Elon Musk, the owner of X, criticized advertisers with expletives on Wednesday at The New York Times’s DealBook Summit.

      • tehcooles@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Legitimately curious because I’m OOTL: why would Saudi Arabia want to destroy Twitter? My (admittedly uninformed) instinct says it would be a waste of their large investment and control over a platform ripe with potential for them to control narratives over their shitty PR for human rights abuses and other shit. Would it just be to prevent negative coverage of their actions from spreading?

        Again, not arguing, just legitimately curious. I figured Twitter’s downfall would be really bad for them since they have sway over Musk and a vested interest in the platform.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Twitter was unparalleled in the reach it had. It has been used to organize protests, riots and overthrow governments. There still isn’t a viable alternative that can reach 80%+ of a population.

          Twitter was also used frequently to expose poor working conditions and other abuses of power, especially in middle eastern countries

          • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But that’s not Tru Freedums! Tru Freedums is being able to say the n-word and be respected for it!

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Twitter was the only mainstream social media that seemed to have any semblance of ethics.

          Musk is also a wild card, and adding to the instability of Western society is advantageous. It’s another direction we get pulled, another thing to be upset about, another distraction.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly what I was implying. If destroying the platform wasn’t the point, then they’d want to know why they’re not seeing a return on their investment. The public story is that it was an investment.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess they failed. Twitter is still just as massive as it was before.

        Take a look at how many posts on lemmy and even mastodon are just screencaps of tweets.

        Ya’ll are addicted to that shit, lol.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect it’s doing exactly what they want it to do. The platform isn’t destroyed, only it’s ability to make money through conventional advertising. It’s still full of strongly conservative viewers running businesses with plenty of cash. It’s primed to be a disinformation delivery system.

      Right now if he was able to liquidate holdings, he could pay them back in full and still be #2 richest and still be above Bezos by 43 billion