[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

San, you surely have some great eyes

I mean in their business model, not looks.

Both are famous for being famous.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I mean in their business model, not looks.

Both are famous for being famous.

OT

But their business model IS their looks!

I think twitter is going to evolve very soon into something else. Keeping people on board for now is just bridging the gap to the next evolution.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

I understand you, but as a very basic, if I am a genuine small business owner looking to engage with my customers, it does help me.

So this depends on what you mean by engagement. If it is entirely one-way (press releases etc.), then it is not useful content and I wouldn't want to see it. If you really want it to be two-way then you cannot handle it the low-cost way. Most brands I think do only the former - I see very few doing the latter. In fact the trend these days seem to be allowing your employees to handle their own two-way conversations (which works well because in many cases, these employees are credible ones who can produce quality content).

This is the theory I'm expounding: Every interaction on Twitter has a much larger number of observers than the participants. It is these observers who make these interactions "viral" by RT/QT-ing, liking etc. If the original interaction becomes less interesting to them then the overall value that those participating in the original interaction derive from Twitter can go down. Giving higher visibility to random $8 types within an interaction might end up doing just that.

Originally Posted by Turbanator

If you are not aware, in the very old days, you need to be someone with somebody's recommendation before you could get a Telephone connection in India

Oh I am totally aware. When I left home for higher studies in the early nineties, my father applied for a telephone connection. It was provisioned 7 years later, after I completed my graduation and was earning my own keep for a while. I seem to recall I had a mobile phone before my father got his BSNL landline.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Notable figure is a very subjective term. Rakhee Sawant doesn't get blue tick, but Kim Kardashian does? I don't see a difference between them. Rakhee Sawant does have 10 million followers on Instagram.

Looking at the rules, I don't see why Ms. Sawant can't get it (except the activity requirements). So maybe - she didn't apply for it? Her account is inactive on Twitter so perhaps she doesn't care for the blue tick.

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing...ified-accounts

Originally Posted by Samurai

Twitter is a B2B business, and they should act like it. If paying customers want a blue tick as a sign of verification, give it.

The question is, what do their customers want? The blue tick in the UI or the increased brand visibility, safety etc. that comes with it? If the latter then Twitter shouldn't be doing things that would jeopardise that value proposition of the blue tick.

[harshaguduru]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Yes, agreed on both counts. Point being that the unpaid bills either by the Pentagon or the British agency (because he offered Starlink for free initially if I recall?) are becoming an issue only after Ukraine rebuffed his peace brokering.

The unpaid bills are as issue because few organizations paid for few months just like a prepaid topup and didn't recharge. Which is why a few of them disconnected.
Ukraine has received multiple billions worth of aid so far. How much has been used to buy weapons from American allies vs taking care of public. The skew is eye opening.

Even more interesting and noteworthy is that Musk offered internet for communication, humanitarian aid connectivity. He did mention that he won't support the military as his mission is to further humanity.
The downed starlinks are the military ones which are used among others to kill their enemies while defending themselves.
It's the same logic as giving a knife for cutting vegetables vs killing someone. Intent matters.



So basically if someone offers to give charity of let's say a 100 ambulance and gets credit for it and refuses to maintain them. And the manufacturer offers to give 5 ambulances from their CSR budget and maintains them. Then as per your logic, the manufacturer should automatically assume ownership of maintaining all the donated vehicles while the original gift giver escapes. Is that not too unfair.
Musk offered a set number of terminals and continues to maintain. Whereas all others give up probably because they realise they bit more than they can chew and Elon gets the flak?


Even the so called twitter ad boycott is so hypocritical at its core. Because these same advertisers continue to advertise in other media with obvious bias and political motive.

But I guess it's fashionable to pick on individual narratives as it suits them. And they have every right to do as they please , as organizations and individuals have. Just as Elon Musk has.

I'm no great Musketeer but can't help feel pity about the amount of unjust criticism he gets. Even the likes of Nirav Modi and mallya don't seem attract this much notoriety

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by harshaguduru

Even the so called twitter ad boycott is so hypocritical at its core. Because these same advertisers continue to advertise in other media with obvious bias and political motive.

Is this your opinion, or backed up by facts?

