• ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      18 days ago

      You’re assuming he gives a shit about how much profit it’s making.

      It’s not a public company, it’s now his private playground to try to get millions of people to see only the “free speech” he wants them to see, and exert political influence.

      • zqps@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        He’d love to also milk it financially, but that’s actually really hard to do with Twitter.

        You could say though as a capitalist he also gets a return on investment by manipulating public opinion in favour of conservatism.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          I don’t think he even cares that much about money, except that it’s useful/needed for the things he wants to accomplish.

          Unfortunately, the things he wants have gotten steadily shittier and shittier and more disgusting over the last 15 years.

          • zqps@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            You don’t get to become a billionaire, let alone the wealthiest person on earth, without being a greedy fuck. Remember he never actually wanted to buy Twitter, only tried hard to spin the narrative after being sued into it.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      It’s even worse in social media, because most users that sign up stop using it at some point.

      So the product can die pretty quick if they don’t generate new users, especially when they alienate old ones.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        18 days ago

        Indeed. Active users (say, used within the past month) is a much better metric.

        I often wonder about this for many (especially older) YouTube channels - your channel is 15 years old, how many of your 500k subscribers actually still watch or even have active accounts?

        I wonder what subscriber growth rate a typical YouTube channel needs just in order to maintain a consistent level of watchers?

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          Pretty sure YouTube has started unsubscribing people after long inactivity. I know some people have complained that it is difficult to follow infrequent contributors due to that now.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            Is that if the channel is inactive, or the viewer’s account? It seems like if you watch anything else, it’s not a problem, but if you’re only subscribed to 1 infrequent channel you might have that problem?

            • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              18 days ago

              From how it was described, I think it happens when you don’t watch something on their channel for a long time, either by the creator not uploading new stuff or the viewer not keeping up.

              The problem was noticed by people trying to follow users like OnlyUseMeBlade who is unstable and has only been posting once every six months or so, but there is still a lot of interest about his potential return.