News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Paul Graham on Twitter's anti-Substack measures: “It's a mistake.”. Parent comment

Re:Paul Graham on Twitter's anti-Substack measures: “It's a ... by 23547234573457 on Saturday April 08, 2023 @02:24AM (#35491028)
Is the Twitter example entirely true though? Arguably Twitters actions helped fuel its buyout from an activist billionaire. That's hardly non-consequence.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Paul Graham on Twitter's anti-Substack measures: “It's a ... by kevinventullo on Saturday April 08, 2023 @02:30AM (#35491059)
And that buyout netted far more money for shareholders than a fair price would have at the time of selling.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Paul Graham on Twitter's anti-Substack measures: “It's a ... by MattGaiser on Saturday April 08, 2023 @02:57AM (#35491175)
Why I don't think anyone at Twitter regrets it.

When have bans and restrictions hurt an established social company of some sort?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Paul Graham on Twitter's anti-Substack measures: “It's a ... by MattGaiser on Saturday April 08, 2023 @02:33AM (#35491075)
Twitter got to sell itself for a significant premium over market that they had to sue to close on, so they won big there.

I see your point though. There are some people willing to take action and if one of those people is the richest in the world, those actions can be quite consequential. But that is one person, not society at large (either the power users of Twitter or the casual users of Twitter). Twitter didn't enter a commercial death spiral for banning Trump.

[ Parent | on HN ]