Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Musk made a lot of mistakes with twitter

Now call me crazy but I disagree. I think - or rather I feel - he's doing an excelent job somehow. He's doing what other executives are afraid to do: he's building and building requires some walls to be hammered down ; and yeah this makes some noise and smoke. He's moving fast and breaking things (if you'd excuse the easy punt). To me, what he's doing is exciting and I think twitter is gonna thrive once the big work is done.



I don't like to use insults around mental health, or I totally would ;) Musk wants to build an "everything app" where people conduct business and accept payments. And he's shown over the past weekend that he is fully willing on impulse to literally just stop everyone from using the website.

So who on earth would be irresponsible enough to trust Twitter with anything essential or important after this? Who is going to build a storefront on a platform where they might wake up one day and find out that all of their customers are rate-limited from using the platform? And then the CEO jokes that he's doing people a favor by making them touch grass?

A bunch of artists who had (shortsightedly) built their business models around using Twitter as an art platform woke up one day to find out that their artwork can no longer be embedded in other websites. A bunch of government agencies and public services just found out that "check our Twitter for updates" no longer works. With no warning and with no announcement, all because Elon is mad that OpenAI hasn't cut him a check.

That is a business-destroying decision. Other executives are afraid of doing this because it's the kind of thing that permanently hinders your platform from ever being treated like a reliable place to do business or build on top of. It puts a mark on your businesses reputation that will never go away. And it's not a tech issue, it's a trust issue. Finish the big work and make something exciting, sure, but nobody with an ounce of sense would ever trust Elon not to pull the rug out from under them now.

You're going to build a business on a platform that might randomly decide to effectively shut itself down on a whim? Imagine if you had an Amazon shop and Amazon decided tomorrow with no warning that every customer on the platform is limited to buying at most one item per day, and also external links to Amazon no longer work for guest checkout unless your customer makes an account. How are people defending this? It makes no sense.


> Musk wants to build an "everything app" where people conduct business and accept payments.

Which is a bad idea. China has everything apps like WeChat because monopolies are easier to regulate, but customers don't actually like them, which is why we don't have them elsewhere.


India has payment apps which are going the way of super apps by allowing you to

1. Make p2p payments

2. Pay utility bills

3. Pay credit card charges

4. Buy insurance

5. Get loans

6. Make charitable donations

7. Book travel tickets

8. Find nearby stores, store timings, get directions, and see their ratings

9. Send and receive short messages

Unless “we” and “elsewhere” doesn’t include India, I’d say superapps are more common than you think.


Maybe I don't know what an 'everything' app is, but this just sounds like a banking app to me (with the exception of the last 'feature').


When the App Store was launched, most apps had a single backend they connected to. I’m thinking of say the FB app or the Google maps app which only talked to Fb and Google respectively.

These payment apps integrate with a much wider arrays of backends from multiple providers and allow you perform many more unique use cases. E.g., making charitable donations and paying an insurance premium are unrelated but the Indian payment app I’m thinking of enables it.

This brings it closer to being an “everything” app.


We also have banking superapps in Russia - and even more. I still wouldn't say that's an "everything app", all of those features are related to payments and they can be in a banking app.


PayTM? Just because an app has all these features doesn't mean people actually use all the features.


I take no view on whether Elon will be successful on making Twitter more profitable. But as a user -- and someone that typically supports Elon -- I have to say he's made the app subjectively worse IMO. I find the "For You" page and algorithm to boost more "junk" content than before. I used to find it interesting, now it feels like scrolling through Instagram meme pages. I'm at the point where I am thinking of uninstalling it.


Sorry your For You page sucks, but that's a you problem. My For You page is excellent - I see mostly the kind of tweets I like, and when I see a tweet I don't like I tap the not interested button. I actually love the new FYP way more than the old home feed, and the option to switch to the chronological "Followed" feed is more visible than before.


This is complete bullshit. I have the exact same experience Parent has, my feed used to be full of interesting people from tech, science, and journalism. Now it's ~80% meme feeds sprinkled with a small helping of what I actually care about. How is that my fault, as a user that had a perfectly good curated feed prior to For You existing?


> Sorry your For You page sucks, but that's a you problem.

How so? You're blaming the user for a feature that the user didn't design.

If the commenter complained about their own chronological Followed feed, that would be a "you problem".


My "For You" page is filled with my own Tweets. Why would I ever want to see my own Tweets?


The only reason my FYP is good is because I blocked all the different meme accounts they added. A good algorithmic feed for a power user is one that 1. shows people you follow but 2. in relevance order not chronological order.

The current one is half trying to be the new Reddit account experience and half trying to show you politics news you'll get mad about for engagement.


Why are you apoligising for Twitter? What are you sorry for?


As someone who wants all of the other things he's supposed to be building, I can't imagine how you would not see Twitter as an objective step back.

