Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Erik Torenberg
@erik
Elon didn’t start a new social network, he took over Twitter. You don’t need to start a new city, you can take over existing ones by just moving there en masse and voting for your candidates. You don’t even need 44b. This is hard to do, but it’s easier than moving all the intellectual capital out of SF. Network effects are hard to disrupt.
9 replies
0 recast
102 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Why not both?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Ivy
@ivy
have to echo terrible analogy, elon is among the few in the world who could have purchased twitter better one is gentrification of neighbourhoods (which includes voting intentions), this is doable municipally maybe? the more impactful effect was elon gentrifying twitter via policy for righties / transphobes / etc
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
@dwr.eth what's your take?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Britt Kim
@brittkim.eth
TwitterX accounts were banned for parody violation, banned for posting links to Twitter alternatives, and now we see bans/suppression related to politics. Twitter still has an autocrat. Calling that a free speech success undermines the call for making SF great.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
derek
@derek
I actually like the analogy a lot but there is a major caveat: You may not need $44B, but you do need a lot of capital, but not all capital is financial. You may need $44B worth of social capital (relationships, networks) or $44B worth of story capital (charisma + vision), but it's a high-investment endeavor.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
I agree that you can change a place within. It needs to have popular support from the people that live there. But if the culture of a place is screwed up, it takes time to fix it. Clear examples are El Salvador that had the highest homicide rate in Americas and now the safest, or Argentina with the worst economic policies and now it has Milei.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson
@dwayne
Haven't there been a few massive disruptions of network effects before? Ex: Michican manufacturing I do also think trying to "take it back" is worthwhile
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ed
@eds
Buying Twitter is a top-down approach. Moving to SF en masse and voting sounds like a bottom-up approach. IMO top-down approaches work better for the right and I'm not sure what that would look like for SF
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
fartcaster
@nickoslackz
if Elon could change twitter from the ban-hammer / opposing view suppression stances it held, to the haven for free speech that it is become now for the low price of 44 gorgillion, then im sure a few tech Gigachads can do the same with cesspool that SF has turned into...how much social / intellectual capital will it cost thooo🫠
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
