this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
163 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37717 readers
367 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are people that benefit from Twitter sinking (foreign governments, the US government, Twitter’s Saudi investor), so this has been my theory as well. I don’t think it’s a scenario where he’s aware though. I think he’s a useful idiot that can be manipulated.
So the Saudi investor invests in something that he wants to go broke?
You may underestimate the amount of money the Saudi government has
That’s precisely why they invested in it. Sinking that ship means that one of the few remaining lifelines for working class communication around the world goes down in flames. When mass protests, school shootings, the Capitol invasion, and police violence occurred, which social media platform was almost always the place you’d end up reading about it from someone on the ground? Twitter. Think about how much easier the narrative can be controlled when Twitter is gone (or at least behind walls).
For political aims, possibly. What is sure is that Twitter would never be able to repay the amount of debt the company got saddled with. It was barely making ends meet and now it has to pay an additional billion dollars a year in interest. Why would someone would put their money in such a bad deal?
foreign governments yes (Saudi) but how does the US government benefit...?
Because US politics might actually become less about who gets the most likes on social media. Look, I don't know, but I can say after our previous presidency that the platform can't be entirely beneficial to the US.
If Twitter is at least hindered, it no longer works as a platform that gives people on-the-ground information about what’s going on in the country. When Twitter was at its peak, it was a tool for the working class to stay connected about protests and other events occurring in real time. That makes it more difficult for a government to control the narrative. Since the media can’t be trusted, Twitter would often become the place people go for information about shady shit a company is doing, outing cops trying to blend into protests, and other corrupt shit.
Now that Twitter is becoming almost entirely paywalled and stripped of any real value, one of the last bastions of information for the working class is essentially gone. It’s no longer a hub that people use for such things. If you want to stay connected to a mesh network of people in a mass protest or something like that, Twitter is no longer a viable option to get information out immediately.
There are an awful lot of governmental organisations that benefit from having Twitter as a free broadcast information medium
I’m sure it will stay free for them, but the rest of us are expected to pay. That kind of puts a wrench in it sticking around as the go-to platform for events happening in real time. It used to be amazing for keeping up with things like protests. You could keep track of hashtags and watch video on the ground. It’s 100% useless for that now.
it doesn't matter - if unlogged in people can't see it, if the audience numbers fall, organisations will have to start rethinkoing its place in their comms strategy even if they can still post to it. IN the UK this is real issue for organisations such as local authorities and the NHS