Elon Musk launches $43 billion bid to take Twitter private
Trending on Indie Hackers
How to Publish a Blog Post on HackerNoon (Free for Founders)
How to Publish a Blog Post on HackerNoon (Free for Founders)
It's hard to argue against Twitter having significant potential that it hasn't unlocked. And, historically, it's been very unwise to bet against private companies run by Elon.
What are some goals Twitter could hit that would make it substantially better? Three things seem obvious to me:
(1) Fix their ad game. I'd never advertise on Twitter, nor would practically anyone else, nobody clicks on Twitter ads.
(2) Make the new user experience better. Twitter is intimidating and of questionable value to new signups, whereas IG, TikTok, etc., seem to be instantly grokkable. Almost none of my non-tech friends and relatives use Twitter.
(3) Become the home for meaningful media. Twitter is the very top of the funnel where news breaks. It's almost a primary source. If you control the top of a funnel, you should be at an advantage for directing what happens later down the funnel. And in media, that seems to be where where all the value is. All of these creators and politicians and journalists who vacuum up information from Twitter, end up creating their most meaningful content elsewhere — on YouTube, on podcasts, in newsletters, as articles and blog posts. Twitter should be doing more to keep them on Twitter. Instead, it's difficult to get anything more than vapid thought leadership threads.
I love this guy's take on new tech. Here's his thoughts on the business model of twitter: https://marker.medium.com/fixing-twitters-broken-business-model-73c8a675103b.
Personally I'd love to see subscription revenue put into place. Could be an interesting contrast to the other ad-supported social networks. I wonder how that would change the types of things the platform optimizes for if it no longer is funded by ads.
That is actually a great idea. At least it would make running bots more expensive.
A good idea ! probably makes sense to charge those who use the platform as a megaphone, like politicians or Musk himself :)
I believe Twitter is A/B testing their new Membership feature where you can subscribe to individual creators for a premium content.
I saw one profile today with a pink subscription button and a pop-up with a "landing page" for the membership. Forgot to take a screeshot. :)
Elon has said that his ultimate aim is to make Twitter into a "platform for free speech around the globe."
I think what that actually means is he doesn't like how Twitter moderates content.
But, as a private-sector company, under USA law, Twitter has the right to moderate content, block users, etc:
There's nothing about Elon taking over Twitter that would change how free speech is governed in the USA.
If it's truly "free speech" that Elon is concerned about, he should be petitioning the US government to change its laws:
The only way to truly make Twitter a "platform for free speech" is if the <gulp> USA government took it over and make it a part of the commons (in the same way you can speak freely on a street corner).
Currently, Twitter is governed by multiple board members and is accountable to millions of shareholders (who get to vote on certain decisions). As David Kaye, a UC Irvine law professor commented to the Verge, as a private company Musk would silence all those voices:
Nothing Musk is proposing would change how Twitter currently relates to free speech laws in the USA.
This is just a chance for Musk to impose his personal preferences/ideology on how content is moderated. That's not "improving free speech."
I've summarized my thoughts (and the research) on Elon Musk/Twitter here:
https://justinjackson.ca/elon-musk-and-free-speech
Me thinks there's a middle ground between "a private company can do anything it wants" vs. "government should take over social media companies."
But maybe that's just me.
The greater the power any particular entity wields over society (a government, a corporation, an organization, even an individual), the greater the regulation and checks and balances needed for that particular entity.
One version of "middle ground" is likely something similar to what the EU has implemented:
But I'm not sure Elon and his fellow "free speech absolutists" would like this approach because it likely means more legislation.
Personally, I'm in favor of more legislation.
My earlier comment was that for something to truly be "the town square" it needs to be public. I can kick you out of my pub for speaking your mind, but you're then free to speak on the street corner. Twitter will never be a 'public square' if it is owned by private entities.
I think there are reasons for optimism.
It's true we can't run the counterfactual and see how SpaceX and Tesla would've fared under different leadership in some alternate universe. But whether we like Elon or not, it remains true that building successful, home-grown, private space and electric car companies are both rare and impressive feats. We can question the means he used to build those companies, but the mark of a good CEO is often doing whatever it takes, even if that means figuring out how to move mountains and get government grants.
Even for the most boring, straightforward, this-has-already-been-done-before breed of companies, the smart bet is usually that most startups won't succeed, let alone succeed spectacularly. It would've been smart to bet against SpaceX and Tesla, but those who did lost their money.
Twitter seems similar to me. Yet another difficult company with thorny problems in an industry outside of Elon's area of expertise. Betting against his success and his vision is probably still the smart decision, but I think his track record is worthy of some optimism here.
Hey! I removed the counterfactual argument (even though, I think there's some exploration to be done there).
