Elon Musk | Owner of X and right wing man-child
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
He really is going for the Booo-Urns defense.
This.
Anyone who falls for the whole "right wing being censored" needs to re-evaluate.
Twitters own research states the opposite.
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/rml-politicalcontent
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59011271
He weirdly called the problem there, actually, when he says that getting booed is a "first" for him in real life. He's clearly living in a bubble where he can do no wrong, and nobody is telling him he's being insane.
Musk, welcome to the real world.
Musk worshippers are a special (terrible) breed
That's why I think "far right" or conservatives doesn't do the term justice.
Musk, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro etc is their own group of complete incel weirdos. There is far right overlap but there is something utterly odd about these people. These people come from all backgrounds, including minorities.
That Facebook is "dead". I wouldn't call a social media platform that has at least 1 billion daily uses (conservative figure there) and generates 48 billion in annual ad revenue (more than 20 times its nearest competitor not owned by the same company) "dead" simply because teenagers think TikTok is more trendy. Also, no social network can supplant FB at this point because of its economic engine and how no emerging social network (including TikTok and Twitter) can ever collect the amount data FB collected which means FB's micro-targeting will always be vastly superior to any competitor in that regard. Myspace and Google+ are dead. Facebook is very much thriving in its own niche.
It's user base will slowly die off and gen Z are not going to sign up.
That's going to take decades. We're still about 15-20 years out before Gen Z is relevant economically. TikTok and whatever else they are using still have to figure out how to monetize first, which they haven't done yet. Facebook is still relevant for at least another 25-30 years and with Instagram I can't see Meta getting replaced as the dominant social media company any time in the near future.
I'd be almost certain these numbers are totally made up by Facebook.
I have heard this for the last 10 years. It eventually will be true.
Not for a very long time though.
Their numbers are 2 billion daily users. I cut that number in half. Plus the ad revenue tells an undeniable story. Go look at the chart I linked. FB is 48 billion in yearly ad revenue and anyone in performance marketing knows it's by far the best converting platform and will be for years to come since no other social media network can match its micro-targeting. And Instagram (plus Youtube) still owns the influencer market.
Prior to Elon blowing up twitter ad were looking at FB at 48b and twitter at 2b.
Maybe not the youngest ones, but most of my Gen Z pupils are on Facebook, I'm pretty sure. Even more so the older Gen Z'ers, who are in their mid twenties now. They maybe don't use it very much, but they're on it.
That said, it's still only going one way. Oh so slowly, but one way.
I don't particularly believe in ad revenue, as a business model tbh. Vast majority of ads aren't seen by actual humans so the spend is wasted on ad space that is never actually seen by consumers, secondly the metrics are so easily gamed (see Facebook's pivot to video ten years ago), they make most of their data and stuff up. Well, in my opinion.
20 more hours of unpaid overtime per week for Teslas employees should do the trick.
In 20 years the youngest Gen Z'er is like 30, so I think that's a bit much maybe.
Twitter is like 98% ad revenue, isn't it? Before they sold and then didn't sell and then sold again (?) check-marks.
No company can dare to make that data.
You might not believe on it, but ads bring a shitload of money. Facebook has done an even better job than Google at monetizing ads. And Google does that extremely well in the first place.
No, Meta, a publicly traded company, is not making up revenue numbers. Even for DAU if it was just making it up, why would it then admit to losing users for the first time in decade which led to its stock price crashing? Facebook is still driving growth via Asian and African markets.
Believe... WTF?
Even a company like Google has its 70% (?) revenue driven by ads. Likes of Amazon are now trying to push future growth via Ads.
Last edited:
2003 called and wants it's criticism of Google back. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want just like Elon believing he wasn't booed. But to quote Luke Skywalker "Every word of what you just said was wrong." Companies don't spend billions on FB because it doesn't convert. I work in performance marketing now and I can testify FB offers the most consistent positive ROAS across multiple types of businesses and it's not even close. I've seen numbers on Tiktok that are insanely inefficient, like 100K spent on Tiktok to generate 2 conversions before they quickly gave up on that platform!
