this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
802 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59631 readers
2686 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a minuscule drop % wise
True, but we live in an economy that only rewards growth...
You're assuming he gives a shit about how much profit it's making.
It's not a public company, it's now his private playground to try to get millions of people to see only the "free speech" he wants them to see, and exert political influence.
He'd love to also milk it financially, but that's actually really hard to do with Twitter.
You could say though as a capitalist he also gets a return on investment by manipulating public opinion in favour of conservatism.
I don't think he even cares that much about money, except that it's useful/needed for the things he wants to accomplish.
Unfortunately, the things he wants have gotten steadily shittier and shittier and more disgusting over the last 15 years.
You don't get to become a billionaire, let alone the wealthiest person on earth, without being a greedy fuck. Remember he never actually wanted to buy Twitter, only tried hard to spin the narrative after being sued into it.
It's even worse in social media, because most users that sign up stop using it at some point.
So the product can die pretty quick if they don't generate new users, especially when they alienate old ones.
Indeed. Active users (say, used within the past month) is a much better metric.
I often wonder about this for many (especially older) YouTube channels - your channel is 15 years old, how many of your 500k subscribers actually still watch or even have active accounts?
I wonder what subscriber growth rate a typical YouTube channel needs just in order to maintain a consistent level of watchers?
It's only a good metric if half of them aren't bots.
Pretty sure YouTube has started unsubscribing people after long inactivity. I know some people have complained that it is difficult to follow infrequent contributors due to that now.
Is that if the channel is inactive, or the viewer's account? It seems like if you watch anything else, it's not a problem, but if you're only subscribed to 1 infrequent channel you might have that problem?
From how it was described, I think it happens when you don’t watch something on their channel for a long time, either by the creator not uploading new stuff or the viewer not keeping up.
The problem was noticed by people trying to follow users like OnlyUseMeBlade who is unstable and has only been posting once every six months or so, but there is still a lot of interest about his potential return.