Main Edition
US
FR
October 27, 2024 - 8:00am
As Elon Musk marks his second anniversary as Twitter/X’s owner today, his $44 billion experiment in digital democracy has produced a peculiar paradox: the platform has become simultaneously more culturally vital and financially imperilled than ever before. Rapidly shorn of most of its original workforce in a manner that impressed fellow CEOs, the platform transformed from the world’s polite town square into social media’s raucous underground fight club — a space where previously marginalised voices now brawl in plain sight with establishment figures who haven’t yet fled to safer digital shores.
By welcoming back accounts suspended by the previous regime — from Donald Trump and Alex Jones to countless anonymous accounts — Musk has transformed X. Underground subcultures built around colourful Right-leaning characters like the “Bronze Age Pervert”, “Lomez”, and “Pariah the Doll” have emerged from the shadows of smoke-filled private group chats into the mainstream discourse, creating a messier but more authentic digital space.
Given that most of the Left-liberal media and political figures who threatened to leave are still hanging around, this new incarnation of X matters precisely because it’s the last place where different ideological camps still meaningfully clash. You can, for example, watch Right-wing political science professor Wilfred Reilly trade barbs with liberal fashion influencer “The Menswear Guy”, or pick sides as Leftist publisher Nathan J. Robinson clashes with contrarian critic Wesley Yang over what The New York Times decides to publish on its op-ed page. While Facebook retreats from news sharing and contentious debate, X remains the closest approximation of a digital public square, even if it’s a more fractious one.
But the numbers are brutal and only getting worse. X’s user growth has practically flatlined — managing to add just four million new daily users over the past year, bringing the total to 251 million. For perspective, that’s a measly 1.6% increase, a far cry from the platform’s glory days when Twitter routinely posted double-digit growth.
Musk’s great subscription gambit, meant to wean the platform off its advertising addiction, is a moonshot that failed to land. Despite endless tinkering with features like Grok AI and pricing tiers, X Premium’s mobile revenue since 2021 amounts to pocket change in tech terms about $200 million total. Even with the most generous assumptions about subscriptions — imagining most users opted for the premium tier — that amounts to around 1.4 million paying customers. That’s less than 1% of X’s daily active users willing to pay for the privilege of a blue checkmark and reduced ads.
The advertising exodus tells a similarly grim story. Risk-averse marketing executives have moved away from X, with Kantar’s latest survey suggesting a quarter of them plan to slash spending next year. The platform’s brand safety rating has dropped to 4% — a number so low it makes other social media sites, hardly bastions of elevated discourse, look like squeaky clean gated communities.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePerhaps a little too judgemental, Musk has only owned X 2 years this October.
The new Grok AI is excellent and they will surely be adding other paid for features as we go forward.
As for the ‘town square’ comments … I detect little difference from before but have noticed that it is more open to the Trumps of this World.
Freedom of speech is a good thing isn’t it?
The idea that Twitter was “the polite town square” before Musk turned it into X and an “underground fight club” is just about the most laughable premise to any article i’ve seen published on Unherd.
There may be some sense in what Bateman goes on to say, but a writer with that level of cultural blindness can’t expect to be taken seriously.
The people writing these articles are the pre-X bunch of old twitterati supremacists who’s opinions were coddled and protected by the old Twitter. Not anymore. And they don’t like it. About bloody time because their version of ‘free speech’ is, it is ‘free’ as long as you agree with me. Thanks to Musk, we would have been doomed with these closet Neo-Communists.
the platform transformed from the world’s
polite town squareprogressive echo chamber into social media’sraucous underground fight clubshining example of free speech.Yes, apparently wishing that the Jews had been wiped off the planet is an example of free speech. Gee, I can say something even more disgusting than that because free speech is my right. I’ll pass.
I stopped reading there too, so I can’t help you with the rest.
I didn’t read any of it. Only got here to have a glimpse at the comments..!
The UK government is working with the CCDH (the UKs Centre for Countering Digital Hate) looking to kill off the advertising on X by harassing advertisers.
The CCDH is now orchestrating a black ops campaign to silence Kennedy. Full on election interference coming from the UK.
