Gotta love the guy

It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Musk's new lefty CEO will not be allowed to run rampant.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that she reads every tweet he makes, including the one above.

Musk Outlines the Financials of Twitter – Platform Content is Determined Through the Prism of Revenue

Twitter CEO Elon Musk has provided some convincing commentary about his willingness to forgo revenue in order to retain “free speech.” However, more recently he has qualified that outlook by saying “freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach.” Musk noting Twitter will block, remove, censor, shadow ban, deboost, downrank and stop content from amplifying based on the determination of those in charge of Twitter content.

This controlled “freedom of reach” perspective, which is really shadow-banning in practice, is generally accepted and now admitted. Against this backdrop it becomes important to understand the priorities of the platform to understand the guidelines of the platform. Within this context the financials are key to understanding what elements are included within “approved content.”

Twitter is now a private company, therefore understanding the financials of Twitter is a little more challenging than when they were required to post their financial statements publicly. However, Elon Musk gave an interview with the Babylon Bee yesterday and revealed some of the internal financial challenges. [VIDEO HERE] I am going to summarize the status of the Twitter financial position according to what Musk himself revealed.

♦ Twitter was initially purchased by Musk and his investors for around $44 billion. The company now estimates its value around $20 billion. Musk overpaid.

♦ Musk put roughly $30 billions of his own net worth into the purchase and financed the rest.

♦ Current outstanding debt on the financing for the purchase is around $12.5 billion. Per Musk statement.

♦ Current debt service, interest on the loans (from investors), is roughly $1.5 billion/yr. $120.5 million per month for debt service. Per Musk statement.

♦ Previous revenue (when public) was roughly $4 billion/yr. Twitter was generally breaking even.

♦ Advertising revenue, as a result of changes in industry in combination with concerns about Twitter, are “half” what they were during the acquisition phase, per Musk statement. That puts current advertising revenue around $2 billion/yr.

♦ Per conversation, current status of Twitter is -$3 billion/yr and could be as high as -$4 to 5 billion/yr. This makes complete sense if $4 billion in revenue was generally the breakeven point (before acquisition), and now they have $2 billion in revenue and $1.5 billion in additional debt service [as they trim operational costs (including labor) to offset].

♦♦ For the bottom line to be an operational loss of $3 to $5 billion (est) per year, Twitter is generally losing around $300 million per month.

♦ There is only so much Tesla stock Musk can sell to support Twitter. He has limits. Per conversation.

♦ Twitter has around $100 million in liquid cash available. Per conversation.

Twitter is in locked contracts with AWS and Google cloud services through 2025 at roughly $300 million per year for both [AWS $100 million, Goog $200 million].
There’s your prism for platform content!

Elon Musk needs revenue desperately.

Twitter urgently needs advertising revenue.

Without revenue or acquisition of another platform (with assets) to offset the current status of Twitter, it is only a matter of time before bankruptcy. [Note, Twitter investors are backstopped with Tesla/SpaceX as collateral against default.]

The tightrope… Elon Musk must appease the Google advertising control agents and adhere to content rules and regulation (DEI etc.) in order to maximize his revenue. That’s where Linda Yaccarino comes in as a critical player.

Bottom line, Musk has to make decisions through one prism, THE ECONOMICS. Musk’s decision-making, pro freedom or not, is constrained by this financial dependency. Hence, a lot of the platform censorship elements remain (including some personnel) and now the outreach to appoint Google/WEF approved Linda Yaccarino in an effort to enhance the revenue.

When you are perplexed about Musk decision making….
THERE’S YOUR ANSWER.



https://theconservativetreehou...revenue/#more-247254

Per my comments on the previous page, I'm not surprised by the economic handcuffs Musk got himself into... it was even predictable. I'll say it only once - overpaying for Twitter, no matter how noble his motives, was stupid of Musk.

Better to let the company implode on its own and pick up the pieces in bankruptcy proceedings for pennies on the dollar. A longer term outlook was needed.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for Musk. He, like us, is seeing an assault on freedom of speech and so many of our liberties by fanatical leftists who have ingratiated themselves into authoritative positions, that he felt compelled to do something. Unfortunately even the world's richest man has limits and, unlike what most people believe, he does have a boss... the customers of his various companies, including advertisers whose revenue $ Twitter so desperately needs.

Not sure WTH is going on here

Normally a company rebranding and changing logos is a sure sign that they are in trouble:

Elon Musk Officially Rebrands Twitter Logo To X

Tweet has become a verb much like google.

Instead of tweeting something now do we x something?

Confused....

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Not sure WTH is going on here

It's explained in the article you linked:

"In a recent interview, Musk reiterated that the main motive behind rebranding to X was to create an “everything app,” a concept popular in China. Chinese social media applications, such as WeChat, are used for text and video calls, and have provisions to pay bills, book cabs, book restaurants and other financial activities without leaving the app.

Musk said if done correctly, X could become a popular platform for finance, banking, payments and data, and over time it has the potential to become “half of the global financial system."



"Twitter" is merely a social media message app. Whereas "X" is intended be able to do that plus a lot more. However, considering that rebrands often flop, it remains to be seen whether Twitter/X is able to pull it off successfully.

They likely went with "X" because that's already a theme in other current and former Musk companies... "X.com" was one of Elon's first companies, an online bank that went on to become Paypal, the 2002 sale of which earned Musk around $175 million, which he used to then move on to founding SpaceX and later Tesla.


Similar in concept to what Facebook was attempting when they changed their name to Meta, trying to break out from the pidgeonhole of being "just a social media site/app". Although they never dropped the Facebook name entirely.

As mentioned:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Musk said if done correctly, X could become a popular platform for finance, banking, payments and data, and over time it has the potential to become “half of the global financial system."

Run away! Run away!

There have been quite a few re-brandings that companies did, almost exclusively, to shun a less than a stellar reputation. (Lucky) Goldstar re-branded as LG.

But yes, "X" is kind of an Musk, thing.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Musk said if done correctly, X could become a popular platform for finance, banking, payments and data, and over time it has the potential to become “half of the global financial system."

Run away! Run away!

Yeah, no thanks.
I prefer smaller and local over centralized. I use a local credit union rather than a giant bank.

If Musk launches an online payment system that isn't anti-gun, I'll gladly use it.

I honestly think Elon Musk takes great delight in fucking with all these libs there in San Francisco


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s...211486669484032?s=20

EU, UN-WEF, And Trudeau Simultaneously Demand Crackdown On Independent News And Podcasting
Canada creates a media registry :: EU targets X :: UN-WEF “Internet Governance Forum” plot global censorship with Big Tech
Stephen Moore and Michael Shellenberger

For months, representatives of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government insisted that their plans to regulate Big Tech social media platforms wouldn’t impact independent news outlets or podcasters.

“I think we brought the necessary changes to the bill to reassure them and to make sure that platforms are in and users are out,” Minister Pablo Rodriguez told the media, echoing what he had been telling members of parliament. As a result of government reassurances, their legislation passed.

But it turns out that the government is, in fact, going to regulate content providers, not just Big Tech social media platforms.

The government regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), announced on Friday that it would require registration by independent content producers, including online news companies and “individuals that host podcasts on their own websites.”

The CRTC says that the law only covers media companies with $10 million or more per year in revenue and that the information it is demanding is minimal. “You will be able to continue to listen to and watch the content of your choice,” the government stresses. “Our goal is to better support Canadian and indigenous content and ensure it is available.”

But, notes Canadian legal analyst Michael Geist, “The takeaway from the decision is obvious: registration is the first step toward regulation…In fact, the rationale for the CRTC to include many of the services is that without such information, it is not well positioned to regulate.”

The Liberal Party plainly misled the public into thinking that platforms would only be regulated, not content providers. There are many independent media companies with over $10 million annually in revenue that will be forced to register.

And the CRTC made clear that this is just the beginning and that it has “begun to explore the concept of social media and the role, if any, that social media platforms may play in the broadcasting system.”

https://public.substack.com/p/...ack&utm_medium=email

^^^
Trudeau’s daddy would be right proud.

Since watching the X formally Twitter dumpster fire, I don't think the investors give a crap if this ever makes money.

I think they saw the direction it was going and the influence it was wielding and said we need to change this.

So they bought it. No one major on the investor side is less than a multi-billionaire.

They are playing with the equivalent of chump change to them.

We will see how it plays out in the next election.

Musk's first company was PayPal. He made his first fortune when he sold to a bunch of investors including, Max Levchin, Peter Thiel, Luke Nosek, and Ken Howrey.

New investors in X are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Larry Ellison, and a bunch of other billionaires.

It is not publicly traded so they care less about stock price.

So when he talks about a unified app with financial implications, I am not calling him out before the fat lady sings.

The people behind this could buy PayPal and fold it in. It would only take about 6 billion to get controlling interest unless the government stepped in to stop it.

Going again after this guy hard. They hate that he’s got a huge global platform they cannot censor and control any longer:


https://x.com/greg_price11/sta...042810613743647?s=46