That's a matter of perspective.

It’s a matter of historical record that there are no profitable or successful social media companies that could be described as alt-right echo chambers.

The only brands that want to advertise on those sites are scams.

Fox does alright.

I did say social media companies for the record which is what we are actually talking about here.

Fair. It's worth pointing out we have about 20 years of "historical record", and none have attempted to niche down. I would argue both crypto and gold could drive revenue for an alt-right social media platform.

Maybe “revenue” is masking the reality of the situation here.

No alt right echo chamber is ever in a million years going to be able to provide a good return on investment for $44B.

If they go down that path they WILL die which was my original point.

Eh, that almost feels like a strawman argument. Pre-Musk Twitter wasn't worth $44b either. By normal metrics, it only needs to be profitable to sustain.

It might be more accurate to interpret Twitter as a luxury good (from Elon's perspective). Similar to how other billionaires build lavish yachts.

With that being said, there is no argument for his purchase or subsequent actions being construed as a viable investment strategy. The whole debacle looks like child's tantrum.

It’s not a strawman. I’m talking about very concrete facts.

1. There is not a single instance in the entire history of the internet of a profitable alt right social media website that anyone actually uses.

2. The price he paid was indeed so overvalued and has only dramatically dropped in value since then that they can already no longer pay their bills after just 7 weeks.

You are but it's ignoring other concrete facts. The concept of alt-right social media is ~2 years old.

1. Facebook took 5 years to become profitable.

2. Twitter took 12 years.

3. Instagram had no revenue before Facebook bought it.

Gab is nearing age 6. Stormfront and chans with alt-right focus have been around longer than 2 years. Qanon began on 4chan over 5 years ago. Rumble is 9 years old at a $2B market cap with no profits in sight. Parler is over 4 years old and tried to sell itself by tricking Kanye West.

Rumble and Gab should be profitable now if you brought up FB becoming profitable at 5. This is all before FB found it’s mobile ads focus and became the behemoth it is now.

The argument still works even at a $24B valuation (45% discounted). No right wing platform is going to be worth $25B in the foreseeable future.

No crypto company is worth that much. Coinbase market cap is under $10B. Binance can’t really be trusted and isn’t transparent. We don’t know how much true crypto activity there is. Most daily activity could be wash trading and other activities that don’t help a legit platform. We don’t know if crypto can be a strong part of a huge right wing platform. There’s no reason to believe it can be in the foreseeable future.

Fox owned MySpace and failed spectacularly with it. They technically tried niching down when they sold the site to Justin Timberlake. Fox itself is doing well enough, but only has a market cap of $16B including their non-right wing assets too.

Truth and Gab have to use non right wing code for their platforms. Code that the coders don’t want either platform to use. Truth wasn’t even giving them credit before.

Right wing TV in the US stays afloat by being part of basic cable packages.

How is "alt-right" different from general "right-wing"? Regardless, AM radio is probably the closest thing, although call-in shows are very low-tech as a form of "social media".

I don’t know.. probably more into school shootings and racism than usual?

I didn’t pick the term, I was replying to a comment that used it. I was just trying to keep it consistent.

Fair enough, but you have to realize that nobody calls themselves "alt-right" with the philosophy "Oh boy, more racism and school shootings is just what this country needs."

I’ve yet to see a single consistent principle from them to be fair. Reactionary is kind of their defining feature. I was more talking about the outcomes that tend to follow them around.

If you summed up the American right as "We don't all agree what we want, but it's certainly not this. It was better before," I think most right-wingers would agree. "Reactionary" is thrown around as though all sweeping change is progress, and that's not necessarily true.

I feel like maybe you’re responding to an argument I’m not actually making. I don’t disagree with anything you just said in that post.

My point was that you're never going to find consistent principles in a group that's really a coalition of the persistently unhappy, beyond "this isn't progress".

Have people like Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer, Matt Walsh, or Alex Jones never said that sort of stuff? I’d be shocked if none have. I’ve seen Walsh and Fuentes say unhinged insanity and call for the persecution if not death of some marginalized groups.

Yes they do; the phrase was coined by Richard Spencer. They even had a website: AlternativeRight.com