The deep state, globalist are hard at work to cencor speech across the globe https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/
I think the author is more right than wrong. Twitter used to be careful that advertisers were able to advertise without danger of being paired with an offensive tweet. Now all that is gone, and it’s wild. Anyone that cares about their brand no longer advertises on the new Twitter, though they still use the platform to post.
Before Elon took over Twitter was the forum for troons to make death threats against JK Rowling while also being employed by the company to ban anyone who criticised them.
I found the old Twitter to be too woke and politically correct ( it is good to be able to say those 3 words and not be censored ). The left maddies have been replaced by right maddies and it is my go to place for news and current affairs. As examples the October 7 atrocities in real time and the liberal press suddenly finding that Mr. Biden may have dementia sufficient to prevent him running for president again but not sufficient enough to be relieved of the presidency. The only difference the loss of moderators has made as a town hall is that the door on the right now opens and the door on the left is shut. I regret that Musk is not making a quid out of the experience but I presume he can write his losses off on other ventures in profit and have a pulpit which he has wrenched from the WaPo and the NYT. I like X. Just mute those with whom you disagree or who are mad or bad or both.
The people writing these articles are the pre-X bunch of old twitterati supremacists who’s opinions were coddled and protected by the old Twitter. Not anymore. And they don’t like it. About bloody time because their version of ‘free speech’ is, it is ‘free’ as long as you agree with me. Thanks to Musk, we would have been doomed with these closet Neo-Communists.
Data + influence
Exactly. Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Facebook have access to large language databases to train their large language model AIs. These databases are their users, you and I.
You’re not going to succeed in AI without your own large language database to train your AI.
Twitter was the last publicly available large user set money could buy. The last opportunity to independently build your own AI. And that’s why Musk bought a company with revenue of just $1bn and no growth for $44bn.
Interesting.
The irony is that UnHerd should know exactly why X has struggled, and it has nothing to do with Musk. Perhaps the author doesn’t know about UnHerd’s financial struggles. UnHerd itself dances around the issue, unable to forcefully denounce what is happening lest it get squeezed even harder.
Both X and UnHerd find themselves on advertising blacklists. One of these blacklists is operated by an organisation funded by the UK government.
Both X and UnHerd also find themselves trapped in an advertising market that is controlled by just two companies who abuse their market position and can enforce these blacklists. This isn’t just my opinion, this is the finding of the US courts. In the UK the the Competition and Markets Authority estimates Google and Facebook collect £200 per household more than a competitive market would allow. That’s not just a £200 loss to every household, but every publisher that supplies a household loses money too.
To diffuse the shadow ban, UnHerd’s owners and editor have had to (in editor Sayer’s own words) “shift [] emphasis: towards community not just individualism, towards responsibilities as well as rights”. In short, to ensure UnHerd’s survival it had to become like the rest of the media herd. Each Kathleen Stock article has to be curated alongside two or three Guardian stock articles. And that sacrifice still hasn’t been enough, UnHerd still remains blacklisted. UnHerd’s owners will have to turn UnHerd into the very thing they didn’t want. That doesn’t seem like success either.
There’s been a perception of something changing. Many have alluded to it, but you’ve pinpointed it precisely. Because of it, subscriptions from many valued contributors to Comments have been lost. The battle for civilised discourse on any topic with genuine human interest, regardless of political leanings, is now fully engaged.
Perhaps it would be better if UnHerd was less of a political rag and more of a social/cultural one. After all, political drivel is as common as cockroaches on the internet. And a good case can be made that the obsessive focus on left vs. right, blue vs. red, is impeding the forward movement we need to be making. It’s a messy world; “simplifying” a problem is often just a way to kick it down the road.
I doubt I’m the only one who feels this way.
Social/cultural is linked to political….
Somewhat. But it’s more linked to the people around you, the life you lead (irl), the things you learned in kindergarten…
Politics tend to be about ideologies that someone else controls. You pick one side and stick with it; no room for subtleties.
I think the trope that “everything is political” is over-rated and getting kind of old.
