EU officials side with Musk, find that X is not as important as Facebook, TikTok
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
So his argument was "not anymore, now we're a piece of shit", and apparently the courts agreed. Can't say I'm surprised.
Upvote
358
(361
/
-3)
You can't be a gatekeeper if you destroy your company.
Sounds absolutely a great idea.
Sounds absolutely a great idea.
Upvote
196
(199
/
-3)
That...makes no sense. If it were 133% smaller than Facebook or Instagram, it would have a negative 33% size. Did they instead actually say that Facebook is 133% larger than X? That would make much more sense.
Upvote
474
(476
/
-2)
Upvote
76
(84
/
-8)
Can someone explain what 133% less means? 80% less is an awkward way of saying 20% as much, but what is 133% less? Does that mean negative ad revenue?
Upvote
200
(201
/
-1)
Upvote
86
(89
/
-3)
LOL. Musk: "I'm such a failure as a businessman that the ruins of X aren't subject to regulation."
Stable Genius indeed.
Stable Genius indeed.
Upvote
220
(223
/
-3)
"X does indeed not qualify as a gatekeeper in relation to its online social networking service, given that the investigation revealed that X is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users."
I believe that means people in business and advertising think Twitter fucking sucks.
Ladies and gentlemen, Elon Musk, the most intelligent man on Earth!
I believe that means people in business and advertising think Twitter fucking sucks.
Ladies and gentlemen, Elon Musk, the most intelligent man on Earth!
Upvote
135
(135
/
0)
It is indeed what X claimed. Perhaps a reflection of how much money they're losing??
Upvote
65
(67
/
-2)
Perhaps they're saying it has negative value now and they'd have to pay people money to take X off their hands?
Upvote
68
(70
/
-2)
Agree it does look like someone doesn't understand percentages.
However:
Facebook makes a profit and X makes a loss?
The financial shenanigans that multinationals get up to, it would not surprise me that multinational company maths works in mysterious ways.
Here in Australia we are one of the largest LNG exporters. So of course that means we have a massive sovereign fund like Norway or no income tax like Qatar - except we don't. With multinational maths the gas extractors pay around 1.5% taxes and Australians pay for gas at international spot prices.
So as much as the maths doesn't make sense, it also wouldn't surprise me if this is accounting for multinationals.
Last edited:
Upvote
95
(95
/
0)
I agree its confusing but it was written that way:
...For example, according to the data submitted by X
Holdings Corp. reflecting the number of average monthly active recipients in the
Union of certain providers of online platforms published pursuant to the
transparency obligations under Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, it is
demonstrated that X is currently ~133% smaller than each of Facebook and
Instagram, ~60% smaller than LinkedIn, and ~27% smaller than TikTok. (7)
While such data may be relevant to rebut the presumption that X constitutes an
important gateway for business users to reach end users within the meaning of
Article 3...
7) Reply by X Holdings Corp. of 4 April 2024, point 15.
Upvote
69
(69
/
0)
Gern Blaanston
Ars Scholae Palatinae
I think everyone should encourage advertisers to stay away from Twitter/X. The sooner it goes out of business, the better.
Upvote
87
(89
/
-2)
I mean, it's low key a hilarious burn, but I stick by my critique of the DMA only applying to some companies and not others.
What happens on Twitter, what's spread on Twitter, what people say and are allowed to do, it's either a problem or it's not. I can't really see how advertising revenue is a meaningful standard for any of that.
The truth is Twitter always punched above its weight, in terms of raw numbers. It's traditionally (and still is to a lesser extent) been a lot more influential than the user base size might indicate. Maybe it's dying off, but it's still limping along as an influencer.
It just doesn't feel right that one day a tweet that wasn't a problem the week before now is because Tide detergent decided to advertise again. That's weird.
What happens on Twitter, what's spread on Twitter, what people say and are allowed to do, it's either a problem or it's not. I can't really see how advertising revenue is a meaningful standard for any of that.
