Twitter is a Private Company

Is there a particular reason why, on a thread specifically about Twitter, you want to instead discuss Google? You seem to think it's somehow unfair to Musk to focus on him, even though he's Twitter's owner. Why don't you start a thread on Google if you think it's important to discuss those issues?


paulsurovell said:

Interesting that "liberals" here are criticizing Musk because he's not pandering to big corporations to attract advertising, the way a capitalist enterprise should. That's why we have a mainstream corporate media that's virtually monolithic, excluding dissenting views.

Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money. He's trying to create a "a common digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence".

In other words, Musk is trying to create a platform for dialogue that "looks like America". Actually one that looks like "the world".

"Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money."

did he buy twitter with the intent of losing money?

that would be big news to his investors.


PVW said:

Is there a particular reason why, on a thread specifically about Twitter, you want to instead discuss Google? You seem to think it's somehow unfair to Musk to focus on him, even though he's Twitter's owner. Why don't you start a thread on Google if you think it's important to discuss those issues?

When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies, especially those in the same sector.

The need for such a reality check became apparent when "journalists" accused Musk of depriving his employees of toilet paper and not providing enough musk to mask the terrible body odors in the Twitter workplace.


drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

Interesting that "liberals" here are criticizing Musk because he's not pandering to big corporations to attract advertising, the way a capitalist enterprise should. That's why we have a mainstream corporate media that's virtually monolithic, excluding dissenting views.

Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money. He's trying to create a "a common digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence".

In other words, Musk is trying to create a platform for dialogue that "looks like America". Actually one that looks like "the world".

"Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money."

did he buy twitter with the intent of losing money?

that would be big news to his investors.

No reason to doubt that his investors saw the tweet.


paulsurovell said:

When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies

Not really.


paulsurovell said:

When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies, especially those in the same sector.

The need for such a reality check became apparent when "journalists" accused Musk of depriving his employees of toilet paper and not providing enough musk to mask the terrible body odors in the Twitter workplace.

So help me out here, what are you claiming -- that reports of employees bringing in their own toilet paper are false? That they're true, but it's ok because Google laid people off? That one can only be critical of Google or Musk, but not both?


paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

Interesting that "liberals" here are criticizing Musk because he's not pandering to big corporations to attract advertising, the way a capitalist enterprise should. That's why we have a mainstream corporate media that's virtually monolithic, excluding dissenting views.

Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money. He's trying to create a "a common digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence".

In other words, Musk is trying to create a platform for dialogue that "looks like America". Actually one that looks like "the world".

"Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money."

did he buy twitter with the intent of losing money?

that would be big news to his investors.

No reason to doubt that his investors saw the tweet.

So your contention is that he expects no profit and will simply fund twitter until he runs out of money?

Out of the goodness of his huge heart?

I can't believe you buy his grift so easily. Have you paid no attention to his past statements at all?

hyperloop!

self driving cars!

I think we were supposed to be on Mars by now too.


paulsurovell said:

Interesting that "liberals" here are criticizing Musk because he's not pandering to big corporations to attract advertising, the way a capitalist enterprise should. That's why we have a mainstream corporate media that's virtually monolithic, excluding dissenting views.

Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money. He's trying to create a "a common digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence".

In other words, Musk is trying to create a platform for dialogue that "looks like America". Actually one that looks like "the world".

sorry if I don't live up to your standards for being a proper "liberal." But I'm ok with media organizations or platforms having advertising if it keeps their service free to users. If people aren't ok with that, they shouldn't use Twitter. I think it's funny that someone like yourself who probably uses Twitter 100 times more heavily than I do is criticizing me for expecting them to try to bring in more advertisers. Your attention, not mine is what Twitter is using to sell those advertisers (or pander to them if you prefer)

secondly, that tweet is almost certainly false bravado from Musk. Because coincidentally this was a headline in Variety just this very day:

Twitter Tries to Lure Advertisers Back With New Brand Safety Partnerships 

Elon Musk's social network inks deal with DoubleVerify, IAS to provide brand-safety measurement tools

Now, in hopes of persuading ad buyers that Twitter can be a clean, well-lighted place for their marketing messaging, the company has inked deals with a pair of third-party ad tech companies, DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science (IAS), aimed at giving advertisers new tools to quantify and analyze the brand safety of ad campaigns on Twitter. The new solutions are compliant with the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) standards, according to the companies.

