Table of Contents
- Twitter's Problems Aren't New
- A ‘Global Town Square’ Made Out Of Glass
- Frequently asked questions about unblocked games
One thing that jumps out at you in the opening few chapters of Hatching Twitter, Nick Bilton's meaty, page-turning genesis narrative of the firm currently controlled by Elon Musk, is the extent to which some of the same issues have been plaguing the firm pretty much from day one.
And no, this is not exactly going to be a pardon for someone who squandered his early days in control of Twitter by maniacally firing thousands of employees, demanding code freezes, having Twitter-related brainstorming sessions while using Twitter, and generally floundering to find a financially viable future course of action.
In point of fact, though, a variation of this same idea has been a part of Twitter's DNA since the service was first conceived as a side project by employees working for a podcasting company that has since gone out of business.
See Also: THE SAGA OF ELON MUSK AND TWITTER
Twitter’s Problems Aren’t New
For instance, there's a terrific scene early on in Hatching Twitter when Jack Dorsey and Ev Williams are unable to agree on just what their new Twitter service is. This is before Twitter was even a fully fleshed-out platform.
One of the people who would eventually run Twitter thought of it as a broadcasting tool, whereas the other thought of it as an information network that was constantly updated.
Since the company's founders couldn't even agree on that from the beginning, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a boisterous billionaire who purchased the business 16 years later appears to be having difficulties with Twitter's identity and choosing the appropriate path for it. A thing's identity can have many levels.
What Elon is doing right now is unquestionably causing extreme anxiety among advertisers, and there is no way around that fact. Despite this, the reality is that the site's advertising has never been particularly successful. We are unable to recall ever coming across an advertisement on the service that was of any use to us.
Despite the fact that Twitter knows a lot about us and the things that we are interested in, the first sponsored post I've just come across in the app is for a questionable-sounding startup that 3D-prints food. This is the case even though we are currently navigating through the app.
See Also: ELON MUSK PLANS TO REDUCE PRICES ON TESLAS ONCE INFLATION CALMS DOWN
A ‘Global Town Square’ Made Out Of Glass
Elon, in the meantime, has been preaching the same pleasant-sounding but ultimately ludicrous gospel about Twitter becoming some kind of global town square, similar to the giants who carried the keys to the city before him.
The thought behind this is that because of this, the organization and the service are almost indispensable to society. Comparable to the high sounding terminology that was used by early leadership of Twitter regarding how the app "democratized" speech and elevated average users to the same level as celebrities.
It is important that you should not misunderstand us; the digitized town square that folks like Elon frequently represent is a real place. It assumes the form of the internet as we know it today. What are you going to do if Twitter goes away tomorrow?
You will not be restricted in any way in your ability to send mail or messages, read or make purchases, or communicate with others. You can find new people to talk to, express whatever half-baked political diatribe you want to express across a variety of online forums, and do a ton of other things that you would anticipate being able to do in the sort of public platform that many people believe Twitter is.
However, posting a tweet that only seven of Twitter's approximately 206 million active daily users would actually view is not the same as participating in a town square discussion. It is yelling from the summit of a cliff into a valley that is completely empty.
Unless you already have a significant amount of influence in the world that exists beyond Twitter. People who work for the New York Times and other members of the media are the only ones who are talking about how amazing Twitter is.
Everyone else in the industry, or in the real world, is aware that Twitter drives just as much traffic to your website as you would receive from each and every Walmart customer aimlessly browsing your content on a busy weekend. In other words, Twitter generates the same amount of traffic that you would receive from each and every person in the real world.
See Also: TESLA CYBERTRUCK PROTOTYPE REVEALED WITH NO SIGHT OF AIR CONDITIONING
The Elites That Wanted Twitter’s Takeover
Despite Elon Musk's concerns, a number of affluent investors placed bets that he would eventually purchase Twitter, and those investors almost definitely made a handsome return when the acquisition was finally closed at the end of October.
According to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday, numerous entities owned by Carl Icahn, David Einhorn, Dan Loeb, and Paul Tudor Jones collectively invested significant sums of money in the shares of the social networking company over the previous quarter.
Icahn and his firm owned 12.5 million Twitter shares as of the 30th of September, which had a value of $549 million at the time. Icahn Enterprises' chairman and a multibillionaire investor recently said that he bought the stock for roughly $30 per share, which is a significant discount compared to Musk's offer of $54.20 per share.
