Noah Smith πŸ‡πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ Profile picture
Apr 3 β€’ 16 tweets β€’ 4 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1/I think what's going on with Twitter checkmarks is very easy to understand, and has very little to do with Elon being a loose cannon.

It's about trying to pivot from an ad model to a subscription model in the presence of uncertain network effects and switching costs.
2/Twitter isn't good at making people buy stuff, so its ad-based business was always shitty. A bunch of advertisers probably wanted to yank their ads and just used Elon's purchase of the company as an excuse to do so.
3/In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter's old shareholders knew they were living on borrowed time and that's why they jumped at the chance to sell the business. But anyway...
4/So anyway, the only alternative to an ad-based model, for an online content platform, is a subscription model. Elon knows this, so his original plan coming in was to make people pay for Twitter. That's the only way this platform is economically viable.
5/Now we get to *why* Elon decided people would pay for Twitter. Two reasons.

First reason: network effects. If Twitter is THE place to get news, and THE place to talk about news (i.e. scream and fight), then no one who's interested in news can leave.
6/But staying on the platform is not the same as paying for the premium product. You can still scroll, chat, etc. for free.

Elon's business hypothesis has to be that a sufficient number of Twitter users will pay to be able to use Twitter in some "better" way.
7/There are many features that might make a "premium" Twitter product that people will pay for. Editing tweets, getting a special boost for your tweets, writing long tweets, etc.

But Elon doesn't know what that mix of features is. He couldn't know, going in. His hypothesis was… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
8/So that's what he's been doing: Experimenting. Rolling out various features, for one thing. But also threatening to revoke "legacy verified" status from the people he thinks are likely to pay for a premium service. He's probing, trying to suss out what people will pay for.
9/But there's a danger here.

Twitter depends on a strong network effect. This platform sucks, and the only reason we're still on it is because a ton of other people are still on it. Once a critical mass leaves, there's no reason to stay.
10/So Elon's experiments are inherently dangerous. If they drive too many power users away, this whole place collapses in short order and Elon just paid tens of billions to become the new MySpace Tom. He can't have that. So he's cautious with the experiments.
11/This is why you see a lot of rapid reversals, bold declarations of intent that end up not happening, etc.

Elon is probing to find out what people will pay for, but can't afford to probe too boldly for fear of killing the network effect and thus killing the company.
12/Fortunately for Elon, he does have one powerful ally on his side: switching costs. Twitter people have made their digital home here, in this rancid sewer. And to find a new home is always a jarring, dislocating experience.

So Elon can push quite a bit without triggering a… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
13/Of course the longer term problem is that young people aren't that interested in Twitter (because frankly it's obsolete and it sucks). But Elon is hoping to execute a turnaround well before generational turnover starts to bite.
15/Anyway, so this is basically what's happening with Twitter: Elon is probing and experimenting to find the package of features that will get people to pay for Twitter without making them leave, and racing to do it in time to replace the defunct ads business.
16/If there's no feature package that will make Twitter a sustainable subscription based business, then Elon's business hypothesis was wrong from day 1, and he loses some money and Twitter doesn't survive as a profitable going concern and we all find better things to do.
17/What's also interesting -- and what I haven't seen anyone point out yet -- is that whether or not Elon succeeds here, his stint as an attempted turnaround CEO for a dying legacy social media company is keeping him from doing anything in generative AI...

(end)

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

Keep Current with Noah Smith πŸ‡πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

Noah Smith πŸ‡πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Noahpinion

Apr 2
Who would win in a war between Iran and Pakistan, assuming no nukes were used?
Could Brazil militarily defeat a coalition made up of all the countries that border Brazil?
Could Egypt conquer Libya if it wanted to?
Read 4 tweets
Mar 31
Chinese culture is like American culture.

China's government is like America's government, if right-wingers and left-wingers decided to put aside their differences and cooperate to implement all their worst ideas.
Right-wingers: OK so we should let billionaires do whatever they want and crush labor unions and dump stuff in rivers and pay low taxes.

Left-wingers: OK, but occasionally we put some of them in prison just to show who's boss.

Right-wingers: Deal!
Left-wingers: Can we crack down on Christian churches and have "communism" be the official state religion?

Right-wingers: ...Can we send Muslims to the camps?

Left-wingers: Oh I suppose, if we must. Deal!
Read 4 tweets
Mar 29
These guys have mindfucked themselves into believing that imperialism is anti-imperialism.
I think I'll call this "imperialism creep".

First you tell yourself that your empire's conquests are just defending its rightful territory.

Then you tell yourself that some further conquests are necessary to establish a robust defensive perimeter.

Etc. etc.
Always, further conquests are justified by the lurking threat of other empires out there in the dark, always meddling, always stirring up hate against your (good, virtuous) empire.

"We must conquer or be conquered" is the thinking.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 28
This post by @tylercowen is very good, and I also disagree strongly with one of its basic premises. We've been living in a world of truly radical technological change for over a decade now.

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolu…
The entire nature of human life has radically altered. When I was a young adult, human beings spent most of their day socializing in real life. Now, people spend most of their time staring at small glowing screens.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021…
When I was a young adult, people mostly met lovers in real life, through friends or at work or in public places.

Now, people mostly meet online. This has radically altered the nature of human romance. Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 23
The idea that banning TikTok constitutes a restriction on speech makes no sense. It's like saying that a city can't turn its town square into an apartment building because people used the square to give speeches. Platforms are not the same as content.
What speech can be said on TikTok that can't be said on an equivalent U.S.-owned video platform?? None. There's no credible argument that a TikTok ban would restrict speech in America.
Also, on top of that, the idea that any foreign government espionage is protected by the Constitution if it comes attached to an internet content creation platform is...kind of insane.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 19
The reason Balaji's bet is bad for Bitcoin is that it immanetizes the eschaton.

Bitcoin's value has always depended on the myth that SOMEDAY, fiat currencies will collapse. By setting a definite date with his bet, Balaji changed "someday" into a hard deadline.
Just like if a doomsday cult declared that the aliens will destroy Earth on April 2, 2027, at 6:46 PM, setting a hard date for doomsday means that when that date passes, it calls into question the whole underlying faith.
Bitcoin is not going to replace fiat money. That is a Thing That Is Never Going To Happen. But as long as that impossible Rapture can be continually theorized into the future, some believers will still be able to believe.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(