‘Because of it, subscriptions from many valued contributors to Comments have been lost’
I have had the same comments removed three times now from this article:
https://unherd.com/2024/10/britain-wont-be-balkanised/
Once, fine. Twice is ridiculous. Three times, either the comment is OK or it’s not. What is going on. I can’t even post on there, it just loads and does nothing. I have had trouble with nearly every comment I’ve posted over the last couple of weeks. I see we have some sort of misinformation anti hate unit or something, I’m not sure if it’s an external organisation that are repeatedly removing comments or if it’s the people that run unherd. Obviously it’s impossible to tell from my perspective. It does get pretty frustrating.
I understand why they run moderation software, and we have centres that vet discourse, well OK, but there’s no consistency to what gets removed and what doesn’t and consistently removing and then returning the same posts later, I’m afraid just looks like an effort to stop participation.
I’m glad unherd are still fighting the good fight. I can see why people cancel subscriptions though if they have had the trouble I have had.
Yes, it’s getting very messy and frustrating. There’s no continuity to comments, the story of business moving to Russia can’t be accessed and all the up and downvotes disappear. It’s getting to be pretty weird.
I always assumed that there are “ad brokers” that send ads out to various sites. That’s how it is that we get a tranche of ads tailored to each of us; not to the websites the ads appear on.
The private censors are creating lists of their “enemies” and twisting the arms of the advertisers, who go to the brokers and demand that those websites, including UnHerd, don’t get their ads.
It’s a version of a common ‘little crime”, much older than the Mafia.
Was really surprised this wasn’t voted in the essay? You can’t talk about ad revenue without it.
I’ve never seen a “Guardian stock” article on here. Next time you see one you think falls into that category, please mention it.
As mentioned edabove the deep state, globalist are hard at work to cencor speech across the globe https://foundationforfreedomonline.com
“Both X and UnHerd also find themselves trapped in an advertising market that is controlled by just two companies who abuse their market position and can enforce these blacklists.”
What two companies are you referring to? Who is abusing their market position? Who is enforcing blacklists? I’m pretty experienced in antitrust law, but I can’t see any antitrust issues here.
Is one of the two companies the CCDH (Center for Countering Digital Hate)?
The same is happening in Germany, where online magazines have trouble finding advertising. If you publish right of centre, you are sc**wed. You have to survive on subscriptions and once in a while beg your readers to donate money for court cases against defamation campaigns by State Run Media or even government politicians. So far, all were eventually won by these publications. In Germany a right wing blog and magazine, Compact, was raided by police on order from the Minister for the Interior as it was a thorn in her side, especially during COVID. Even their office furniture was taken away. They had to go to court on a very small budget, but won a temporary victory until the main court case will take place in a couple of years. They are now able to publish again. Freedom of speech seems to be attacked everywhere and publishers have to survive on subscriptions, because of boycotts from big advertisers. They are constantly attacked by left wing State Run TV/Radio stations, who have tons of money, as they a force fed by the mandatory contributions of the taxpayer.
I am eternally thankful to Elon that he bought Twitter, even if it doesn’t make profit.
But don’t advertisers have the right to decide where they want to spend their advertising dollars?
Yes you’re absolutely right. And if they’re playing games with branding and leaning left then that’s a risk they take and live with. In fact they place their advertising where their market us. If they chose to ignore that then it’s their outlook, unless of course CEOs ignore their shareholder interests. which some have done and paid for it.
The problems is big shareholders (other big companies bowing to the zeitgeist) are also polluted by the current political “fashion”. Recently some Republican Governors, who have millions invested, have bravely pulled out their money and seemed to have moved Vanguard to finally invest in fossil fuel again.
I agree, but most of the company Boards are stuffed with brown nosed members, bowing to the current political Elites and spew out slogans according to the zeitgeist of the day. None of them would allow to advertise on websites, which include critical journalism on topics of DEI, NetZero or illegal Immigration. For example Black Rock and Vanguard shied away from even investing in Fossil Fuel Companies. Small investors have no power over these Boards and CEOs. Only if a brave Governor pulls out millions, they seem to get the message and change their minds.
That is why Elon Musk‘s X is so important to stand up to these big powerful companies and let non conforming publications and journalists have a voice. Without subscriptions they can‘t exists. That‘s why I subscribe to many independent publication/journalists and sometime contribute to their court cases.