So Musk does in fact care about satisfying (in your words "pandering" to) advertising partners.

Possibly because this was also in the news yesterday:

Ad spending on Twitter falls by over 70% in Dec - data

So it looks like Twitter is doing exactly what I am suggesting they try to do -- make their platform a brand-safe place. Let's see if it's sufficient to bring back the lost advertising revenue. I'm skeptical that it will be. But maybe advertisers need Twitter more than I think they do.


ridski said:

Not really.

seriously.

as if the existence of other sweat shops makes it ok for someone to run their own sweat shop.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies, especially those in the same sector.

The need for such a reality check became apparent when "journalists" accused Musk of depriving his employees of toilet paper and not providing enough musk to mask the terrible body odors in the Twitter workplace.

So help me out here, what are you claiming -- that reports of employees bringing in their own toilet paper are false? That they're true, but it's ok because Google laid people off? That one can only be critical of Google or Musk, but not both?

I think the reports of toilet paper and body odor (part of the same accusation) reflect a "journalism" that is engaged in bashing and not taking a serious look at what's going on.

I think it's fair game to criticize Musk, but when he's the only CEO criticized for similar infractions (one could say 12,000 layoffs hurts a lot more people than 3,000 for instance) then maybe it's not criticism but bashing.


paulsurovell said:

I think the reports of toilet paper and body odor (part of the same accusation) reflect a "journalism" that is engaged in bashing and not taking a serious look at what's going on.

I think it's fair game to criticize Musk, but when he's the only CEO criticized for similar infractions (one could say 12,000 layoffs hurts a lot more people than 3,000 for instance) then maybe it's not criticism but bashing.

So it's not about whether the reporting it truthful, but about whether you agree or disagree with the subject? A "journalist" merits the scare quotes when they report on something you prefer they wouldn't?


drummerboy said:

So your contention is that he expects no profit and will simply fund twitter until he runs out of money?

Out of the goodness of his huge heart?

I can't believe you buy his grift so easily. Have you paid no attention to his past statements at all?

hyperloop!

self driving cars!

I think we were supposed to be on Mars by now too.

it would be awfully naive to think that even someone as rich as Musk wants to run Twitter as a "free speech" haven that loses a billion dollars a year (and tanks its overall value). And with the degree to which Twitter lost advertisers, it is going to be at least a billion a year if they don't turn that around. Because over 90% of Twitter's revenue had been coming from advertising. And they lost over $200 million in 2021. Over a billion in 2020. 


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies, especially those in the same sector.

The need for such a reality check became apparent when "journalists" accused Musk of depriving his employees of toilet paper and not providing enough musk to mask the terrible body odors in the Twitter workplace.

So help me out here, what are you claiming -- that reports of employees bringing in their own toilet paper are false? That they're true, but it's ok because Google laid people off? That one can only be critical of Google or Musk, but not both?

whataboutism is like a disease.


If we were to compare them (which I don't think means anything here, as Google is completely different kind of company), I think it would be good to take a look at what their employees say about the two companies, which you can find at glassdoor.com. You need to log in to get this info, so I screen-grabbed some comparisons.


drummerboy said:

whataboutism is like a disease.

It's also an incredibly weak method of argumentation. It basically says "I can't defend this, so I need to change the subject."


ml1 said:

ridski said:

Not really.

seriously.

as if the existence of other sweat shops makes it ok for someone to run their own sweat shop.

The media seems to think it's OK for Tim Cook to run sweat shops. Unless it's a joke.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/ricky-gervais-blasts-apple-ceo-tim-cook-at-the-golden-globes.html


ridski said:

If we were to compare them (which I don't think means anything here, as Google is completely different kind of company), I think it would be good to take a look at what their employees say about the two companies, which you can find at glassdoor.com. You need to log in to get this info, so I screen-grabbed some comparisons.

I'm more interested in what the labor union says.


PVW said:

drummerboy said:

whataboutism is like a disease.

It's also an incredibly weak method of argumentation. It basically says "I can't defend this, so I need to change the subject."

