So you think Elon just recycling the name Fox News to me on a whim is ok? I imagine that would cause wide-spread confusion to users although it would be lots of fun for me. “Fox News says it’s ok to be gay! Or Fox News says Tucker Carlson is a drag Queen!”
Or maybe Elon could recycle the name Paul McCartney to me. “Paul McCartney says I ripped off the song Yesterday from Ed Sheeran!”
As the article states:
Handing over established accounts to third parties poses a serious risk of impersonation and could imperil a company’s reputation, said social media experts.
In other words, a stupid move unless you’re trying to bankrupt a company.
Elon on technology - an idiot savant.
Elon on everything else - you can drop the savant
The term “on a whim is ok” requires a judgement?
Good - bad;
good - evil;
ethical - unethical;
moral - immoral;
Etc
I’m not feeling any “judgement”.
That’s why I asked, cause maybe I’m missing something?
Recycling the @handles appears “legal” and there seems to be precedent.
It’s been 3 weeks since NPR stopped tweeting because of a false label on their account. Does that seem a reasonable amount of time for Musk to threaten to give away their handle, or does it strike you as spiteful?
Say you created a business, like “Walt Disney” and used Twitter with that handle. Even if you quit Twitter, you’re ok if Twitter recycles your business name to someone else for use on Twitter?
Effectively, Twitter now owns your business name on Twitter, including the authority to recycling it.
What business in their right mind would want to do that?
Do Web site domain companies not “effectively own your domain name”?
If you stop paying the subscription, they’ll gladly sell it to someone else.
Whitehouse DOT com comes to mind?
If NPR is concerned, they can assign an intern to tweet, and there by retain “ownership”?
Or, concerned citizen might take it over before maleficent does?
&&&&&…
I own TSLA stock, so I’m always watching to see if Elon really has “stepped” in it “this time”, … ie is there a valid reason to sell.
Elon is POLARIZING, but, so far this NPR handle kerfuffle seems Shakespearian, as in much Ado about nothing.
Should I sell?
I’m not seeing a valid reason to do so.
I’m sure it is legal, and Musk owns Twitter so he can run it any way he likes. The question is does it make business sense? Is it smart?
The vast majority of Twitter users don’t tweet, or at most seldom tweet. They simply follow things that interest them on Twitter. But that model only works if users (in other words, the product) can be reasonably certain the person or organization they are following on Twitter is genuine. That’s why Twitter started verifying users, otherwise the fakes would take over.
So does recycling @NPR improve the user experience? Wouldn’t it be better to try to reconcile with NPR, PBS, CBC, etc. and get those followers (this is, the product) back on Twitter?
Now, Elon could be onto something here. I’ve noticed a lot of celebrities have given up on Twitter, but not had their handles recycled, so that clearly isn’t the policy. But a portion of his audience loves it when he sticks it to the woke libs. So maybe there are some benefits to riling up his base. But that does make Twitter less appealing for everyone not in that group. So I’m not seeing the wisdom here.
IMO, nope. He has lost $20+B and no way to get it back given what he is doing (destroying Twitter). Business relies on others respecting their intellectual property–including their online identity. Musk is using his control of Twitter to throw a tantrum. Business can afford to not have a Twitter presence. There are other online communication systems that work reasonably similarly, so the only real loser is the one who is acting like a four year old (if that old).
Man, I sure hope this is the beginning of the end (for Twitter)
Snip:
On Saturday, a man wearing a “Right Wing Death Squad” patch opened fire at a shopping mall and killed 8 people. The shooter, 33-year-old Mauricio Garcia, [had an online history](deleted because it contained the word Yatzi) that included posting multiple neo-Yatzi tattoos and memes such as “latino children” having to choose between “acting black” and “becoming white supremacist” on a Russian social media site.
…
While this tracks for anyone who has been paying attention, Twitter owner Elon Musk replied to tweets that called the shooting a “psyop” and suggested it was planned by the CIA.
The pooch screwing continues unabated. As I mentioned in my first post, social media needs content moderation otherwise it turns into a cess pool. Well, the hands off-ish Twitter moderation has kind of turned Twitter into a cess pool and I’m not seeing major advertisers any more. There are still ads, but mostly from pay day loan places and click bait sites.
Content overall has gotten worse. The algorithm used to promote interesting content, now it promotes people who paid to have their stuff promoted. Bots are running among amok. I get tons of messages inviting me to invest in crypto projects and from attractive young women who are very lonely.
Last week, Twitter suddenly started limiting page views. Now, I’m not a tech guy, but it seems to me if your business model depends on you maximizing page views then…you really don’t want to limit page views. Musk announced an explanation which sort of made sense, I guess.
Of course, this week the Zuck introduced Threads, a Twitter competitor/clone that you can sign up from your existing Instagram account. Instagram has about two billion regular users. Twitter has about 250 million. You can see the problem here. What are small numbers to the Zuck are huge numbers to Musk. The Zuck doesn’t have to poach comparatively very many Twitter users at all before it pokes a big hole in Musk’s bottom line.
The pooch is not doing well. The lack of moderation has scared off advertisers and they haven’t returned. Revenue is down 50% and Twitter is still not cash flow positive.
The experiment is continuing, but not going well for the unfortunate hound. Daily users are down about 13%. As I said in my first post in this thread, Twitter fills a niche and I don’t think it will go away (Zuck’s Threads app doesn’t seem to be gaining traction) but I haven’t seen any changes that make Twitter a better user experience and some that make it worse.
Saw a post where Musk claims nearly all advertisers have returned, but independent sources (like, uh, advertisers) say otherwise:
As [Insider reports] marketing consultancy Ebiquity found that the vast majority of the biggest spenders have stopped advertising on X following Musk's [ill-fated takeover] last year. That seems to contradict Musk's and CEO Linda Yaccarino's recent promises that all is well and that most of the advertisers have since returned.
According to the marketing firm’s data, only two of Ebiquity’s clients bought ads on X last month, a massive drop from 31 brands in September 2022. The consultancy works with 70 out of 100 top-spending advertisers, per Insider, including the likes of Google, Walmart, and General Motors.
“This is a drop we have not seen before for any major advertising platform,” Ruben Schreurs, Ebiquity’s chief strategy officer, told the publication.
Any “celeb” will tell you “there is no such thing as “bad” publicity”. The media loves people who say and do outrageous things, as it gives them something to chatter about, so they give plenty of attention to the outrageous person, which is what the person craves.
