sam bankman-fried is closer to Musk opponents at every angle you look at. and btw those opponents crowned sam bankman fried while they hate musk in every newspaper you can buy in the US

What opponents? You mean in the tech VC world? Cause the rest of us are disillusioned with both of them.

pretty much every newspaper, tv journalist and a big chunk of the politicians. its easy just look at everyone that gave money to Sam Bankman and try to link see what those people think of Musk. I guarantee you the spread will be something like 90% against Musk

> It is frustrating to watch people continuously buy into his complete lack of vision or execution.

"Hey, look over there! I'll make the 6 Million Dollar Man!"

I'm pretty sure he just watches 80s TV for vaporware announcement ideas to use when there's bad press to suppress.

I really dislike Musk - but it does seem like sometimes - he has a really strong vision.

Tesla and SpaceX and StarLink are really impressive from a "had a vision for something on a broadly positive world-changing scale, successfully executed it" perspective.

With Twitter, I'm not sure he actually has a vision.

The best realistic pro-Musk argument you can make is that he can be a real ass, but he's an ass whose companies tend to do amazing things. With Twitter, the best I can come up with is that he had a personal grudge against the platform, and the means to take pattiness to unheard of scales.

It almost feels Trumpian in its need to remove any trace of what was built before he took over.

Wait until he sues for the founder title.

Yeah, I suspect he's going to start calling himself "the creator/founder of X" soon

That's technically accurate, isn't it? Twitter is the pea under a stack of shells named X, each founded by Musk. The accuracy of that title only loses specificity when he renames Twitter to X.

I FOUNDED THE HOLDING COMPANY GODDAMNIT! GIVE ME THE RESPECT I DESERVE!

Well, he is the cofounder of X(.com). It just took a few decades to fully execute his vision.

I don't think it's nonsense. Patreon, OnlyFans, etc are basically things that should've been apart of Twitter UX from the jump, all with a simple 'Subscribe ($X /month)' button, the overlap in their user interfaces is no accident. IG is already trying to do this as well already, but its niche limits its scale.

I would hazard a guess that pre-Musk Twitter, for whatever reason, had fears around bringing payments onto the service, particularly in the case of sexual content and resolving that, but this led to a situation where other services spring up to fill that void.

However, Twitter Blue was a case of having your cake-and-eating-it-too where I think Musk wanted a story on cash flow not dependent on ads ASAP. In truth, Twitter Blue should've exclusively been a service tier for creators who want to monetize content on Twitter; a case naturally requiring verificaiton. That would've given an incentive and a rationale to the extant pre-Musk creator class that bemoaned its introduction, but Musk really fucked that up by trying to exploit Right wing allegations of Twitter being biased towards the Left (which it never was, rather, the reverse was true[0]) to make up for freaking out advertisers.

[0]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-a...

> I don't think it's nonsense. Patreon, OnlyFans, etc are basically things that should've been apart of Twitter UX from the jump, all with a simple 'Subscribe ($X /month)' button, the overlap in their user interfaces is no accident. IG is already trying to do this as well already, but its niche limits its scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by its niche. There are way more Instagram users than Twitter ones, and they are way more exposed to products. It sounds like a much better fit for Instagram than Twitter.

I don't see much overlap with Twitter and Patreon (or only fans). YouTube has more overlap with Patreon and did finally get a channel membership/paid subscription thing although I'm not sure how popular that is.

Actually it is closer to Zuckerberg‘s meta rebrand. You don't save a company by slapping in a new brand and wasting billions on VR without doing market research.

Yes, that rebrand is also foolish, but it's not hard to see that Facebook is way better positioned to actually fulfill the "everything" app than others are. Facebook marketplace is huge.

Plus I would think by this point in human events we understand that nothing that does everything actually does anything well. This is a terrible idea. At least he's had a financial hit because if it, nothing else has any change of convincing him otherwise. Even he knows it's a bad idea, which is why he never actually wor4ked towards it.