585
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 109 points 2 years ago

Imagine cribbing notes from a guy that has seen the social network he purchased drop in value by 2/3rds.

[-] Widget@kbin.social 36 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I still can't figure out what sort of mentality makes that seem like a good idea.

For Musk there's at least a chance of some sort of thought process going on there. Narcissistic people tend to think that everyone else is just like them (although maybe a lesser version of themselves.) Musk has had a very serious addiction to Twitter for a long time, therefore everyone has a very serious addiction to Twitter, therefore we can charge people a ton of money for their Twitter and since they can't leave they'll have to pay for it. And legal repercussions? Why, he's never seen those in his life!

Maybe spez is the same, just with a bunch of alt accounts so that he can post in /r/jailbait or whatever. I can see why he might want to turn reddit into 9gag if that's all he's ever used it for himself and isn't capable of understanding the concept of other people having different uses for it.

But at some point he must notice that it's not been going well? Right?

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

greed is helluva drug. i think the simpler explanation is he thought it's all going to bring him more profit

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

i mean, depending on what do you want to do, this might be a good idea. their motivations remain unknown, maybe they wanted to burn the place to the ground before an ipo, you never know

[-] 4am@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I’d bet there’s gonna be some ~~Saudi~~ House of Saud money in that IPO.

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

as in, who would like to see that place burn? like russian govt wanted to, and did destroy livejournal because it was a nest of opposition. i don't know who would that be, but there are some solid candidates

[-] Ech@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

maybe they wanted to burn the place to the ground before an ipo, you never know

I admittedly don't know much about IPOs, but...wouldn't that tank the value and lessen the profit from said IPO?

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

sure, if your incentives are purely economic, then it does not make sense. but, just look at what musk did with twitter - he burned bulk of its value, sure, but he also had ideological incentives to flood that place with altright chuds, and that worked. this does not make sense here tho

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 86 points 2 years ago

CEOs are psychopaths, especially tech CEOs. they're all either publicly or privately glad elon took the PR hit of being the first to cut off 3PAs and make the site fucking garbage

[-] cybervseas@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

Sociopaths. But yes I otherwise agree with you.

[-] Cinner@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They're both extremely similar words so it's no surprise people get them mixed up, like psychologist vs psychiatrist. However I don't see a sociopath ever becoming the CEO of a successful (at any point) company.

I don't even know that spez is a psychopath, but he's absolutely panicking and in way over his head.

[-] PBCrisps@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Small nitpick, but psychopaths do not lack empathy. In fact, they have a high level of empathy. It's how they can exploit and manipulate others so well. They would not be so successful if they were not aware of other people's insecurities, and how to manipulate those insecurities to their advantage.

[-] Cinner@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

From my understanding, they have a sense of cold empathy where they can very easily identify the feelings that someone is feeling in order to manipulate them, but they do not actually feel those feelings themselves, so they aren't actually empathizing. They don't feel sad when they see someone crying, but they can certainly understand they're sad and they know how they should react to it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago

Imagine cribbing notes from a guy that has seen the social network he purchased drop in value by 2/3rds.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Step 1 - buy company for billions of dollars

Step 2 - do stupid shit with it

Step 3 - lose billions as valuations drop

Step 4 - ???

Step 5 - profit, apparently

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

AKA "How to MySpace your social media site."

[-] wwaxwork@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Nah. The MySpace guy sold his company for half a billion, retired and lived happily ever after while the people that bought it off of him had to watch their investment slowly die.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Yes. And News Corp, who spent $800 million on MySpace, fucked it up and sold it ten years later for about a tenth of what they paid for it. Which is the incident I was referring to.

[-] wwaxwork@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

But the guy who created it got out fine, which was what I was referring to. Much like the Twitter creators. They understood the limited lifetime these things have and sold them to fools who thought they knew better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hikarulsi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Step 4 is money laundry

[-] Nivekk@kbin.social 48 points 2 years ago

Imagine watching Twitter circle the drain and thinking "I should make similar decisions"

[-] enragedchowder@lemmy.ca 37 points 2 years ago

Fascinating to watch the internet get worse and worse in real time. It seems enshitification is inevitable for any big and centralized website

[-] TurretCoil@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

We're just swinging back towards decentralization, in 10 years we'll be going the other way again.

[-] enragedchowder@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

Honestly I don’t think we will see much of a swing. The people who are fed up with it will move to platforms like this while the vast majority will remain on sites like Reddit or twitter. It’s the same with adblockers, most people don’t bother with them because they just don’t care. That said, I don’t see anything wrong with decentralized sites like lemmy staying on the smaller side, it draws less attention from the same people who have ruined the larger sites.

[-] TorontoPolarBear@startrek.website 35 points 2 years ago

That's funny, my decision to quit Reddit and delete my accounts there was inspired by my decision to quit Twitter and delete that account.

[-] DeathWearsANecktie@lemmy.fmhy.ml 33 points 2 years ago

Of course Huffman admires Musk, they're both pricks.

