I doubt Musk has the patience for building or owning a graph based technology business. The complexities of Twitter’s architecture are not trivial and a huge reason it’s not been successfully disrupted.

The other big reason is balancing the greater good vs unrestricted access, which has taken years to accommodate.

Musk is just an ego-centric billionaire with a lot of money and an unproven belief that Twitter could be better with his proposed changes. I’d bet he’s thoroughly aware that those changes could destroy the platform.

I believe the offer is rejected and the other top ten shareholders (all hedge funds) buy up anything he dumps and the price remains stable.

Twitter is complex. But not nearly as complex a building a mass produced EV, charging and servicing infrastructure and space company. You have a bug in twitter? Easy try something new. Bug in either of the others? People DIE. Twitter will barely be remembered next to MY___________ in a few years. It's blank for a reason.

I'd argue Twitter is just as complex, because Twitter's product is its users and the content they create, where the others are governed by the laws of physics and making a good car (i have one, they're good!). What you have is a bunch of engineers on twitter going "ah yes, its just a social network feed! I wrote that in CS244 as my class project. how hard could it be", forgetting that twitter is an international network with tens of thousands of hyper targeted communities that feed off each other, diplomats that negotiate with governments and communities, etc. Not to say that this is impossible for anyone else to make, but it's a lot harder than just launching a site with your hundred engineers. i'd recommend reading platformer.news for a good

Apples to oranges. The fanboyism is not helpful.

Tesla and SpaceX are as complex as it gets, orders of magnitude beyond Twitter.

Paul Graham on building a new Twitter: "A decent team could reverse engineer a version 1 in a month."

This is laughable. Social graphs are not trivial. It may not be as complex as landing a rocket booster on a platform, but it’s definitely as complex as monitoring a car.

Twitter had 100M MAU after 3 years and it was still operated entirely by just 300 people. So it’s not that hard. Musk could easily recruit 300 engineers and cost will be peanuts to him. Additionally, early growth of Twitter was driven by various celebrities signing up and bringing their audience to the platform. Here Musk has unique advantage as he has huge celeb network which can be convinced to move over or at least cross post. He can count on enabling slew of features like edit button, more chars, easily verified accounts etc to lure many users. Musk can hang in for years and easily eat up the cost. Earlier competitions did not had these advantages.

OK but SpaceX and Tesla and are all significant software shops in their own right.

It’s not been successfully disrupted because a disrupter came and went viral, and AWS literally deleted their servers as they were becoming the most downloaded app

Are you talking about Parler and the overt fascism and racist postings?

No global corporation will allow that in their midst. You’re a fool if you think there is any long term viability to those psychotic beliefs.

It will tank the price because other people will sell if he does. I don't know if his threat is strictly illegal, but the feds have to reign in some of this behavior sooner or later or all of the Musk day-trader fanboys will think they too can get away with it. A few people can't, but the SEC can't deal with thousands of Musk's fanboys skirting the law.

How is it skirting the law to trade based on what he publicly says?

88% of Twitter is owned by institutional investors. They will instantly protect the stock price.

> "It is obvious. It's also obvious that Elon could draw an initial set of users that was more than big enough to have sufficient network effects on day 1."

This would be "obvious" about Trump, too, no?

Perhaps your claim is that Musk would have a better chance of making something that scales and can accept all those users from day 1, but then that's also a much more expensive bet for Musk to make with higher up-front pre-launch cost.

Musk wouldn’t do such a blunder launching it. Truth Social with a sizeable war chest, took Mastadon (while [still] lying about it) with many months if not over a year to get it ready.

Being able to launch a product with more than enough resources is almost intertwined with drawing in users. Truth Social never had the bare minimum expectations. Something that is not given to most people since most aren’t abnormally focused on grifting and so on for such a big venture.

Another critical failure of Truth: Trump wasn't posting on it. Trump can't carry a platform he himself couldn't bother to use. Truth might've survived launch on that core difference alone, and an Elon-backed service might work if Elon himself actually uses it.

That is wildly baffling. Not only Trump not using it, but does that mean the dozens upon dozens of popular figures around him who his fans also like, are mostly not using it either?

The SPAC stock is still holding strong snd it self making no sense day to day. It went up 7%+ on news Fox joined two weeks ago. The next day when this was found to be false. It didn’t even drop 1-2%.

Truth will fail no doubt. However all the SPAC, other investing and political insiders and the Trump family themselves still have a realistic shot of cashing out pretty well. Nothing close to if it was competently rolled out, but tens of millions to hundreds of millions going to many diff insiders is still a ton. Trump’s cash out should still be huge and would probably give him his largest cash stock pile ever (before it goes to pay debts off)

Indeed, this will fall into the long history of Trump branded failures. The thing is it would be so difficult for him to avoid. The only "thing that doesn't scale" he'd have to do is talk on it for a while. How many of his followers would flock there if there was a non-zero chance to actually talk to him.

I'd argue Trump has more immediate, impressionable supporters than Elon and his twitter like platform is a complete bust. I'd also argue people don't switch, they add. Rarely is someone popular on a single media platform, they tend to use to all of the vertices to engage. There would have to be a value proposition, one that persuades users, the name Elon in my opinion isn't a large enough selling point on it's own.

"Trump's fan base are not tech bellwethers, to put it mildly. Elon's are."

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1507791725410070528

I don't think Elon's fan base are any more capable or driven. I would argue Trump is vastly more popular on social media than Elon and that Trump supporters are at the very least motivated for reasons outside of billionaire worship and straight trolling.

Billionaire worship/trolling vs Blindly following regardless of the amt of double speak, hypocrisy, blindly rejecting things because they are not on your side and following things that go against your best interests + billionaire worship + allowing the amount of grifting that occurs...

The motivation may be different. Is it any better? Or change anything for the better in terms of social media success?

Trump’s popularity may be larger, but it’s also more isolated and siloed. The total possible user base for a social network of almost any billionaire will be larger than Trump’s. Not that most would ever get close to reaching that amount or getting numbers more than Trump. Just that the addressable market is bigger.

you are arguing that signing up for twitter (or the equivalent) is some kind of significant barrier to entry?

Trump was also kicked off of twitter while being excoriated in the media and then took, what, two years to launch something?

Musk is not nearly as trashed in the media and could leverage promoting an alternative while still on twitter. Obviously there does need to be something that is at least reasonably differentiating from twitter, and I think that is the real challenge as just saying it is twitter but more free is not as tangible.

I think Paul Graham overestimates Musk’s social media influence. He’s powerful on Twitter in large part due to Twitter. Same with Trump, btw. If it were so easy for Musk to recreate the network, why spend 43B on some infrastructure? Musk knows he’s muzzled outside of Twitter.

> why spend 43B on some infrastructure?

Because he's not spending $43bn on some infrastructure, but for the >200mn daily users. That's $210 for every user.

That's the point being made rhetorically by the person you replied to, fyi.

Would that not have been true about Truth Social? They would have had enough users on day 1 to get network effects, but it hasn't happened. You could blame technical issues, but as I understand, Trump isn't even on the platform and neither is Fox News. So why would a Musk Twitter clone work any better?

Truth Social still has a waitlist. They failed to attract the critical mass of users in day 1

If this is true, why isn't Clubhouse a resounding success?

It's functionally quite different. And requires a higher level of effort to engage with the content.

elitist marketing bs based on invitations that didn't work and ultimately attracted wannabe narcists to boost their ego

Clearly that's not the only reason or gmail would have been a flop too. I actually think that marketing choice was the only reason they got as much initial traction as they did, without it I think most of HN would never have heard of Clubhouse, rather than that it would have been more successful.

If the former president of the United States with a distortion field around his politics and the largest cable news network backing his every word couldn't succeed in launching a platform, I doubt Elon can. Unlike Elon, Trump has constantly blasted news networks and tech companies in the U.S. as being fake and run by lefties, to the point where his entire base believes it, and even that wasn't enough to migrate them off of twitter, because again, network effects. Twitter benefits by having everyone on it, and with no one to yell at Trump's audience is left to talk to themselves, which is boring.

Additionally, with all due respect to Paul, his logic here is absurd. "I'd be interested so that means everyone must be" is the wrong line of thinking for a product launch like this. Everyone is _interested_ in something the first day, but whether or not that's enough to build on is another matter. So many social networks had massive first day signups. I was "interested" in Byte on the first day. I signed up, posted a few bytes, and stopped using the app after a week. Parler, Gab, Truth, had "interest" too. The problem is that critical mass of users he describes are all just talking to themselves in their insular group (elon fans) just as the right-wing networks had their conspiracy theorists etc. It's enough to have users, but its not enough to promote long term growth. I know it's not something _i'd_ be interested in, which refutes his point because its purely anecdotal.

So, the only demographics that'd actually stick with an elon twitter competitor are: People who love elon musk and everything he creates, and people who are banned from twitter. If it shakes out to be anything like Gab and Parler, the later means the site is going to swarm with Nazis like every other free speech competitor to twitter, which as a jew is something i'm deeply uncomfortable with. There's not enough free speech in the world for me to put up with being harassed by people who share the views as the ones who murdered my great grandparents. And as much as people here enjoy grandstanding about free speech, its likely something you're uncomfortable with too, otherwise you'd be on those sites.

Basically, the product elon wants to make already exists and it has no users. If Trump (who had a significantly bigger following on twitter than Elon) wasnt enough, if big right wing stars like Milo werent enough, what's gonna be enough? Because copy pasting Truth and slapping Elon on the front... wont be.