No, you don't throw away $44 billion just for shit and giggles, not even if you are as rich as Musk. Musk is (probably) a narcissist who thought he could make it work in his delusional mind.

He wanted a mouthpiece for the MAGA crowd, and he probably thought the desire in the population for it, would make it succeed, if he made the platform embrace that. He probably envisioned himself as a great liberator, who would be celebrated for bringing free speech back to America.

Musk has been losing it for a long time, and it seems to only get worse.

It's true. This man has no dick.

It also wasn't really successful before he came in either. It rarely was profitable and usually operated at a loss.

I mean Musk has seemingly made every bad move imaginable, I can only imagine the ideas he's been talked out of.

Governments should either be operating their own systems for this or, hell I don't know, why not just spin up a their ready-to-go Mastodon instance or something else in the fediverse not subject to the delirious whims of a petulant muskrat born with daddy's money?

I’m sorry - as someone who has done some work with disaster response, this was one of my main concerns. When they threatened to take away NWS access to API without huge fees, I was honestly horrified. Thankfully they reversed that decision, but a lot of what my organization did was scour Twitter for official information and also personal accounts of folks who needed help/the conditions on the ground.

It is honestly a travesty that a resource such as this can be reduced to literal 💩 when people need it the most. I wish I had an answer, but I don’t. I hope more and more folks/orgs migrate to a suitable alternative(s) sooner rather than later, but the damage has been done. There’s always a percentage who never do, and you can’t fix that.

This take is exhausting. It's like the political version of narcissism: here's how everything that happens in the world is actually a conspiracy against me!

If Musk was a plant to sabotage Twitter on the behalf of the 1%, why would he have done it slowly with a series of increasingly bad decisions that caused a mass migration to distributed open-source platforms? Why not just flip the switch and kill it in one go? Or: why not start a program of bots to talk about how awesome Teslas are, and make Trump seem cool, while shadow-censoring criticism of Musk's friend's companies or governments?

You think They are competent and dastardly enough to plan a takeover of Twitter, but then too bumbling to make better use of it than slowly discrediting it with a series of half-baked ideas from a deranged and detestable front man?

Twitter helped create ISIL, and also POTUS45. When actual autocracies see people even trying to organize on Twitter, they simply ban the whole site anyway. And it also played a major role in the Arab Spring, which while originally talking about high ideals like democracy, liberalisation, and human rights, is these days mostly notable for having ruined several countries for a generation.

In fact, that seems to be the trend: Twitter is very good at making its users feel like they're organizing and making changes in the world, when in reality all that is being accomplished is/was inflating their own stock price and throwing outrage around with neither factual context nor a long-term plan to turn it into meaningful positive change. People were able to effect social change before Twitter, but they didn't do it because they saw somebody's sarky hot take for five seconds right before getting their dopamine hit with the "Like" button and then scrolling past it; they did it because they got sick of the way things were. The public-facing data should be kept around for historians and the rest of the curious, but Twitter was always primarily a predatory ad marketplace that gained relevance by being useful for propaganda, and we'll all be better off with it gone.

EDIT: Musk, surely, did buy Twitter for the power and attention he thought it would give him. But he's done it as a petulant, self-destructive manchild, not as some scheme to stifle public discussion— Twitter was already stifling public discussion, just because of what it is.

I like the most recent The Verge variant: Twitter, X, or whatever it’s currently called...

I call it Xitter. The X is pronounced with an "sh" sound.

I saw someone on Mastodon say something along the lines of "I'll continue to deadname Twitter for as long as Musk continues to deadname his daughter" and I love that sentiment.

Better to just call it “The site formerly known as Twitter” and don't mention X at all. That would piss him off more.

There's no reason to speculate his motives. It's obvious he didn't want to buy Twitter when he was forced by courts to buy it. He was being an idiot trying to manipulate the stock price. I know it's hard to believe a multi-billionaire can be an idiot, but it happened. There's no 4d chess move. Rich people are fallible as everyone else.

Big parts of the youth did not use twitter. Twitter had at its peak about 500mio active users. Instagram has 2.4 billion, tiktok 1 billion, snapchat 750mio. The relevancy of twitter is highly skewed, because the media used it a lot.

I mean, Elon sucks, but I am kind of happy to hear Twitter might fully die. I've always hated the idea of forced character limits.

The world needs more critical and expansive discussion, not additional reasons to summerize and minimize important topics into long headlines.

It's perhaps stupider than that. The guy couldn't take getting made fun of on Twitter, so he bought and killed it.