nuff said

  • drathvedro@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I disagree. Twitter was already going under even before he took over. In fact, it was doomed from the beginning as one of the uber era “grow valuation, think about revenue later”, hoping to exit someday by selling it to some rich megalomaniac, and actually, they’re the ones who succeeded.

    • esty@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      and now he’s doing the same grift with bluesky

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      well, it was actually about ready to start breaking even, and even paying off some debt. there was a path to profitability with twitter, but it was tenuous at best.

      king of the idiots was forced to by it, saddling it with so much dept that that profitability dream was over the moment he became involved.

    • JuliusSeizure@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think twitter is artificially ‘failing’ because of meddling by influential special interests. It is being shunned by some advertisers because he won’t bend the knee to the ESG tyrant bankers.