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago

This is pretty much confirmation that the API change is just the beginning. I give it two months until users have to pay to become mods.

[-] hikarulsi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Whale whale whale

[-] Senseibu@feddit.uk 27 points 2 years ago

Even I dislike Elon Musk now, used to be a big fan, was difficult for me to come to terms with.

[-] Anti_Weeb_Penguin@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

I also used to be a big fan of musket until i realized what his beliefs were

[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Musk has just ridden on the coattails of others genius and then taken credit for it. His behavior over the past couple of years is borderline moronic.

[-] Anti_Weeb_Penguin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Sadly i didn't know that back then

[-] GreenPlasticSushiGrass@kbin.social 27 points 2 years ago

Here's a Nitter link for those who don't like giving Twitter clicks:

https://nitter.net/MattBinder/status/1669800835843235845#m

[-] MisterMoo@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Is Nitter just a Twitter mirror or is it a separate network?

[-] Kabaka@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Neither, though it behaves a bit like a mirror. It is a Twitter client that fetches data server-side.

Brief summary here: https://nitter.net/about

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

When would tech companies realize that layoffs NEVER increase efficiency? The amount of work getting done is directly proportional to the amount of people at a company, because if a company can increase its work efficiency during normal operations it would have done so already.

[-] andobando@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The amount of work getting done is directly proportional to the amount of people at a company

This is absolutely not true.

This is one of the most well known writings on software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

Besides, its not just about efficiency, but about scope and use of resources. In economic boom cycles there is more capital to play around with non-essential ideas. When that access to capital dries up, so does viability of keeping extra resources for things that are not essential.

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Again, we are talking about how cutting people during regular operation absolutely would not make the team more efficient, not adding people to a project last minute.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] minimar@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

That's not the goal, the goal is to make profits go up now to appeal to shareholders. The future doesn't matter, the CEO can just dip when their money has been made.

[-] MightBeAlpharius@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

It's not just tech companies, though - Twitter and Reddit are circling the drain for the same reason that you can never find an employee in Target and call center waits are so bad. There are two basic ways for a company to increase profits, and everyone is picking the wrong one.

The first way to increase profits is to invest some of them back into the company, by paying staff more/paying for more staff and getting better equipment to enhance the customer experience. This method relies on happy customers sticking with the company, but because of that, it takes time, and they can't immediately tell if it's working, so they might not know if their improvements are actually helping or not for quite a while. A very human analogy for this is trying to improve how much energy you have through self-care, exercise, and a good diet - it'll probably work given time, but it won't do much by tomorrow or next week, and it might even seem actively unpleasant at first.

The second way to increase profits is to cut costs. This is basically instant gratification for businesses: anything they cut is an immediate boost to their profits because it's money that stays in the company's coffers. The flip side of this is that it completely hamstrings their ability to do just about anything. Less staff means more stress on the remaining staff, increased turnover, and less man-hours to devote to projects that might increase profits when completed. Still, companies tend to choose this method because it makes the shareholders happy now and it makes the C-suite look like they made the company a bunch of money. To continue my analogy from earlier, this method is basically like trying to improve your daily energy level by doing cocaine: it works really well right now, but it'll leave you feeling like garbage tomorrow, and if you keep doing it to maintain that energy, you end up feeling worse and worse without it, and eventually you might end up selling something that you need to get more.

So, in short, everything sucks because businesses are now trying to snort up all the cash like they're a 1980s businessman doing lines off the changing table in a public restroom.

[-] rob64@startrek.website 5 points 2 years ago

So, in short, everything sucks because businesses are now trying to snort up all the cash like they're a 1980s businessman doing lines off the changing table in a public restroom.

A particularly apropos analogy because these kinds of business decisions reek of Reaganomics-era thinking.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] exixx@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

I started reading about Lemmy about ten minutes after reading this the first time. I can’t support that kind of stupid

[-] skylestia 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

the Twitter subreddit has been constantly full of people complaining about the changes to Twitter for the last few months lol. i can't imagine having access to that and thinking that copying Twitter is a good idea or something that would be popular

[-] Wage_Slave@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

No lie, I thought the whole time that smug asshole was gonna show up online, or twatting away on the Internets true haven for hate speech, and say he bought reddit or was trying to.

He's rich and fucking dense enough to do it.

[-] ScrumblesPAbernathy@readit.buzz 9 points 2 years ago

Think of the saving of cutting off your nose! Sure, it may spite your face but you have to understand the shareholder value of a leaner face!

[-] AstralWeekends@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] freebrick@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
585 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29150 readers
95 users here now

This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.

Follow us for server news 🐘

Outages 🔥

https://status.lemmy.world

For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.

Support e-mail

Any support requests are best sent to info@lemmy.world e-mail.

Report contact

Donations 💗

If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.

If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us

Ko-Fi (Donate)

Bunq (Donate)

Open Collective backers and sponsors

Patreon

Join the team

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS