I don’t suppose you have a better cite for the claim that the spaces failed due to poor staffing? Not that I doubt it, but I’d love to understand exactly how, and the Business Today link just says ‘a report on Platformer’, which appears to be paywalled.
But are the numbers the same? Same number of daily users?
(If only a fraction of the number of users that Twitter had pre-Musk are showing up to Xitter, then the site could remain functional despite low staffing.)
There is no shortage.
That is essentially identical to the other link.
I’m have no doubt that you can find thousands of articles that say, “Platformer’ put out a piece saying the Twitter Spaces failure was due to laying people off”, rephrased and padded for word count.
But the information that Platformer actually used to justify that claim is behind a paywall.
I’m just curious if you’ve seen any source that actually gives the evidence that Platformer supposedly has. I’ve never heard of Platformer before; I don’t know them from my right nutsack; I have no idea how much credence I should give to their opinion about the cause of the failure of the Twitter Spaces events. I’d like to review their evidence and decide for myself, but nowhere seems willing to actually provide that evidence.
I just googled “twitter spaces desantis platformer” and got literally dozens of articles skimming over the high points and linking to them as the source. Nobody is reprinting the whole paywalled article, for obvious reasons, but if you’re genuinely legitimately interested it’s possible to assemble their argument from the collage of quotes and excerpts.
To be fair it was never worth $44B that is just the massively inflated price Musk, on a whim, agreed to buy it for. It was probably actually worth only about $30B, so really it’s only lost about $21B or 2/3 of its value due to his mismanagement. The other $14B loss was just a Musk being an idiot premium added to the closing cost.
The childhood party game “Broken Telephone” is not generally how I prefer to get my news, thank you.
Since the articles linked above just give individual quotes from unnamed individuals, it seems like this “report” basically amounts to “People are saying…”, I’ll chalk this up as an unsubstantiated rumor, regardless of how satisfying it might be to believe.
If you seriously cared that much, you could just pay.
I don’t particularly care, but I’m not the one who made factual claims using that article as evidence. If I had made that claim, I’d be a lot more interested in making sure it’s true. I would want to know I’m not spreading bullshit - you know, like Elon does.
You are, however, the one who keeps demanding information on it and will reject anything except the original paywalled article. You know HOW to access it and get the information you demand, but apparently you’d rather just complain and insist that everyone is probably lying and to prove you wrong, neener neener.
Saying now that you don’t really care rings a bit hollow when you’ve taken pains to keep insisting on the information and rejecting anything else as not good enough. A person who actually didn’t care would have just shrugged it off after the first request.
I don’t care about the specific claim made here. I care a lot about people making factual claims with no evidence, though.
Anyways, that’s enough of that hijack, I’ll let you get back to shitting on Elon in peace.
“I refuse to accept any evidence except this one specific piece that I refuse to look at” isn’t the same as “no evidence” but rock on with your righteous quest 
The person I was responding to didn’t pay for the article either, did he? So he did, in fact, repeat a claim without seeing any evidence for it.
Pretty Elon like behavior if you ask me.
Common guys. Let’s direct out ire towards Elon, because that dude sucks so fucking hard.
Here’s a medal for your accomplishments. Wear it with pride.
Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. The chief reason he’s got Twitter is he made a ridiculous-but-legally-binding offer and they jumped on it, took the money and ran. The rest of his strategy has played out sort of like what people say about private equity buyouts: Musk saddled it with debt, gutted the payroll, and destroyed the brand.
I had a friend on the inside during the Musk buyout of Twitter, and so I got first hand knowledge of the shitshow that ensued (yes, first hand, as in with my own two eyeballs).
I also, because the topic was obviously of interest to me, followed Casey Newton and Zoe Schiffer’s reporting, first on Twitter and later on Mastodon.
Their sources are going to be current and former employees, some they’ve spoken with directly and others that have posted on sites for silicon valley insiders.
Me, I believe them, because their reporting matched exactly with what I was seeing. But, hey, I get it. Journalists reporting with anonymous sources is an exercise in trust, and they haven’t earned your trust. Nothing wrong with that.
But I think that’s all we’ve got. Insiders who don’t want to get sued speaking on condition of anonymity. Nobody’s released internal DORA metrics or anything.
Whoa, wonder if any of the other big insurers will pick up the slack – and at what price?
Maybe Elon will have to buy an insurance company.