Icahn could have purchased the shares that he later sold to the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX for $679 million for a total cost of $440 million, assuming that the median cost per share was $35. This would have left him with a profit of $239 million after accounting for expenditures. This represents a return of 54% in just a few short months.
In a transaction that was very similar to this one, David Einhorn's Greenlight Capital bought 4.3 million shares of a company at the end of the previous quarter for a total of $188 million. According to Reuters, the administrator of the hedge fund notified his clients in August that his average price per share had reached $37.24 at that point.
If Einhorn had bought the entire investment at that price, it would have cost him 160 million dollars. If Greenlight had sold the entire investment for the price Musk paid to acquire it, which was $232 million, it would have resulted in a profit of $72 million for the company.
In the most recent fiscal quarter, Loeb's Third Point was able to buy a sizeable interest in Twitter. On September 30th, they made a purchase that consisted of 5.5 million shares and cost 241 million dollars. The value of that share had increased by a further $50 million by the time Musk bought the company on October 27.
The value of the interests that are managed by Jones' Tudor Investment Corp. in Twitter climbed from 11,000 shares worth $411,000 to 948,000 shares worth $42 million over the course of a year. In addition, it purchased bearish call options on 1.1 million shares of the company's stock and bullish call options on 34,000 shares of the company's stock.
If we exclude the fund's options, it is likely that the value of the fund's share climbed to $51 million in just one month as a direct result of Musk successfully completing his takeover of the company. It would appear that a leading investment fund was unsuccessful in capturing a large profit opportunity.
By the end of September, Renaissance Technologies' stake in Twitter had been cut from 2.5 million shares, which were valued at $94 million at the end of June, to 248,000 shares, which were worth less than $11 million. Jim Simons is the CEO of Renaissance Technologies.
RenTech's initial share would be worth $136 million by the time Musk acquired it, which would indicate a profit of $42 million to 45% of the company's initial value. That is more than the worth of its investment, which has since been reduced by 13 million dollars.
Investors were concerned that this year Elon Musk would be successful in his attempt to back out of his purchase of Twitter, which would result in the stock falling back to its levels before to the offer being made. It would appear that a number of savvy fund managers were willing to risk tens of millions of dollars on the assumption that they were right about Musk not being able to back out of the deal.
However, the fact that we are all present here cannot be denied. The wealthy businesspeople of Silicon Valley who, in the early 2000s, believed that it would be beneficial to connect as many people as possible and then attempt to Graft a business strategy onto that dynamic thought that it would be beneficial to connect as many people as possible. As a result, we now live in a society that has undergone significant change as a result of these wealthy businesspeople.
Twitter had a terrible start right from the outset. And now, after all this time, 89% of Twitter employees who reacted anonymously on the business app Blind stated that they thought Musk will really cause the firm to fail. [Citation needed] [Citation needed] It is the same as if the owner of Twitter himself had posted the phrase "Let it soak in" on his very first day using the platform.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the main issue discussed in the article "Twitter's Problems Aren’t New"?
A: The article's primary focus is on the identity and future course of Twitter, as well as the ways in which this has been a challenge for the firm ever since it was established. The article also discusses the present problems that are being experienced by the company while Elon Musk is serving as CEO, as well as the unease that it is causing among advertisers.
Q: Who is the author of the book mentioned in the article "Hatching Twitter"?
A: The author of the book "Hatching Twitter" is Nick Bilton.
Q: What are the main differences in the early vision of Twitter between Jack Dorsey and Ev Williams?
A: Jack Dorsey's early vision of Twitter was as a broadcasting tool, whereas Ev Williams thought of it as an information network that was constantly updated.
Q: What does Elon Musk envision for Twitter's future?
A: Elon Musk envisions Twitter as a "global town square" that is almost indispensable to society.
Q: Has Twitter been successful in advertising?
A: The author of the essay states that they have never come across an advertisement on the service that was of any benefit to them, which lends credence to the notion that Twitter's advertising has never been especially successful in the past and never will be.
Q: If Twitter were to shut down, what would happen to its users?
A: According to the information provided in the article, if Twitter were to go offline, users would still be able to contact with one another and express themselves through other channels, as well as have access to a wide variety of online forums.