The Ick(s) Factor

[TOC: all blog posts]

Twitter is now called X (at least by a few). An odd name. Twitter was losing its shine, and the  cast a shadow. Whether by association or because it was a cheery name and logo, clicking the little bird gave a touch of satisfaction. It had a pleasant bit of self-deprecation to it: I'm just going to gabble with my birds of a feather. Now I'm mildly repulsed by links that use the new logo to access the social media platform. Maybe it's the X, but maybe it's the strange fellow who gave Twitter that name.

Elon Musk went from visionary to megalomaniac. I'd like to say this happened quickly, though as I age time flies faster and I don't quite trust my perspective on it.

As people get richer and more influential, they lose the ability to empathize with others. It has been interesting to watch this happen so significantly in this case.

Some people say Musk is a rich kid who never cared for or about others and just got lucky in his acquisitions, but that seems like a stretch. Certainly some of his investments have failed, but they seemed well-intended. Solarcity's shingles, for example, seemed like a good idea; they just haven't panned out.

His company Tesla gets much of the credit for generating interest in electric cars. What's more, he was willing to share some of the car's essential technology. He seemed to actually care about our planet, despite his obsession with colonizing another one.

Which brings us to where we are now. Maybe the dream of remaking a dusty red planet with almost no oxygen led him to despise those of us more comfortable with this beautiful blue ball. In any case, he now displays the all-too-typical, sometimes-crazy hubris of the rich and powerful. He blames advertisers who recoiled at his antisemitic post on Twitter of blackmail. Musk himself feels no responsibility for the decline of Twitter (which he renamed to a delete symbol); it's all the fault of others.

I had intended to ramble some more about the new, ickier Elon. But I'm not alone in my sentiments. John Oliver says what I had to say, and more. And with more humor and wit. Watch and listen:

 

Two in the Bush

Elon Musk hopes to turn the fortunes of Twitter around (dare I say he wants to flip the bird?). Already he complains of losing advertisers, so it's a good guess his best hope is to fire more staff. Which could lead to a further loss of advertisers, and so it goes. But why would anyone advertise on Twitter?

I enjoy Twitter. I use it for entertainment, for leads to good articles, for bookmarking those articles, and for informative threads by people who are pretty smart. But the smart ones aren't advertising.

If I'm like most people, ads on Facebook and Instagram are mostly annoying. I scroll past them and gain a negative view of the companies trying to interrupt me. But Twitter posts are small, and scrolling past ads is easier and less annoying. I don't remember any of them.

On the one hand, I appreciate companies willing to subsidize my source of information. On the other hand, I wonder what compels them to do it. Social media depends on advertising, but it has a poor track record of delivering results. Advertisers would do well to verify a return, if any, on their investment, and to consider the ethics of condoning Musk's irresponsible management.

One day, there will be an online forum that excels at advertising. It will be entirely devoted to advertising, helping people find what they want and need by letting them compare items to all similar products. This idea made Sweet's Catalogue of yesteryear wildly successful. It can be done digitally (Sweet's hasn't yet mastered the transition from print) and for a host of product types.

Perhaps this future forum will subsidize an editorial branch, like an old-fashioned newspaper. If that branch were Twitter, responsibly monitored, and the only ads were to remind me that a helpful advertising site makes this possible, I would be happy. I'd consider those sponsors smart.