Or, "I can't defend my argument if we consider the context".

Edited to add:

Or, "Nothing is relative. Everything is absolute".


paulsurovell said:

I'm more interested in what the labor union says.

The one at Twitter?


paulsurovell said:

Or, "I can't defend my argument if we consider the context".

Sure, maybe that's why you whatabout. Or maybe it's just an impulse of yours. You might have any number of reasons for choosing it as your primary mode of argument.


paulsurovell said:

I think the reports of toilet paper and body odor (part of the same accusation) reflect a "journalism" that is engaged in bashing and not taking a serious look at what's going on.

I think it's fair game to criticize Musk, but when he's the only CEO criticized for similar infractions (one could say 12,000 layoffs hurts a lot more people than 3,000 for instance) then maybe it's not criticism but bashing.

check out this article from the NYT about AT&T's John Stankey, whom I referenced earlier in this thread. Musk is not the only who gets "bashed" if he takes over a company and **** it up. It comes with the territory.

Was This $100 Billion Deal the Worst Merger Ever? 

At Time Warner, executives saw AT&T as just a “big phone company from Texas.” At AT&T, they thought Hollywood would play by their rules. That combination led to strategic miscalculation unrivaled in recent corporate history.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

Or, "I can't defend my argument if we consider the context".

Sure, maybe that's why you whatabout. Or maybe it's just an impulse of yours. You might have any number of reasons for choosing it as your primary mode of argument.

You missed my ETA:

Or, "Nothing is relative. Everything is absolute".


paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

Not really.

seriously.

as if the existence of other sweat shops makes it ok for someone to run their own sweat shop.

The media seems to think it's OK for Tim Cook to run sweat shops. Unless it's a joke.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/ricky-gervais-blasts-apple-ceo-tim-cook-at-the-golden-globes.html

if the media aren't covering the fact that Apple devices are made in sweatshops, how do you know about it?


paulsurovell said:

You missed my ETA:

Or, "Nothing is relative. Everything is absolute".

So your argument is "I think what's going on at Google is bad, and that's why I support Elon Musk"? I mean, claim whatever context you like, it doesn't make your position any sounder.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I'm more interested in what the labor union says.

The one at Twitter?

The Twitter employees ignored good advice in April, when Musk's offer was first revealed. If the toilet paper and body odor problems aren't resolved, I'm sure we'll see a union soon.


I mean, let's posit, for argument's sake, that Google is the worst, most evil company in the world. It still wouldn't make sense to respond to criticism of Musk by saying "hey, look at Google!"

If one disapproves of Musk's actions, that disapproval isn't contingent on what Google is doing. And if one approves of Musk's actions, well, I suppose trying to get people to talk about Google instead is a sensible, if logically fallacious, strategy.


paulsurovell said:

Or, "I can't defend my argument if we consider the context".

Edited to add:

Or, "Nothing is relative. Everything is absolute".

Or, "Everything is relative. Everything sucks."

Once you've reached that point, one can actually have a discussion about one sucky thing at a time without needing to "contextualize" it by pivoting to something else that also sucks, just in different ways. 


paulsurovell said:

I'm more interested in what the labor union says.

Labor unions are employees.


PVW said:

I mean, let's posit, for argument's sake, that Google is the worst, most evil company in the world. It still wouldn't make sense to respond to criticism of Musk by saying "hey, look at Google!"

If one disapproves of Musk's actions, that disapproval isn't contingent on what Google is doing. And if one approves of Musk's actions, well, I suppose trying to get people to talk about Google instead is a sensible, if logically fallacious, strategy.

I have a personal reason to dislike John Stankey and how his company destroyed WarnerMedia. And even when I bring him up, I don't do it to defend Musk, or Google, or anyone else. A lot of corporate "titans" are really bad people who don't give a **** about their employees. The fact that a lot of them don't doesn't absolve any of them as individuals. 
I'll also add that I've worked with a lot of great executives who did care about employees as individuals. So it's possible to have corporate success and not be an **** if a person actually has some empathy.


ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

I'm more interested in what the labor union says.

Labor unions are employees.

You are correct,

I shouldn't have posted that. Will look at charts later and reply.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.