spending $3 million/year on Twitter ads, are they that bright in the first place? I've literally never made a single buying decision that had anything to do with a Twitter ad. Ever.
I use adblockers, however ads also work in a less obvious manner. For example why do we see ads for expensive watches on magazines, or why do companies make cute Christmas adverts which don't show any product.
I did not really make a difference for Facebook, and I guess the same will happened for Twitter. If the technical platform fails that is something else.
"Our organic social and CS teams got dozens of screenshots of our ads next to awful content. Replies to our posts with hardcore antisemitism and adult spam remained up for days even when flagged."
It is interesting to see the level of entitlement advertisers have on quasi-public SM platforms.
Am okay with advertisers going to Facebook (or any other platforms really) where they can curate their own little garden of cute posts and snowflake engagements.
Edit: To answer your added question. In an ideal world there is no good reason to allow hate speech on SM platforms.
But free speech does not equate to hate speech. And there is no legal distinction for the term (hate speech) as far as US law is concerned [0]. The term however can be defined and in different ways according to many other countries' laws.
I think a lot of people really want a platform with free speech without hate speech, whatever you would call that. It can be difficult to define, but I don't think it's an impossible task. Same goes for the definition of hate speech. You'd have to look at global and local definitions and apply them accordingly.
Everyone agrees. Many countries will just ban you for operating outside of their laws regarding unlawful speech.
My main issue with the article is different however, and has everything to do with this advertiser's misplaced demands on the outcome of social media engagement they expect to receive back from SM users and trying to use the native advertising model as an excuse to try and interfere with the platform's content. The concerns they have about brand safety seem to arise from the fact that they are now not able to request for content that does not align with their selfish interests to be taken down.
Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech (he has also previously said that he didn't acquire Twitter purely to make a profit) and that he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform. The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly.
> Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech
Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be".
> he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform
Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law.
> The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly.
Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
> Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be".
Pretty hard to nail this perfectly if we are being honest. But Twitter allows more free speech now than before.
> Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law.
Not sure I understand your argument here.
> Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
Advertisers have freedom of speech. What they don't have now is the ability to coerce the Twitter platform into censoring other users' speech. Besides they are free to do business where their needs are best served. Twitter's not a monopoly.
24 comments
[ 104 ms ] story [ 1015 ms ] threadIf a bunch of ad-buyers quit the marketplace, then prices will go down, and the ones who didn't quit will get a better return on their investment.
Unsurprising, as the experience is being degraded. I now get far more spam, see more hateful and unmoderated responses to certain people, and the glitches are increasing. I now open the app less often too.
Maybe that'll reverse, it's too early to say. But it's also wrong to dismiss this as flippantly as you have.
So it's largely pointless to hand-wring about what has been lost for users and advertisers in the past few weeks, as it wasn't working anyway. A dramatic change had to come someday, somehow; whether it be the company going insolvent and being acquired or someone coming in to attempt a dramatic turnaround.
So the latter has happened, and Elon is determined to make it much better for users and advertisers over the long term. Will he succeed? Nobody knows! But the drama of the past few weeks is not any indication either way; it's just inevitable upheaval when a turnaround effort begins.
Nor was there an urgent need for Twitter to have as dramatic a change as you say, as the company had healthy enough revenue and profit growth over the past five years and decent levels of cash on hand.
What we're seeing now is far more severe and consequential than the normal upheaval in a turnaround effort, and it's far beyond anything that the company was contemplating in terms of its own restructuring and refocusing efforts. I also question the claim that Musk is determined to make it 'much better' for users and advertisers, at least in a sense that most users and advertisers would agree with rather than Musk's own flawed views of what matters.
More broadly, the company has been a disappointment from what investors would have hoped for when it listed in 2013, and has been stagnant at best in recent years with no signs of having any idea of how to reinvigorate itself. Yes it may have had cash in the bank and stable usage and advertising revenue, but a company in its position needs to have a clear mission and path of improvement and growth, which it has not had for a long time, if ever since its first few years, really. That cash would start running out with the losses it's been recording lately, and in an increasingly hostile marketplace, raising new funds would have become difficult without solid signs of a bright future.
We can all have our opinions about the merits of what Musk is doing now, but it's all just conjecture and holds little weight until things have played out over a few months and years.
For what it's worth, I'm not any kind of Musk devotee (see other recent comments of mine for more about this); I'm just interested to see how it plays out, and skeptical of people claiming to make long-term predictions based on short-term drama and emotive reporting of it by people who know nothing about building companies.
Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597285572699074560
I did not really make a difference for Facebook, and I guess the same will happened for Twitter. If the technical platform fails that is something else.
"Our organic social and CS teams got dozens of screenshots of our ads next to awful content. Replies to our posts with hardcore antisemitism and adult spam remained up for days even when flagged."
It is interesting to see the level of entitlement advertisers have on quasi-public SM platforms.
Edit: What's one good reason to have hate speech on your platform?
Edit: To answer your added question. In an ideal world there is no good reason to allow hate speech on SM platforms.
But free speech does not equate to hate speech. And there is no legal distinction for the term (hate speech) as far as US law is concerned [0]. The term however can be defined and in different ways according to many other countries' laws.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
My main issue with the article is different however, and has everything to do with this advertiser's misplaced demands on the outcome of social media engagement they expect to receive back from SM users and trying to use the native advertising model as an excuse to try and interfere with the platform's content. The concerns they have about brand safety seem to arise from the fact that they are now not able to request for content that does not align with their selfish interests to be taken down.
Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech (he has also previously said that he didn't acquire Twitter purely to make a profit) and that he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform. The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly.
Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be".
> he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform
Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law.
> The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly.
Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
Pretty hard to nail this perfectly if we are being honest. But Twitter allows more free speech now than before.
> Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law.
Not sure I understand your argument here.
> Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
Advertisers have freedom of speech. What they don't have now is the ability to coerce the Twitter platform into censoring other users' speech. Besides they are free to do business where their needs are best served. Twitter's not a monopoly.