But FB converts like crazy. It's irrelevant if bots "see" ads because ads are pay-per-click and no one is creating tens of thousands of bots just to click on ads on Facebook because that generates no one any money. Anyone with the resources and knowledge to create that many bots will monetize the bots (like setting them up on Twitter to amplify a message like Trump's old digital guy did and get paid to do it). I've sat in on talks at conferences where companies have talked about how well FB converts. And the reason it converts so well is that no other social media platform has come close to collecting the amount of data on its billion+ user base that FB has. That's why FB converts so well because you can micro-target on FB in ways you can't even come close to doing on Twitter or Tiktok because those platforms simply don't have the data to allow such micro-targeting. PLus, no social media platform will likely be able to collect that much personal data ever again.
FB converts, whether you believe it or not, that's what the public data supports (as well as data I've personally seen across multiple companies).
I should say 20+ years before they are more relevant than Millenials or Gen X. I probably rate Gen Z slightly differently since I look at them more as post-2000 births rather than 1997-98 dates I see online. I still consider 97-98 the youngest millennials since they have some memories of 9/11 or at least the very immediate aftermath.
Well that is AN opinion.
why do you think companies keep spending money on it then?
I think the social utility of ads and marketing are at best zero but the monetary value seems kind of clear.
He's so meta
So he’s taken over Twitter to destroy it? Now I’m on board. Team Elon.
Out of all his dumb idiot ideas, this is actually the worst. It's so self-evidently moronic. We literally couldn't make the Earth less hospitable to human life than Mars, no matter how hard we tried. The "save humanity" part of colonizing Mars is basically predicated on a planet-killer asteroid hitting the Earth. Anything short of that, including another dinosaur-killing asteroid, and "human consciousness" is going to find it far easier to survive on Earth than on Mars. And in any case, we'll all be long dead before a Mars colony becomes truly self-sustaining.
Said for years now and will say it again for those in the back:
He is incredibly thick.
This is enjoyable for someone who has been screaming into the abyss for a long time.
Mars is a nice goal and done right, has the potential side effect of opening up the solar system, which is what really matters. Hopefully Starship is too far along to need Musk's involvement.
Mars is amazing for general human progress, but if the idea is "Earth might go to shit, we need to colonize Mars" then that's where the stupid comes in. At least if we're talking anywhere near short term. Pure science though? Yeah, love that.
By muzzling important people, you mean stopping trump from doing things like inciting a coup, right?
While I'm sure twitter didn't get everything right, platforms need moderating and I'm not sure Musk has a clue about that.
I just can't see it happening, and I don't think there is currently any way to do it right, not in our lifetime anyway. With no magnetosphere exposure to CMB and solar radiation means existence will be underground and inside heavily shielded buildings. The lower gravity will never allow a breathable atmosphere or the ability to hold on to oxygen. What water there is will be a finite resource and when it evaporates it is lost to space. There needs to he massive steps forward in technology and a change in understanding on what colonising Mars might actually look like. Has Musk ever commented on what the reality would look like?
Agree with that. I'm a Mars freak, I hope to see flags and footprints in my lifetime but even a completely fecked earth would be 100x more inhabitable than Mars.
The stock price has nothing to do with Musk's antics. Tech stocks have been down for a long time now.
What I mean is, if starship works then it'll enable a ton of LEO infrastructure to be economic, which could open up space properly. Whether starship gets used for mars or not, doesn't really matter if all that other stuff happens.
Personally I'd love to see a mars base. I've read the books. But I think a self sustaining colony is a fantasy with out a vast amount of bootstrapping. And even if you could, what's the point. Mars is a dead planet, it's a frozen irradiated desert. It would be a hellhole. For sure, put a research base there and let scientists poke around and learn stuff. But
people don't want to live in Antarctica for a reason, and that's 100x easier to survive than mars.
Last edited: