I’m still of the opinion he is not doing the work and his success is mostly throwing money at eager (and smart) engineers. That’s a smart thing to do, good call on his part, but it’s almost like he doesn’t know that’s how his companies work.
Maybe he is just great at running tech companies or something but acting like the media/everyday people hate him for no reason is just dishonest.
How many have succeeded on the scale Elon has? "Throwing money at smart engineers" is not a novel idea. Executing it well is extremely hard, especially when cash has been cheap for the past two decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
He gave Elon the ideas, initial team, govt connections, contracts, etc.. Elon was the company jester.
Rocket landing work was taken from the DC-X
Yes thats why you hire people...to not do all the work. Im pretty sure Elon is aware of this.
A decent amount of people on this site are absurd and detached from reality.
Their rejection of his idea is what inspired the pivot to build rockets instead.
One of the most valuable parts of Musk is his personal brand. He can raise money and hire talent in large part because he's a household name. Everything he does, from naming his child X Æ A-12 to producing a house track, is to proliferate the public perception that he is an eccentric genius, a modern-day polymath like the Da Vincis and Franklins of old.
It may not seem like "real" work, but if Elon Musk and I both started different companies on the same day, who do you think is going to attract funding and top talent more quickly?
Musk can be great when he does his homework and first principles analysis. It is obvious he hasn't done it here.
Having advertisers take a huge step back because they seek minimal uncertainty and you spend the entire week maximizing uncertainty is bad (& shows incompetence).
Having advertisers drop campaigns literally in the middle of the call to sell next year's baseline because you aren't even close to prepared for the questions is deeply arrogant incompetence [0].
Threatening "thermonuclear name and shame" on your advertisers [1] — your primary customers — is unnecessarily showing the entire world that you've lost it.
Same goes for starting the week with the now-infamous claim that "a bunch of activists" are chasing away the revenue (would Musk accept that kind of excuse from any exec reporting to him?)[2], then having it explained WHY they are actually pausing by one of the people in the meeting [3], then blocking the guy you just spoke with the day before...
I cannot begin to see how any of this is remotely good for Musk's brand. He's showing the world in real-time that he's in over his head, has no idea what is the business model and the key elements, and just thrashing about blaming everyone else, when literally he is entirely to blame for the chaos.
Oh, and I've yet to read the other HN Pg1 headline [5] that Musk/Twitter is already asking some of the people it fired yesterday to return!
If you can actually explain how any of this is remotely good for Musk, Twitter, or anyone, I'd be interested to hear it... Because it looks like he's trying really hard to sink Twitter faster than Digg sunk. (There's actually a good argument that his initial intent was to sink Twitter when he first made the comment and offer, to maximize uncertainty and tank their '23 sales, but then he was forced to buy it b/c he was too foolish to even have a proper excape clause in the contract, and here we are)
[0] https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/1588696157794242560
[1] https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1588718759098851328
[2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588538640401018880
[3] https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921
I just do not see how any of his actions actually help enhance that even with even an idealized version of such a customer, and does not alienate even that customer.
How does it establish any credibility with anyone to 1) be so unprepared for a critical advertiser's (your customers) presentation that customers literally cut their spend during the meeting; 2) publicly make excuses trying to blame for your failures on some "activist groups" who actually had no influence on advertisers' (your customers) decision to cut spending; 3) destroying verification and turning it into a anyone-can-pay-$8-to-say-they-are-anyone-and-get-greater-reach; 4) come into a $44B deal making a lot of noise and failing to articulate a plan, any plan that gets anyone on board?; etc., etc., etc.
I wish Elon all the success in the world, but he is seriously flailing here, and creating confidence in no one. I expect that he has a good chance of sorting it out once he understands the issues, but he's clearly done no homework up front, so is figuring it out in real time.
I do not see how this helps him, even with his ideal customer. Of course, as usual his comments have plenty of fanbois claiming whatever he does must be 4-D Chess, but seriously, how does this much public flailing, thrashing, and excuses give anyone confidence?
Can you point to any specific action that would actually give such a customer more confidence? From what I've read, the RW people are also really pissed at him because they expected to be able to rush right in and raise hell, and that's not yet happening either...
It seems safe to say that you need to dovetail at least dozens of people to have successful rocket launching, well, startup?
But Mike probably was #1 reason for SpaceX success.
You choose 1024 people, and you send all of them a prediction about one upcoming sports game, free of charge. 50% get one prediction, 50% get the other.
Next week, you have 512 people who think you can guess pretty good. You pick another game. 256 people get one prediction, 256 get the other. The following week, 256 people think you got two in a row correct. You send 128 of them one prediction, etc. etc. etc.
When you're down to 1 person, maybe they'll pay you for the next prediction.
A track record of success is not sufficient evidence, especially when cash has been cheap for the past two decades and especially when even the first random success (selling Zip2 to an over-eager AltaVista) paid off so well.
Boring company is also not yet a failure, and has recently built several tunnels. Neuralink is an early stage research company and is still humming along. It may fail some day, but it certainly hasn't failed yet. As for Hyperloop, he specifically said he wasn't going to build it, and several companies are still working on it, including in China:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/china-maglev-vactrain-hyperloo...
None of these things are "failures". They may become failures one day. It'd be crazy if some of them didn't. But you can't count a research project as a failure just because it doesn't have a product yet.
None of those companies have any real success to show for themselves. They haven’t met the hype that Musk has put on them or shown any real progress in reaching that hype.
I can at least understand you saying it might be too early on something like Neuralink, but I don’t understand calling Solar City a success. Musk had to bail it out with his other company in a deal shady enough to trigger lawsuits.
Throwing money at people and saying “I want these charts to be customizable” vs “let’s land a rocket booster, it’s ok if a few blow up, we can test it live” will get VERY different levels of passion/expertise
Let's not forget that Elon Musk's real success has been in marketing. He has created a cult of personality, claimed his efforts are for the good of humanity (yet to be seen, especially with the way he treats his labor force, i.e. horribly). It's not a shock that Tesla stock is a _meme stock_. It is because of Elon's marketing.
Let's not even get into his market manipulation.
He has obviously been highly successful at marketing. But his "real success" has been in delivering products like useful electric cars and reusable rockets that didn't previously exist. His marketing skills help with that, but all the marketing in the world isn't going to sell a product that doesn't exist (except in crypto).
Undeniably Elon’s success is his tremendous wealth, the basis of which are two very valuable companies that the cofounded and has as CEO marketed brilliantly, if not always honestly.
He obviously knows a lot about what people to work with.
It is highly unlikely he knows how to build or design almost anything Spacex or Tesla makes. He knows a lot about everything they make of course, and can get more detailed briefings and information on it that anyone, but he didn’t make it.
So the wealth and the successful companies are his success sure, but his greatest personal accomplishments are obviously his marketing skills.
These were very difficult industries, industries that were extremely contrarian to bet on when he did. Making the financial bet alone would be a great accomplishment for any normal person. Peter Thiel is a famous investor for making far less contrarian and far less successful bets without operating anything except Paypal.
Musk's bets were far more concentrated, and he chose the personnel, operated the companies, made the strategic decisions, and yes, also marketed them brilliantly. But he only got to flex those marketing muscles because he spent a decade assembling, managing, and financing the teams that built the product in the first place.
Perhaps it’s just that his wealth got the better of him.
But yes, there's indeed the thousand of engineers and technicians doing the work. He even credits them for making his dream possible!
I don't know why people think he's not doing the work. Have they actually read interviews and books? The books I read does not paint him in a very flattering light people-wise.
It's also possible to be simultaneously an egoistic asshole, genius, having actual skills, being a money man and visionary leader, People act as if a person who's a jackass can't have positive traits or vice versa.
That's even more damning for his detractors since they could have been doing the same but instead sneer from the sidelines.
Which again is FINE. Personally, I just wanna do cool stuff and have a great work/life balance. I don’t want to (and don’t have the expertise to) land a rocket booster.
I guess… not everyone’s problem domains are interesting enough to lure a team like space-x etc. again, I don’t like him, but credit to Elon for at least trying to solve these tough problems. Just admit FSD isn’t a year away!
Throw in that your odds get better the more you’re successful, and it’s classic survivorship bias.
Companies don’t have to be profitable to be successful. A charismatic leader + lofty goals (FSD, rockets, flame throwers) and you’ll get a ton of money even if you never turn a profit.
Let’s not forget the tunnels I’m Vegas btw. They aren’t all winners.
That does not hold for Twitter. There is no magic clump of overqualified, underutilized people to tap into without throwing LOTS of money around. On top of that, Twitter mostly isn't that interesting.
At the moment there is a magic clump of such people, large language model experts from big tech who have left because they got sick of not being able to apply the technology.
They are currently floating around in various startups, but we are entering a tough market for VC funding. Twitter can offer hardware, data and a culture of shipping.
is that a real question that expects an answer , or one of those 'SV-Wisdom from-on-high' sentences?
Here's an easy practical answer that will fit 95% of the responses : I don't have the money to hire a lot of experts to execute my ideas, nor do I have the familial or business connections in order to facilitate the loans needed.
There are lots of people that have those things and are still not a tiny fraction as successful. Most people could be given all of those things and they'd quickly waste them all in a spectacular fashion. Often the people that are the loudest on this issue don't even have their own absolutely trivial finances in order.
Doing that with this level of success in these domains is extremely rare and even more important. In most cases, the investors are far more important than the workers.
To me it seems, his success comes from being an engineer himself and wanting to get shit done and kick people until shit gets done in a working way. And yes that includes throwing money at smart engineers, but to do this, you have to be smart and have domain knowledge to do so.
The problem started, when he got too much success and lost touch with the ground of reality.
The twitter chat logs are quite interesting.
https://danluu.com/elon-twitter-texts/#3
In general they show that it was indeed a bit more than a high idea, to which it was reduced around many places.
Still, a funny quote from Elon:
"Frankly, I hate doing mgmt stuff. I kinda don't think anyone should be the boss of anyone. But I love helping solve technical/product design problems."
I think he means it. But of course it is BS, when he is in fact the boss of so many people and making them burn out for productivity in various ways.
You know who runs the website we're on, right?
I’d actually argue he was the darling of the tech world for a while and his awful personality has eroded that over the last handful of years.
1. Choosing hard (and inspiring) problems that decompose down to a series of relatively linear engineering challenges;
2. Getting large amounts of investment money from the market or government sources to fund development;
3. Yelling at engineers to solve problems (and remaining close enough to engineering to identify the specific problems to yell about), often through overwork, while keeping the core mission inspiring enough to reduce churn;
4. Cutting corners in order to productionize faster than more risk-conscious competitors.
In other words, Musk is very good at steering organizations through certain kinds of complicated challenges. But he's also terrible at complex challenges, where the path isn't linear and yelling at engineers isn't enough to unstick the process, or where cutting corners is going to be disfavored by the market or by regulators.
Twitter is by its nature a horribly complex, poorly-understood, highly-dynamic complex system that will react unpredictably to any interaction. The decisions Musk needs to make aren't engineering-based (except when it comes to slashing staff and yelling at the survivors to work harder), but open-ocean strategy: product design; market fit; and playing nice with the userbase, high-profile accounts, and advertisers. Unfortunately, Musk has never demonstrated an ability to succeed in these areas -- consider SolarCity, which held a commanding lead early on, but had to be acquired by Tesla due to debt and growth problems, and has fallen to a tiny fraction of the market due to poor sales strategy and customer complaints. Add on the fact that he has a very narrow critical path to profitability (he bought a barely-profitable entity and loaded it up with a cool $1bn/year in debt payments that will need to come out of expenses), and there's more than can go wrong at Twitter than right.
Beyond that, Musk's problem with Twitter is simply that he looked at his social media experience and assumed that it was reflective of Twitter's userbase as a whole. But the alt-right instigators, bots, crypto-enthusiasts, and general (to be frank) weirdos that developed a parasocial relationship with his account are a tiny fraction of a fraction of Twitter's population; even if we consider "political" Twitter as a whole, it's tiny, just loud since it's populated by people with media megaphones. Most Twitter users have much more normal hobbies: sports, pop culture, videogames, whatever, and with Musk catering to his followers (who he seems to think are much bigger and more valuable than they are), their experiences are likely to get a lot worse. So unless he's willing to act more like a normal social media mogul -- aggressively mute the communities that create undesirable experiences for other users, turn down the personality volume on public communications, and suck up to the ad agencies and advertisers who keep the lights on -- I don't expect Twitter to get more successful.
This meme is on fire but I did not expect it here on HN where people can understand what he is talking about. There are many videos like this [1] and interviews (e.g. with Munro regarding Tesla) where the guy shows deep technical knowledge.
Besides, try making a startup throwing money and smart engineers. Just money will not even get you the really good ones. People who have a choice don't work for morons.
I mean, sure, there's plenty to hate (there was much more to hate about say Columbus, Gandhi or Ford), but if we were dismissing achievements of people who give others good reasons to hate them we wouldn't have calculus.
Let's try to let people stand out without gaslighting them if they are doing some great things. There are many people who smell real bad, are a*holes, have really weird opinions on some topics and were necessary for us to be able to write these comments here.
You can talk about multiple dimensions of these people, I'm trying to show something between "did something worthy" and "was really not a great guy" axes, and you seem to have a problem that they are not even close on "historical figure" axis, I'm guessing. Their hair could also be way different.
There are many good things one might say about Musk, but don't pretend there aren't any bad things.
Given the right tooling etc etc, expediting user's migration to their own instances, of something like a Mastodon node, could be an achieveable route to greater decentralisation without getting muddled down in things like blockchain etc.. And executed correctly the model could be more communicable than what it presently appears to be.
From what I can see though, Mastodon isn't currently the technology stack to achieve, perhaps it could get there.
No solution is going to be perfect, but surely an emphasis on data sovereignty would reduce the volume of arguments over what a given platform should be.
People also dismiss his failures in hard domains, like The Boring Company.
But has he failed at Boring?
He’s intentionally choosing to do things that have a relatively high likelihood of failure.
A few key things: decentralized means a network of at least 3 nodes where no operator controls more than 1. Anything beyond that is vanity or more censorship resistance depending on your vantage point.
What we actually want is governance with checks and balances. I would argue that the problem with the US has been the centralization of power in the executive and judicial branches, particularly the executive. A functioning parliamentary system with three branches of governance is quite effective when there is a balance of power.
Now to how emulate that in software is another quandary. I think ethereum for all of its faults is doing a decent job at decentralized governance.
I think we’re still in the very early days of decentralized finance. A lot of lessons will be learned (and relearned from the past) as we move forward.
On the contrary, I'd argue that the power has towards the executive and legislative branches. The judicial branch exists to curb the excesses of the other two through the invocation of law that was already written. The other two either write whatever the hell they want and vote on it or invoke their powers by fiat (i.e. executive orders).
I mean it does somewhat solve the problem of Musk running twitter into the ground. For most people, I imagine mastodon is a lateral move, not a step up.
For fun I just tried signing up and the process itself is confusing, sluggish, buggy, and ultimately didn’t work. It feels like it’ll need to improve very quiclkly if it’s going to capture any significant amount of Twitter users.
I was actually expecting the sign up process to be a lot more difficult than it was for me, just based on the impression I'd gotten from various HN comments over the years. I encourage anyone curious to try it out for themselves.
Yeah definitely, feels like they should have seen this coming though. They have an opportunity that won’t come around again, and poor performance and confusing UX seem like pretty serious problems.
for me it was enter an email address, username, and password?
Kidding aside, I think it's unlikely that a deliberately obfuscated project will conquer the world.
I agree with your point. I think people are generally missing forest for the trees.
“Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step.”
Pre IPO Twitter was doing interesting things with API access and being more protocol like, but they killed all of that stuffed ads on it and went public. Ben Thompson talks a lot about how they're a terrible ad product and I think he's generally right. Subscriptions are a more interesting model.
If you read the texts between Jack and Elon that came out during the recent legal fights over the sale you can see these things for yourself.
That's somewhat of a rambling answer, but a lot of this stuff is publicly verifiable.
The promise of the decentralized web of the 90s is a failure. The majority of users are centralized on handful of megacorporation apps despite the ad business making this pretty awful.
We're trapped in a local maximum because of the underlying system designs. Spam, linux server admin being too hard, terrible devex are some of the forces that lead to this [0]. It's a hard problem to get out of without thinking from first principles.
[0]: http://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-progra...
It's like if Twitter was an ActivityPub instance even if it had 99.9% marked share at least you could leave without leaving everything behind
They work great when they're the ONLY option in town, but eventually people centralize on one aspect of it, as they did with email.
Email used to be so decentralized that it was literally run on your machine (not your terminal, which was dumb, but the machine the terminal connected to) and even a single company department might have 10+ machines that could receive email (email addresses would look like [email protected]).
Then it devolved to one per department, and then one per company, and now one per massive IT provider.
These days to host anything securely you need a team of the top minds in that domain working full time on it. Just makes no sense to run your own mail server when for less money you could let someone else do it and they will do it much better.
This is just a sign of the industry maturing imo. You could relate it to construction. Used to have people building their own mud and stick huts but now everything requires planning, regulation, codes, licensed workers, etc.
Still better than a closed protocol. The fact that Google knows everbody can switch away from Gmail without any real downsides for sure keeps them in check. There are no real network effects for one company to take advantage of, unlike it is the case with closed protocol systems like WhatsApp.
They do? Changing your email address across every service provider you use is a colossal pain in the ass, and that's when they let you change your email address.
Getting an email with a really large number of recipients to be actually delivered is difficult enough that there are entire companies e.g. Mailchimp devoted to making it work. You can't just bung a million addresses into BCC and hope.
Everything he's done so far reads like he's deliberately trying to destroy the company. The only reason I don't really think that's his intention is that I don't see how he could hope to benefit from it. But it doesn't make sense.
He's trying to pivot them into a focused company. I think his actions make sense in that context.
just red meat for that particular crowd who worship strongmen. tho if he’s even a fraction of the irrationality that he’s portraying, i completely agree, twitters in trouble.
Nobody can just say Steve or Bill without confusing people
When nobody knows you, they use the complete name, Elon Musk.
When you're famous, they drop the given name, you're Musk.
When you're ultrafamous, they only use the given name, now you're Elon.
Yea, I've been saying the same for some time. I really want for decentralized solutions to proliferate, but federation is a terrible model.
> I want a world where people have actual ownership over their computing, but federated system designs like Mastodon will not get us that and we have thirty years of failure to prove it. The press pretending otherwise because they hate Elon and see tech companies as a threat are just embarrassing themselves.
This is the media capitalising at the maximum over the emotions of the tech crowd to move to a platform that is worse than Twitter, especially in UX and is essentially a solution that is creating more problems that it is trying to solve.
It really is not early days anymore with this, and the hype around Mastodon is manufactured by outrage due to 'Elon Musk' being the new villain of the month. If you have to explain what Mastodon is, which server you have to choose and how to find which people you followed on Twitter are on Mastodon due to its poor discoverability, then it tells us that it is another pointless hurdle for users to bear with, resulting in a worse experience.
Mastodon clearly is a solution that is creating more problems for users and the media is clearly parroting over the hype and emotion to pretend that it is an alternative or a threat to Twitter.
(i kid, i kid...)
Given that it already takes much explaining how to use it, 'choosing and instance', struggling to solve it's poor discoverability since a minute amount of Twitter users out of 200M+ have tried to move themselves, it means that you are already losing.
It is not 'early days' anymore. After 6 years of 'exoduses', Mastodon doesn't cut it as an 'alternative' and especially with the exact unchallenged reasons I've stated. It is not about getting manipulated by the current hype by the media, it is always about the retention afterwards that counts. Twitter is here to stay despite the 'current outrage' that the media is riding on.
Sorry to burst your (techie) bubble as hundreds of millions of non-technical people are still using Twitter and won't delete their accounts over something worse.
sure, if you ignore the very only communication method that everyone has - the email.
a myriad others came and went, and none that exist today will be relevant in 50 years, but email will
Email is an example of a federated system failure.
and it will outlive gmail
Counterpoint: email has been working great for the past 30 years.
The reason why email works over centralized schemes is because it has tiered decentralized controls - sending server, relays (when they were a thing), receiving servers and the client each have an opportunity to accept, reject or drop a message.
Mastodon has a great chance of succeeding. All it needs is an easy-to-use client,decent discovery and giving users control of what they see. It does not have to be a constellation of mini-Twitters.
When spam means you're either flooded with garbage or are forced to just totally block potentially innocent senders (like people running private mail servers)...
...and probably 95%+ of people I know use Gmail for their personal accounts...
...I'm not sure e-mail is the best example of federation working great.
I will gladly take it over closed protocol, even if it has reaction gifs built in.
Email is an example of a federated system failure.
30 years ago, AOL may have been most popular email provider, it was displaced by Hotmail, then Yahoo, now GMail. Having different leaders over time is evidence of the resounding success of email federation, those domains still exist and can still send/receive emails universally. If email had hypothetically been non-federated and proprietary to AOL, it would be dead today (or as close to it as gopher)
The idea is that the blockchain is a shared, decentralized database and you store simple messages on the blockchain and larger files on something like ipfs. This forms a social graph that a frontend ui can then import and provide a view into (a lens if you will).
It's nice because users just need one account (a wallet) and they have access to the whole social graph if they want, or they can configure their apps to only show certain things. The downside is that it's all public and once you lose your keys you're locked out of your account. Also, you can't really prevent anyone from posting things but you can choose which types of posts you allow on your feed.
It's a different set of tradeoffs that's interesting to explore.
I don’t understand this point. I’m on a tiny server, but read the federated feed most of the time. What’s the problem?
There is a comparison to be made between the IP protocol and ActivityPub.
When we all first went online we hopefully had more than one ISP to pick from, because they could federate data between each other using the IP protocol.
I believe that the same type of evolution is going to happen in social media. Whether it will be with ActivityPub, ATP or whatever else I don't know but it must happen. Because having just one ISP, one social media platform, one online shopping platform is not a healthy system.
You post and read on your preferred platform but can see posts from your friends from other platforms, or even their own implementation on their own server!
The Fediverse, at least as I see it advocated here, is not a federation of platforms but a federation of social cliques, where your ability to communicate with someone else is determined by connectivity in the clique graph.
This is a great thing for the kinds of people who would have become deeply invested in a web forum or newsgroup back in the day, but it cannot (and arguably should not attempt to) address the mass market.
And sure, most users will end up centralised on a handful of servers, and that is not a problem as long as they can move when a specific server does not meet their needs. The biggest importance is a safety valve.
I don't know which parts of the UI you think can't be fixed, but I don't agree. Better search is needed, but can be externalised (nothing stops someone from federating with the main instances and signing up to a few relays and offering more comprehensive search). A better experience when looking up external users timelines is largely down to Mastodon's developers having very specific ideas about how to do things. The logic for following or boosting/liking toots when you're on a different instance's timeline is awkward but can be improved with an optional intermediary (falling back to the awkward request for your address for those who insist on opting out of an intermediary providing a mapping).
The upside with Mastodon is that it's not a single thing. It's the server, and the web UI, and you can replace either or both. E.g. you can run Pleroma with the Mastodon web UI, or it's own, and there are additional web UI's. Or you can (and people do, and I'm doing so to) build your own, so we'll see a number of choices of platforms that will look very differently.
Personally I hope Elon fails, because it will make things easier, but I think the long term belongs to ActivityPub over Twitter in any case for the simple reason that the presence of ActivityPub means that the threshold to stand up a viable social network has dropped massively. On one hand you have the software you can set up in less than a day (been there, done that), but far more importantly, sign up to a relay and within hours you have an instance that looks lively, even though most toots are via federation. Where there before was a massive chicken and egg scenario, there's now an increasingly vibrant starting point for people to experiment with their own visions for what social media should be, and each one of them will add to the network effects of ActivityPub.
Mastodon may well fail, but social networks has a history of reaching tipping points that very abruptly changes things dramatically. In both directions. But the federated networks are far less vulnerable to people moving elsewhere.
As for the failures of federation, e-mail and mailing lists is the obvious counter. As is the web. Social media is a newfangled baby in comparison to the successful federated services.
Mastodon does not have to monopolize microblogging the way Twitter has, because it isn't competing with Twitter's cursed ad-based revenue model. Similarly, the tiny niches that do migrate are likely more valuable to have than the hordes of Twitter users who never post anything, and just juice the algorithm by liking and retweeting.
They don't fix the upstream issues that lead to centralization. Incentives mean most users end up centralized on a handful of servers with a worse experience. It's the worst of both worlds. As designed the UX is bad and cannot be fixed because of these issues.
Twitter has been a terribly mismanaged company for a long time and there's general consensus on this. Jack knew this, but was powerless to actually make the changes necessary to fix it. Elon may not succeed, but I hope he does and what he's doing is a necessary prerequisite. People dismiss his obvious success elsewhere in other insanely hard domains, they can largely be ignored.
I want a world where people have actual ownership over their computing, but federated system designs like Mastodon will not get us that and we have thirty years of failure to prove it. The press pretending otherwise because they hate Elon and see tech companies as a threat are just embarrassing themselves.
To solve this problem for real is a lot harder, but I'm optimistic it's not impossible. https://zalberico.com/essay/2022/09/28/tlon-urbit-computing-...