this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)
politics
22367 readers
278 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.
!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People absolutely thought this. Remember when he initially backed out and then was forced to continue the purchase deal? All sorts of talk about how this was bad for him. That and other things, like how he handled twitter at the beginning of his reign. There are plenty of articles, etc. on this and they're not hard to find.
I think he tried to back out because he didn't really want to buy the site to begin with and thought he could bail because he's a known liar. It was bad for him since he lost billions buying a thing that is not going to even get close to turning a profit, that's bleeding out users because of his decisions and is now less relevant culturally and for business than ever. These just aren't political implications right now because he's super rich which gives him the ability to eat the losses. Buying Twitter is a thing that helped make him less popular in the mainstream so it hurt his PR.
The reason why i don't think it hurt him politically is because that's not how our political economy works. he's rich enough that he could still help fund get out of the vote for Trump, which bought him influence. Buying twitter was a mistake, but it couldn't sink him because he's that rich and already connected to the government through his contracts.