The truth is Twitter always punched above its weight, in terms of raw numbers. It's traditionally (and still is to a lesser extent) been a lot more influential than the user base size might indicate. Maybe it's dying off, but it's still limping along as an influencer.
It just doesn't feel right that one day a tweet that wasn't a problem the week before now is because Tide detergent decided to advertise again. That's weird.
Upvote
198
(221
/
-23)
It remains the #1 gathering place for terrorists, nazis and haters, though.
I guess that means Musk is the King of the Cesspool.
Upvote
58
(61
/
-3)
Did Elon tweet "My investment in Twitter has rendered it insignificant"?
Because it would be cool to hear it directly from him instead of in a lawyered-up filing.
Because it would be cool to hear it directly from him instead of in a lawyered-up filing.
Upvote
57
(57
/
0)
Best lawyers money can buy. And he's still using the remains of Twitter to sway public opinion.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Oooh! Turn that around! "Advertisers should encourage everyone to stay away from Twitter/X"
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
One thing I've noticed over the decades is that people are absolutely terrible with percentages.
Upvote
82
(82
/
0)
Upvote
138
(138
/
0)
I assume this is the line their accountants also use -- "No boss, it's not that we're suddenly making a loss, it's just that our profits show a modest reduction of 130% year over year".
Upvote
64
(64
/
0)
What a world we live in, where a billionaire's failure to properly monetize his digital soap box is actually celebrated as a victory! I'm sure the typewriter manufacturers of yesteryear are rolling in their graves, wishing they had thought to tank their own businesses to avoid pesky regulations.
It's heartwarming to know that in this age of "progress," we measure success by how spectacularly we can drive advertisers away and alienate users. Who needs a functional platform when you can have the freedom to post alongside extremists? Truly, this is the pinnacle of human achievement.
Oh, and let's not forget the grand vision of the "everything app." Because clearly, what society needs most is yet another digital black hole to suck away our time, money, and remaining shreds of privacy. Banking, social media, and who knows what else - all in one convenient package for the tech overlords to monitor! What could possibly go wrong?
Excuse me while I go chisel this story into a stone tablet. It'll probably last longer than X's ad revenue, anyway.
It's heartwarming to know that in this age of "progress," we measure success by how spectacularly we can drive advertisers away and alienate users. Who needs a functional platform when you can have the freedom to post alongside extremists? Truly, this is the pinnacle of human achievement.
Oh, and let's not forget the grand vision of the "everything app." Because clearly, what society needs most is yet another digital black hole to suck away our time, money, and remaining shreds of privacy. Banking, social media, and who knows what else - all in one convenient package for the tech overlords to monitor! What could possibly go wrong?
Excuse me while I go chisel this story into a stone tablet. It'll probably last longer than X's ad revenue, anyway.
Upvote
31
(32
/
-1)
If you weren’t already over their continuation of operations in Russia.
Upvote
96
(96
/
0)
Multiples (like FB is 4* times larger than X) and fractions (X is about ¼* the size of FB) are almost always easier to understand. I guess percent has some sexy largeness or exactisimilitude that some people find irresistible? But even that doesn’t excuse a honker like 133 percent less!
*numbers just made up
edited to correct typo
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)
If he can affect elections (and he is affecting elections), it's still longer term a net win for him.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
It's weird how conservatives (which Musk is and has always been) are so eager to self-own these days. Is humiliation fetish the big new thing or something?
Is there a separate case from the user-facing impact that doesn't care about the financial viability of the platform? Seems like "doesn't make a profit, can't regulate it" would be a huge loophole otherwise.
Is there a separate case from the user-facing impact that doesn't care about the financial viability of the platform? Seems like "doesn't make a profit, can't regulate it" would be a huge loophole otherwise.
Upvote
31
(31
/
0)
If anyone can afford to fail, it's Musk. After all, telling advertisers that they can "fuck off" essentially guarantees low ad money coming in.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)