Please read up on what happened in Digital Content #NewFronts and why Twitter wasn't able to sell ad revenue blocks.
It seems like every year Twitter sells a bulk of their ad slots in advance likely at a discount but guaranteeing them ad revenue.

This time they couldn't because they were in the middle of a hostile takeover and couldn't assuage questions from advertising companies on their road map.

It was a tough situation and for sure I don't blame the new owners for this but now the new team in charge of marketing can correct it.

I wouldn't call that hypocritical. Advertising agencies need to have a clear direction of the platform before putting in the money.

What's hypocritical and genuinely absurd is what's going on now. Please see screenshot below. How is this the right way to engage with the very advertising and marketing community that are "woke" and "boycotting"? This seems so immature and petulant.

[harshaguduru]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Is this your opinion, or backed up by facts?

.

Not an opinion. Based on the statements issued by Pfizer etc that they are stopping ads because of how content moderation will play out despite no statements issued by a company that does 5billion dollars in ad revenue. Just because of how his actions are being portrayed.

Not because of bot accounts or because of concerns about the organizations future.
.

Whereas there is no statement issued about various other media organizations which have blatant left or right wing leanings.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that Pfizers Viagra ads run blatantly on sites like 4chan etc which are notorious for their unfiltered content including hate speech, bigotry, amongst other things.

Regarding Elon Musk blocking someone, I think he is every right to. Isn't that a fundamental right for everyone? However,

If you followed that thread and the actual poster it's quite interesting . He added 50percent more followers but was surprisingly not blocked by Elon a few hours after the issue. Now I don't know whether he was blocked on purpose or accidentally and with Elon you never really know. But all the people promoting this particular screenshot seemed to have missed that one fact. Another interesting fact is that this gentleman raised a hue and cry about being blocked but when he posted about what happened doesn't tag Elon. Giving him the benefit of doubt that he probably didn't tag Elon by mistake but he never has failed to tag Elon in every tweet that criticizes him

With respect to myself, I'm just waiting to see how this drama unfolds, because he's done some incredible things, both in terms of success and stupidity and much of Elon Musk day to day life is like a M Night Shyamalan movie, you never know what the twist is.

But a decade old company losing 3million dollars a day is a burning ship. The water used to douse the flames seem to be sinking the ship.

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by harshaguduru

Not an opinion.

Umm ok so we clearly have differing opinions so I'll leave it at that. Just a few rejoinders.

1. The guy did tag Elon in his reply, you can see in the screenshot
2. His block was reverted later, which only adds to my theory of advertisers being scared of a CEO who works on whims
3. Him blocking someone as an individual is perfectly OK. But as a CEO, with outsize influence on the decision of the platform (he is the sole owner and there is no board anymore)? Is that OK? If that's freedom, then why is it hypocritical if the advertising companies vote with their feet? Free speech and freedom go both ways
4. Twitter publicly reported their accounts data. They were losing $40k approximately per day, not $3 million. Still a lot but not at that scale. Unless they were falsifying their regulatory filings or Musk knows something more than we do, in either case someone is lying

I've been on Twitter for more than 9 years and a regular user for 7 of them, and seen it evolve. It's been a platform with a lot of visibility but very little revenue and the founder and board couldn't fix it. Musk can perhaps change all of that and make it a more profitable business.

But for that to happen he needs to step back and not be the Chief Townhall Speaker. Right now its looking like a dumpster fire honestly. Advertisers don't want drama, they prefer brand safety and stability.

Personally I think he is acting in bad faith and pandering to a certain political group, and at the same time antagonising the other. It is sad and detrimental for the product. But this is just my own opinion and we'll see how it goes.

Anyway I've said all I could've so will watch this thread as a reader now with great interest.

[binand]

Originally Posted by harshaguduru

Based on the statements issued by Pfizer etc that they are stopping ads because of how content moderation will play out despite no statements issued by a company that does 5billion dollars in ad revenue. Just because of how his actions are being portrayed.

Are you saying that interpretations of his actions are misleading; advertisers must wait for his statements before committing to anything? That firing the entire human rights, ethics & accountability and accessibility teams are simply being portrayed wrongly?

Anyway, I came across this opinion piece dated 28/10 that now sounds remarkably prescient:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/28/...ech-moderation

you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers "brand safety."

[harshaguduru]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Umm ok so we clearly have differing opinions so I'll leave it at that. Just a few rejoinders.

4. Twitter publicly reported their accounts data. They were losing $40k approximately per day, not $3 million. Still a lot but not at that scale. Unless they were falsifying their regulatory filings or Musk knows something more than we do, in either case someone is lying

.

Publicly reported Q2 loss was 270 million net and 334 gross,
Averages to 3million a day. It's on their website. No one is lying.

The tagging of Elon I am referring is in the clarification post. If you follow the poster you'll understand what I mean.

Anyway putting this to a rest here. Will be joining you in watching the scene unfold.

[extreme_torque]

I would be very cautious to take anything, especially by the mainstream media, about Twitter or Elon seriously these days. They dont even do basic fact check if it suits their narrative. Case in point "Ligma Johnson".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21vgmu1_jyI

I am also a Tesla stock investor and given what I know about the company and my own deep research, the mainstream media almost never gets it right.

[volkman10]

Twitter is delaying rollout of account verifications for paid Twitter Blue subscription plan .



More announcements from Elon Musk:

Any twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended

Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning. This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue

Any name change will cause temporary loss of verified checkmark

[PreludeSH]

After Friday's mass layoffs, Twitter now asks some fired workers to please come back

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...campaign=cppst


Not sure if these important people would like to join back

[Bluengel180]

I'm surprised at people still defending Elon after his behaviour post takeover.

He's just on a personal vendetta spree. This doesn't make sense from either a business or a moral standpoint.

Businesses do NOT want a toxic platform. Defend free speech all you want but when everyone is allowed to say anything they want it becomes a pig pen. The kind of advertiser's that pay the big bucks do not want thier reputation stained. Also good luck in getting people to pay for SM.

Be anti left all you want but it's becoming increasingly apparent that Elon only bought Twitter as a personal grudge against some audiences and his actions post takeover only highlight that. Guy is a visionary in certain fields but his outlook towards some topics is extremely problematic.

Twitter will survive but not sure for how long. The blue tick added credibility to tweets as it meant it was coming from verified and known people from the society. It did not offer any additional incentives apart from authenticity. Make that a paid feature with zero background checks and it's just a recipe for fake news to thrive. Also don't have too much of confidence when a single user has all the power and has shown himself to be petty. There is a reason why his ex- acquaintances deleted thier accounts just before his takeover.

[harshaguduru]

Originally Posted by binand

Are you saying that interpretations of his actions are misleading; advertisers must wait for his statements before committing to anything? That firing the entire human rights, ethics & accountability and accessibility teams are simply being portrayed wrongly?

Any interpretation whether it is mine or yours is always one-sided which is why there is healthy discourse. The exception being illegal activities which are easy to interpret.

What I mean is that organizations with ad budgets - should have waited for an official statement or raised a query, Q&A with their vendor before blaming the stoppage of AD's on One person's actions. So far there is no change in their brand values or statements so why pause for that reason? The real reason to pause would be if Twitter would survive the purge and that makes business sense.
FYI META is planning a large-scale layoff in the next few weeks would advertisers boycott? They won't because FB helps make them money through ads and so far Twitter doesn't do much other than for influencer accounts.
Having tried all media for ad placements, twitter was the worst followed by linked in for us. but it may be just the healthcare segment. A few of my friends working in the Recruitment space swear by LinkedIn and how they make 10-20x on ad spends there. D2C guys love insta and FB. Twitter has no relevant audience for targeting for the price they charge. At best what we got was spam and bots following us.

Honestly, I fail to understand what the ethics and accountability teams at Social Media organizations do (I mean all of them). There is no filtration. The bias is very obvious. Half my Twitter followers are bots, I am sure. I get 8-10 messages a week for crypto scams on Twitter which seems to have stopped now but not sure if it's due to the changes or just my luck. (attaching those too). In fact how Twitter moderates my feed is a mystery to me because for close to 3 months last year nearly every post that was recommended was with fake news about covid. For the 1st few days, I reported and reported the accounts but then I gave up.

A few months ago my company's new Twitter account was blocked for posting content in violation of their safety guidelines. Attaching that post it was a generic byte about senior citizens' mental health.
We raised a review and get a get an apology email that it was accidental but we lost the handful of followers we had.
We have submitted for verification at least 20 times and never made the cut. But I magically see Twitter cronies who had zero tweets and ZERO posts and less than 1500 followers with verified ticks. I personally know someone who paid around 2000USD to get a Twitter verification.
The story is the same across all SM platforms.
At least with Insta, it's out and out transactional and we pay and get value.

Twitter has been a great idea that was lost in the space of execution and bending to public pressure. Even the founder Jack Dorsey has said so in many interviews.
I remember my cousin who used to work there quit because he said its worse than a govt job in India, weeks went by before he was assigned any work and was loving the perks (their food is supposed to be awesome and he was allowed to pack dinner at the office before going home) but being in a very early stage of his career he quit to join another organization because he needed to work to sharpen his skills.

[nareshov]

D2C guys love insta and FB

Of course they do. Slave trade, etc. Looks like “too much” freedom of speech.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/fac...ts-11631812953

The complete series: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fac...es-11631713039

Facebook Inc. knows, in acute detail, that its platforms are riddled with flaws that cause harm, often in ways only the company fully understands. That is the central finding of a Wall Street Journal series, based on a review of internal Facebook documents, including research reports, online employee discussions and drafts of presentations to senior management.

Time and again, the documents show, Facebook’s researchers have identified the platform’s ill effects. Time and again, despite congressional hearings, its own pledges and numerous media exposés, the company didn’t fix them. The documents offer perhaps the clearest picture thus far of how broadly Facebook’s problems are known inside the company, up to the chief executive himself.

01 Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt
By Jeff Horwitz



02 Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Many Teen Girls, Company Documents Show
By Georgia Wells, Jeff Horwitz and Deepa Seetharaman


03 Facebook Tried to Make Its Platform a Healthier Place. It Got Angrier Instead.
By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz


04 Facebook Employees Flag Drug Cartels and Human Traffickers. The Company’s Response Is Weak, Documents Show.
By Justin Scheck, Newley Purnell and Jeff Horwitz


05 How Facebook Hobbled Mark Zuckerberg’s Bid to Get America Vaccinated
By Sam Schechner, Jeff Horwitz and Emily Glazer


06 Facebook’s Effort to Attract Preteens Goes Beyond Instagram Kids, Documents Show
By Georgia Wells and Jeff Horwitz


07 Facebook’s Documents About Instagram and Teens, Published
By Wall Street Journal Staff

08 Is Sheryl Sandberg’s Power Shrinking? Ten Years of Facebook Data Offers Clues
By Stephanie Stamm, John West and Deepa Seetharaman

09 The Facebook Whistleblower, Frances Haugen, Says She Wants to Fix the Company, Not Harm It
By Jeff Horwitz


10 Facebook Says AI Will Clean Up the Platform. Its Own Engineers Have Doubts.
By Deepa Seetharaman, Jeff Horwitz and Justin Scheck


11 How Many Users Does Facebook Have? The Company Struggles to Figure It Out
By Sam Schechner and Jeff Horwitz


12 Facebook Increasingly Suppresses Political Movements It Deems Dangerous
By Jeff Horwitz and Justin Scheck


13 Facebook Services Are Used to Spread Religious Hatred in India, Internal Documents Show
By Newley Purnell and Jeff Horwitz

14 Facebook’s Internal Chat Boards Show Politics Often at Center of Decision Making
By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz

15 Is Facebook Bad for You? It Is for About 360 Million Users, Company Surveys Suggest
By Georgia Wells, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff Horwitz


16 Facebook Allows Stolen Content to Flourish, Its Researchers Warned
By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz


17 Facebook’s Pushback: Stem the Leaks, Spin the Politics, Don’t Say Sorry
By Keach Hagey, Georgia Wells, Emily Glazer, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff Horwitz

Does one platform deplatforming a source of misinformation and enabler of violence under the garb of freedom of speech excuse the other platform where the eyes-wide-open deterioration of our society happens right in front of us.