But, overall I think it's a distraction from the main point, which is Elon saying this is a move to "improve free speech globally."
So far he hasn't really talked about any business outcomes. In his SEC filing he said:
Twitter is a powerfully influential platform for ideas and information. The past "moderation," while compliant with US free speech laws, looks a lot like censorship. Elon wants to moderate less and allow people to make up their own minds.
When you agree with the people in charge of censoring information, you tend to be ok with it, even if it is being misused. There are a lot of people that are not ok with it.
Regardless of who's in charge of Twitter, Indie Hackers, FB, Reddit, etc.. someone has to moderate the content. That means making choices about what to allow/disallow, filter, who to block etc.
You might disagree with the way Twitter is being moderated, but regardless of who owns it, there will always be a need to block "material that is considered harmful" on private platforms.
Keep in mind, Elon is also known for silencing voices ("and not allowing people to make up their own minds"):
☝️ To use your own words: "if you agree with Elon being in charge of censorship, you tend to be ok with it, even if it is being misused."
I think Elon only bought Twitter out of vanity. I'm not convinced that he's got any real ideas for Twitter, and I'm sure he did it just to get himself in the news.
The guy has undoubtably made some products, Tesla, Paypal, ect, but every horse eventually runs it's last race, and I don't think he's going to just continuously hit home runs. We're already starting to see the cracks in his armor when it comes to Tesla and the quality of their cars.
I'm not knocking the guy, but I don't think he can just assume he has a midus (I don;'t know how to spell this word) touch. When a company is as large as Twitter, there are rarely any changes get made, and I don't think Elons going to dramatically change how the app handles or feels.
To me, this is a nothing burger.
We can't look into Elon's head, but when looking at history, he probaly has some huge plans for it.
I remember him saying that paypal has failed to deliver. If it was up to him, there wouldn't be any other banks except paypal.
So the real question is probably if he's serious or just joking around.
How the crap does he manage Tesla, SpaceX, Neurolink, AND TWITTER? So hard to manage even one startup :P
Meanwhile I am struggling to juggle a full-time job and trying to bootstrap something on the side.
Yeah, see this is my question. How many desks can a single person sleep under simultaneously? I don't doubt Elon's competence, but I do have doubts about his mental and emotional bandwidth.
Although I agree with you here, I don't think 'he' is totally entangled in every decision or fact of each company. I am sure he has key individuals who provide him daily updates, probably high-level and key issues (still I'm sure that's a lot of work).
I also think he uses his mental state to his advantage.. He has indicated himself that his brain never stops thinking, conjuring ideas, and that energy needs to be displaced somewhere.. so he starts companies and iterates constantly. Not sure what is worse, holding in those ideas/thoughts or getting them out?
Elon is not invincible... but if TWT doesn't accept his offer, he will just build his own variation of it, IMO.
I think it's a valid question, but obviously he's been doing a good job of it so far. I don't know how well Neuralink is doing, but Tesla and SpaceX have greatly exceeded everyone's expectations despite being extraordinarily difficult companies to run. Elon has a track record, and it's hard to doubt it.
It's kind of like if a random person said they were going to win an NBA championship, I'd be doubtful. But if it was Michael Jordan saying it in his prime, I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am really becoming concerned. His mental state has cracks all around as he is sacrificing his own life's time by fully dedicating to his "greater cause" of doing what's best for humanity.
What I appreciate is how he is working on fast forwarding Humankind's state into a multi-planet species, but on the other hand, I hope he doesn't drop where he stands because he's burning himself out.
We've found high profile performers (mostly entertainers) dead on the bathroom floor for doing less intensive lives.
Besides being concerned for the man himself, I hope his decision-making process won't crumble down on him so he starts making bad decisions that destroy more than he's building.
As a sidenote: When you're having the means, and are able to have an impact on a scale that Elon does, you can't do it right by everyone (times 10!). Yes he can spend his money on helping poor people, yes he could communicate differently, yes this and that.
I really think he's set himself a vision of what's important to humankind to evolve AND to him self, and he's going from there.
I really think a good move of him would be to stop doing all by himself, start setting up an "avengers" team of good trustworthy people that he can delegate to so all the stuff that's ongoing can be (and stay) managed properly.
Curious to see how this Twitter thing will be going forward and what the impact will be.
I wonder if this is as much Musk's desire to work in a new field (for him) as it is to realize a business opportunity? I suppose it doesn't matter but it feels like a departure for him from world-changing technologies.
Honestly, I think Twitter is world-changing. Or could be. It's the closest thing we have to a global public square. It's full of influential people (including policymakers) sharing their thoughts with each other and the public, they can all be reached directly and instantaneously, and it even has the ability to elevate random people to positions of prominence in discussions.
I remember reading Ender's Game as a kid, and near the end (spoiler alert) a pair of genius sibling children utilize anonymous personas on "The Nets" to share ideas and gain political power by writing influential essays. I always thought that was so cool. Twitter is the closest thing we have to that.
If Elon can't have twitter, then no one should!
agree
He just wants to add an "editing option" to the tweets. Finally ;)
Hmm, surely there is always room (twitter is no exception) in every product to make it better and who other than Elon can be expected to have never ending flow of tech ideas. I would say good on him to take initiative to make it even better but I would be concerned a tiny bit more regarding a solo person having deciding power over a social platform like Twitter.
It was quite a foreseen move, for me. Still, I just have this feeling that he might not actually be buying Twitter in the end. As in, what if all this is just for PR? Marketing? Twitter shares would surely soar up high whatever the outcome is. $54.20? That's him indirectly influencing the value of Twitter shares. And Elon has always been a witty guy, especially with social media. But it'd be interesting if he does purchase Twitter anyway.
Look at the Twitter Stock Price... it is going down. Everyone know that his bid is just to drive up the price so he can sell his 15% for a profit. That is one of the reasons to pick such an absurd number, he never expects to pay it.
He is already in trouble because he illegally bought the 15% of twitter that he already has his hands on.
Why he is trying to buy twitter so hard?
who knows, may be something is coming soon.
Is Elon an indie hacker in some way? 🤔
I'd say he's close to the pinnacle of being free to work on (and bootstrap) your own projects instead of working for the man.
He's the richest man in the world, so he is "The Man." And he does things you would expect The Man to do like busting unions and pretending he pays too much in taxes.
Being an indie hacker isn't about not being the man. It's about not working for the man. Plenty of indie hackers accumulate wealth, manage employees, engage in politics I would disagree with, etc.
At some point, somebody has to lose the "indie" label when they get hundreds of millions in investor funding and government subsidies, even if becoming the richest person in the world somehow doesn't make them lose the label. Being an oligarch is not indie. "Indie" has to mean more than "I don't have a boss," which isn't even technically true for Musk because he has to answer to a board at Tesla where he doesn't have majority voting power.
It is interesting to see what happens if he lets everyone write everything they want.
imho the big issue with this is if you have been a long time Tesla shareholder. Stock has tanked 17% this week.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-twitter-funding-puts-more-of-his-tesla-holdings-at-risk-11651161739
"A key part of the funding plan includes borrowing $12.5 billion from loans backed by more than $62.5 billion worth of Tesla shares that Mr. Musk owns—or about 40% of his stake at Wednesday’s closing price of $881.51."
Understandably, TSLA shareholders are not happy
I saw one content creator called Twitter as Elon Musk's new toy. :) Let's wait for future development he'll introduce to the company.
I haven't read all the comments, but I suggest that the "unlocking of potential" is also about greater representation. My numbers may be off, but I believe only 3% of the world is on Twitter and 95% of content is contributed by 25% of users. Where this becomes a challenge is that 99% of media turn to Twitter for "the pulse" of the people, but it's not truly representative. And we all know that most of the tweets have some ulterior or personal motivation. Maybe I'm being naive, but right now, twitter's main value prop to me is learning and being inspired by people I admire. All the other promo and "news" skims right past me.
Elon Musk should buy Twitter. And shut it down. Yes, really.
Not just tinker round the edges with edit buttons. But lay off all the staff, shutdown the servers and cease trading.
Why?
because he can
it would give a kick up the arse to the big Silicon Valley moguls who have got out of control
grudgingly, we can admit that Twitter has it's uses for business connections. But generally it is a vile and nasty place, and we need a big reset on the internet before it all gets worse
it would give so many people and businesses a big overdue shock, requiring them to rethink how we all live alongside the online world. For example, here in the UK it would be hilarious to watch Sky News scrabble about, trying to figure how to source their news stories without lazily doing a cut/paste from Twitter
Go on, Elon,... do it, do it, do it,... 😊
it would be great if indie hackers didn't turn into another reddit. i don't understand why this was posted here.
Indie Hackers is a place to talk to a particular set of people (ambitious founders) about anything in their wheelhouse.
The community won't grow and survive if we're too restricted with topics. If we artificially ban discussion around relevant news and events, the community will end up rotating through the same repetitive topics over and over, month after month. That appeals to new users who've never seen these discussions before, but gets boring to anyone who's been around for longer than 6 months or so.
fair enough. i myself am new here and have been enjoying the discussions around organic posts from people like me.
Indie hacker pretty much already is like reddit, the rules are very similar, it is just more focused on one type of community (vs. many)
We've got groups, too, similar to how Reddit has sub-Reddits.