He could've bought seats on the board to accomplish this through standard shareholder activism. By committing a leveraged buyout and saddling the company with an additional >1 billion a year in added debt payments, while simultaneously driving advertising revenue into the ground, he's basically sent the company on a beeline toward insolvency.
I’m just saying his goals and his poor ability to achieve them.
If that isn't his main goal, then he must be a bigger idiot than I thought. His actions are observationally identical to that objective. Making a company profitable is not the same as running it into the ground, and his moves toward profitability have been so obviously set up to backfire that he'd have to be wildly incompetent on every level if he thought they were going to work. An answer with more malice is simply much more believable at this point.
WHY would Musk act as a stooge for the Saudis in this way, at a cost of $44 billion? He's the richest man in the world, he doesn't have to do errands for anyone.
"Parag hurt his feelings, so he impulsively and vengefully made a buyout offer. He almost immediately came to his senses, and unsuccessfully tried for months to wiggle out of the deal" fits the fact pattern. Once he realized he actually had to try and run the thing, he failed. It's a lot simpler than the Saudi thing.
Also who exactly financed the purchase of Twitter?
Many have doubted Elon Musk during the early days of Tesla and SpaceX thinking he was incompetent in running those companies and the goals were lofty. People still doubt him with as much ferocity as his fans that adore him. It’s super fascinating IMO.
That being said, I do think Instagram will have some success with threads the same way Reels has been successful in fending off TikTok (as in not made completely irrelevant). People who share on TikTok also cross post on IG reels for more views and for eyeballs that are not on TikTok. I think the same thing will happen, where there will be some crossposting. Twitter still has a large audience - that will still make it relevant for some time.
Article from 2019 Twitter denying any such shadow bans are occurring https://theprint.in/politics/new-allegation-against-twitter-...
Another reference from bbc that shows wire.in removing fake articles about Facebook/meta https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63226111
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyer...
But twitter isn't growing. There isn't an audience for a new twitter for people who haven't used twitter before, because everyone who is a potential user for twitter has already tried it.
So I don't see where the growth will come from, unless meta can force lots of instagram users to actually START using text only. But then they aren't actually destroying twitter, just creating a parallel product for a different audience.
I understand worries of Musk supporting the right, but your interpretation is a unique one that seems highly unlikely.
* Their add platform is truly terrible. Ask anyone who deals in that area to compare it with Meta or Google's and they will laugh.
* They can't ship new products. Since 2008 they have increased the size of tweets from 140 characters to 280 characters, and that is the biggest change. Look how many things Facebook has tried in the same time. Some failed, but lots succeeded.
Also in the history of bad decisions, surely the decision to kill Vine is right up there? Occasionally people still find an old Vine video and share it. What could have been...
Like which ones? Not being sarcastic, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.
(on Facebook core product)
I am leaving out their never really widely launched crypto hype disaster of a product on purpose.
These are pretty major, successful features that drive a lot of use.
I don't disagree with your main point, though: Facebook certainly developed lots of new features, whereas Twitter pretty much stood still.
I don't have any insight into groups, but I do into Marketplace where yes it absolutely did.
I'd be astonished if Pages didn't have a measurable effect too since they are one of the main ways brands (which is a major source of FB revenue) interfaces with FB.
* Facebook Apps (not really a thing anymore. Maybe it still exists)
* Facebook Games (remember Zynga?)
* Facebook Deals (they were taking on GroupOn)
* Messenger (as a separate product. One of the most heavily used products in the world)
* Events (which for many people is the only reason they have an account)
* Facebook Groups (still heavily used)
* Facebook Pages (still heavily used)
* Facebook Video (still heavily used)
* Facebook Marketplace (extremely heavily used in many markets)
* Stories (still heavily used)
* Reels (sort of merged into Videos)
* Facebook Places (big plans, but died)
* Facebook Graph Search (nothing like originally released: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Graph_Search)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/274563/annual-net-income...
My understanding is the majority of those loss years was due to how they accounted for RSUs, however I can’t find that easily right now.
I don’t get the impression that it was at all close to imploding pre-musk. Do you have any links to back up that claim?
He’s trying to make Twitter able to pay its own bills. Twitter has never made money (except once) in its 17 years of existence.
Twitter as it was should not exist. It’s like a bakery that sells loaves for bread for 20c at a loss. It’s going to eventually implode unless something changes.