My impressions of what Musk is doing with Twitter, and his likely chances of success, have changed as I’ve seen the past month play out.
Short version: Despite the chaos, the advantages of his position are becoming clear (thread)
As I said weeks ago, so long as Twitter depended on ads for the vast majority of its revenue, Elon couldn’t truly run the company as he wished. He’d have to bow and scrape to them. And advertisers are responsive to activist pressure. So his hands are tied, right?
But after an initial attempt of questionable seriousness to placate advertisers, he apparently decided, screw it, let them leave. And many have. (I assume some others joined but not anywhere near enough to make up the shortfall)
But: Musk also drastically cut expenses by either laying off or getting resignations from most of Twitter’s staff. And despite #RIPTwitter the site hasn’t collapsed and remains heavily used.
Now, because of Twitter’s debt load, he still has to solve the revenue problem. Twitter Blue won’t do it.
He also still faces existential threats. Activists will voice hate speech concerns to the Apple & Google app stores. And there’s the EU.
But he has some enormous advantages: incumbency, and the product itself.
First, incumbency is powerful. Will a critical mass of people actually leave Twitter? It increasingly seems the answer is no.
I have (I presume) mostly liberal followers, my follower count has dropped ~3% since Elon’s takeover (could be my own bad tweets).
That's not catastrophic. If that rate of decline keeps up, it's bad. But that could be low-hanging fruit.
I’m reminded of the anti-Substack campaign re: anti-trans content. Some big names left, most didn’t, and more keep joining, including many on the left. That’s because Substack remains the best platform for newsletter convenience & reach
And if you’ve explored the alternatives, you know Twitter remains the best platform for real-time short-form text broadcasting.
So if some power users quit Twitter out of principle but their reach and influence plummet, many will return
It certainly seems like the vast majority of liberal and left users have stuck around despite, well, everything. That’s because if you join another much tinier platform you’re relegating yourself to a niche. (As conservatives found.)
Still, a mass exodus could happen. It would have to be precipitated by some far more appalling thing to create a cascade of departures among even casual liberal-leaning users. Something that makes staying on seem morally disreputable
That’s an important constraint on Elon’s actions. He does need to avoid turning Twitter into a much more expensive Gab.
But so far he’s pushed the boundaries a fair bit and, well, you’re still here, aren’t you?
Addendum: Getting many responses to this thread pointing out I didn’t solve Twitter’s revenue problem, which is totally true! I don’t know how to solve it or if Musk will be able to.
But as long as he holds onto the userbase he will be able to try some stuff.
And @joshtpm makes several good points here, but rather than the Trump presidency I'd think of the Trump businesses. Constant blunders, bankruptcy, apparent mismanagement but always a way to keep things going. And Elon is a better businessman than Trump
Of course there is a question about how many things you really “need” to understand and retain at a complex level but, if you are interested in that, reading hasn’t been topped…
There is of course an argument, recently made by Sam Bankman-Fried, that books are generally filled with extraneous detail that isn’t all that “useful.” And that’s not necessarily wrong. You won’t retain most of what you read in them.
Lots of people super-mad at this but though you may hate the affect it is useful to think about this through a class lens, not just "Elon is crazy/ stupid."
Basically it's “Billionaires think tech workers have grown too big for their britches and should be taken down a peg.”
Lots of attention on Dobbs and Trump in explaining the lack of the red wave.
But dare I say another big difference is: unlike in 1993, 2009, and 2017, the president did not make a big push to massively overhaul the US healthcare system.
Clinton, Obama, & Trump all began their presidencies with big high-profile legislation on healthcare that led to enormous backlash. Clinton's failed, Obama's passed, and Trump's failed, but all got hammered in midterms.
Biden's legislative strategy did not produce such backlash
George W. Bush, the other exception to the "first midterm wipeout," also did not start his presidency with a big health care bill.
However, that's not the only baseline one could use. The national popular vote seems to have shifted in Republicans' direction by at least four points.
And by that baseline, *all* of the Republicans in competitive Senate races underperfomed.
That does not necessarily mean they were all bad candidates. Instead, it could point to a broader problem with the party's brand that made voters in competitive states (or districts) reluctant to give Republicans control of the Senate.
One core issue is that mail ballots take longer to process and count than in-person votes because the mail voter's information must be verified.
So, the more mail ballots a state has, the more man-hours / resources it needs to process and count them.
There is also a deadline question. Should a state only accept mail ballots received by the time the polls close? Or should a state count all ballots postmarked on election day, even if they're received laster?
The former means a faster count but perhaps more votes thrown out
I think in general the right has more influence over an R Speaker than the left does over a D speaker because the right is more willing to actually bring government to a halt (shutdown, debt ceiling, perhaps blocking the speaker election for some span of time)...
The party flanks have no power to force moderates to pass their agenda. But they do have the power to sink things by withholding their own votes.
Generally left Dems posture at this but cave because they prefer passing something to nothing, and don't want nonfunctional gov't
However, right GOPers have been successful at communicating to R leaders that they really are crazy enough to shut down the government, breach the debt ceiling... or, maybe, block the Speaker election for quite some time