I want to agree with you. But I cannot.

The matter of the fact is that most governments and newspapers publish on twitter (now X) still. It also serves the purpose of amplifying Musk to a large audience.

If you wanted to transform a public forum into a right -wing echo chamber, then the transformation is a massive success and the platform continues to achieve all relevant objectives.

▲

darth_avocado 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re ignoring the context of the comment here. The parent uses an example of Twitter doing better after laying off 81% of the staff to suggest that other companies could do the same.

While you’re right in that the platform has its uses, other companies cannot do the same. Which is why it’s important to talk about objective success metrics. Sure if you want to fire 80% staff at Microsoft and have a transformation where they only cater to half the user base then they can do it. But they will also not be taking in the same profits as before.

	▲	ArcHound 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Good points. Viewing it from the lens of the original business model or mission, it's a disaster. I don't think it's right, but I can see how a billionaire just completely overrides the company mission and business model after they buy enough shares or something. Maybe there are other non-obvious use-cases for other companies, where you're effectively buying the user base to then pull the rug. A lot of the original customers will just accept such a change. See Twitter or GitHub.