Every single change he has made to Twitter is exclusively to claw back income from users because he made all of the advertisers leave. Anyone competent would have just added the features they wanted without burning 80% of the company's income and staff.


The cherry (or turd?) on top is that the platform is manned by a skeleton crew.

I kid you not: I recently saw a screenshot of a post by an engineer asking ex-Twitter engineers for help debugging an issue.. on Blind. Mind you, I don’t blame the engineer at all: it just gives you an idea of the mess Musk has made for himself.

I think the fact that the platform is still running is a testament to those who built & documented the infra. It’s also a feather on the cap for those who remain to man the ship, particularly if there was no other choice.

One catastrophic outage is all it really takes at this point.


I can confirm this is true. Both that Twitter is running on a skeleton crew and that engineers are asking ex-engineers for help.


Elon has said he's ok losing money on Twitter. Its about providing a free speech platform where people with opposing views are allowed to express them.


Please, his actions make it clear that it’s his views he cares about and anyone opposing them is not welcome.


> his actions make it clear

I haven't seen any actions where he has prevented people from discussions on the platform within the laws of the United States.


They literally banned journalists reporting on his plane, easily gave in to the Turkish government, tried to ban links to other platforms, etc.

It's okay to support someone, but at least do it without filtering out everything that doesn't fit your narrative.


For the Turkish Gov thing, I should've specified US citizens on US Soil. The argument he claims is that a country can decide how they want to operate businesses inside their own borders. Twitter must comply. Its better to be allowed to operate in another country than be kicked out and have another more government subservient tech company replacement step in. If you believe otherwise, I think I would need to hear a strong argument that its the better alternative.

If someone is one of the most highly influential people on the planet managing gigantic marketcap companies like Tesla/Spacex, It makes sense from a personal safety standpoint not to dox their location each time they travel. Doxing people fits whose narrative again? I'm not convinced thats a 'narrative'.

Banning links to substack was temporary. Substack released a competitor and was scraping their contact data. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/11/row-between-tw.... How would you handle the situation where you have a company losing money and competitors are sucking your data dry?


Scraping contact data in what way? Letting a user trigger some requests when they're moving between sites shouldn't be a problem at all.

But either way, that's not a reason to block links, and them being a competitor is not a reason to block links.


In regards to scraping users from the platform your moving away from, Facebook did the exact same thing to twitter in 2013. The veterans running these companies know the playbooks. https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1650894515702763521

Its naive that people sit on the sidelines opining they should've done the opposite when all the evidence points to blocking scraping as a standard business practice (and scraping is illegal if the company forbids it in their policy). Most people saying otherwise have not run a company or startup in a competitive environment where every other player wants to steal their lunch.


If someone is crawling your content, that's usually bad behavior.

If a user signs up somewhere else, and wants their data to be ported over, there is very little to legitimately complain about. Even more so when the scraping is just contact data for that user, because that's very little server load.

Go away with this "steal their lunch" stuff. It should be legally mandated that users can transfer contacts between services.

Also blocking API access is very different from blocking user-posted links.


1. Wikipedia had the same issue with the Turkish government, fought it in Turkish courts and won. Twitter bent over and used the "but another even worse app will take our place" excuse you're using here. They're not helping free speech here.

2. Flight data is public, no one is doxing anyone. The incident Musk used as proof that this was bad was while he was in a car... far from his plane.

3. Twitter banned Mastodon links before Substack. Was Mastodon scraping Twitter's contact data too?

You see, the problem is not even what he's doing with Twitter. It's his company, who cares? It's claiming that Twitter is the internet's "town square" and that he is anti-censorship, while restricting access to the platform and censoring content. It's complete bullshit and people like you fall for it and even defend it.

I'd respect Elon Musk more if he came out and just said "this is my platform, I'll ban stuff that affects me or affects my revenue, get out if you're not happy." Instead, he says one thing and does another.


I can't think of a single improvement to Twitter in the past 9 months. What changes I have noticed have ranged from annoying (extra-long tweets, a lot more white supremacist content to block) to destructive (boosting paid users, recent usage restrictions).


Community Notes?


Elon has chased off all the biggest advertisers, turned into an abrasive online personality that elevates insane conspiracy theories, and now you can only view 800 tweets a day. That doesn't sound like an "excellent job." I had some hope for when he took over Twitter, because Twitter was not well run...but he's made the previous CEO (who was not a good CEO) look like a genius. He even failed to lure Donald Trump back...I mean. The only reason people are still on Twitter is because there is no alternative, and there are still very valuable voices on Twitter. Once or if they leave, it's all over.


Parag was a great CEO because he got Elon to buy out all the shareholders at above market price.

Jack was a bad CEO because he's even more gullible than Elon and fried his brain with psychedelics, but he's not as bad as the current one.


What is it that you think he's building?


Debt.


What is he "building" exactly according to you?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: