The illusion of Elon Musk, David Sacks and Jason Calcanis as savvy operators is gone. This endeavor will be one of their lasting legacies: taking a much-loved, revenue-generating cornerstone of the web and smothering it within weeks, while likely losing billions of dollars and ultimately needing to sell the site for parts. They thought they were rolling out some grand experiment in social discourse, forgetting that brands, users, and speech are all tightly intertwined in somewhat important things like revenue and profit.
As I mentioned before, leaving a legacy is a cultural context. It has no bearing on “rest of the world”, but rather a unique “western construct”. I don’t know why there is prestige accorded to it, and as much as I think about it, it’s more of a futile attempt. Prestige arises from perception, and that is created by perceived impact. These perceptions can be altered through gatekeeping and the lengthy bureaucratic process of giving “accreditation”.
Twitter, as the “influential political discourse” (or other “communities”) has assumed the centre stage, and I have seen a predominant negative discourse around it. (Most of the links are discussed heavily on Hacker News).
The author writes further:
But, what is gone? Twitter was a unique spot where journalists, celebrities, titans of industries, your family, friends and co-workers, would join a daily mosh pit filled with a mix of truly important cultural moments and the most inane things you’ve ever seen. It was weird and it was special and it’s going to soon be a memory. With employees gone, with the clowns running the circus, with a reduction in trust and safety, and the exodus of advertisers starting, Twitter will likely go from Elon’s new toy that is too difficult for him to play with, to being passed on to his legal and finance advisers to sort out.
I am not sure if I could agree with the author’s perception, but yes, there are better alternatives (like Telegram). Hence, their recommendations (or even negativity) aren’t called for.