I agree with you that we should support all voices. But some people are saying that the advertisers are acting illegally as a cartel. That implies they think the government should step in and force advertisers to advertise on X.
That’s what I am objecting to. Companies can spend their money as they choose, just like the rest of us.
You seem oblivious to the anti-trust case Google has just lost in the USA and of the provisional findings of the CMA in the UK. The point is companies are not free to spend money where they please. Both publishers and advertisers are forced into using Google’s ad tech services in order to bid for and sell advertising. The most egregious ways Google has done this (according to the CMA, DoJ and the EU) is:
1. Manipulating advertiser bids so that they appear to have a higher value when submitted into its auction than when submitted into rival exchange auctions.
2. Securing its bids come first in all auctions, effectively giving it an ‘right of first refusal’ with rivals potentially not having any chance to submit bids.
What does that have to do with disinformation index companies blacklisting X and other media companies so that advertisers choose not to advertise on them? What you have identified is Google using its search and ad tech dominance to charge too much and to outcompete its rivals.
You could use a search engine. I do also name them. Google lost its first antitrust case just last month against the DoJ. The second is still being heard, and it isn’t going well for Google. You surely have to concede there are antitrust issues when Google loses a years-long antitrust trial against the DoJ.
Facebook is defending an anti-competition deal it did with Google, a deal which has already been shown to be anti-competitive in Google’s trial.
In the UK I mentioned the CMA. The CMA has provisionally foundd that Google abused its dominant positions through the operation of both its publisher ad server and buying tools to restrict competition in the UK. Surely you have to concede that a CMA finding shows there are anti-trust issues.
Sure, I know about the Google lawsuits and Facebook’s involvement in one of them. What does that have to do with the disinformation index companies and their blacklisting of X and UnHerd, so advertisers choose not to advertise on them?
My point being that even if these government actions against Google are successful in weakening Google’s dominance in ad tech, that would not stop advertisers from choosing not to advertise on X.
Why is it that after two years, supposedly intelligent people still don’t understand why Musk bought Twitter?
Be assured, Musk doesn’t see what he’s done as a “failure”.
Good point. Musk is a Right Wing extremist, and he has bought a megaphone for Right Wing extremism.
God I am so tired of people like you (straight from Central Casting) calling anybody you disagree with “extremist”. You my friend, have driven me to the other side.
Unfortunately SB today language is meaningless as communication and more a blunt instrument.
No need to thank me.
I’m pretty sure Elon Musk does think X is a failure, so far. He has big plans for X, with among other things a PayPal/Venmo money app, and he is nowhere near to realizing them. X is no longer profitable and the losses probably top a billion dollars annually. He won’t give up easily, but I think he will give up within the next year or two. Maybe sooner if Donald Trump wins and Elon Musk goes to Washington.
Was Twitter/X ever profitable?
It’s hard to tell since X is now private but Twitter/X seemed to have slashed expenses enough when Elon Musk first bought it to be profitable. Then as the advertiser exodus began and worsened, revenue tumbled.
The shortfall now seems around a billion dollars a year. If by a miracle advertisers returned to pre-Elon levels, X would be a billion or two dollars in the black.
Is this really Unherd? Never ceases to amaze me. The intellectual rigour (that I once assumed) is long gone
Except… you’ll find it in Comments, if not in the articles. Keep subscribing; our futures depend on not giving up.
The author is unfamiliar with the economics of online businesses. I used to work at one, and nothing in these numbers is in any way unusual. A 1% conversion rate from free to subscription is about in the expected area. X’s growth rate is low because it was low previously pre-Musk. Twitter tapped out demand for its style of social networking and that’s independent of the changes Musk has made, indeed it’s one reason Musk figured he could buy it and improve it. So far he hasn’t managed to do so, and maybe it’s just not possible. We’ll have to wait and see, given the problems he’s had to solve first and his many other distractions, making Twitter more competitive could take a long time.
As for its finances, the author doesn’t actually know what they are because X is now private. He cites “mobile subscription revenue” as if this is total revenue, for example.
And finally, Nell Clover is absolutely correct about the effect of left wing blacklisting attacks on any organization that doesn’t kowtow. As UnHerd has discovered this approach has been very effective – at this point basically every website that tolerates any right wing thought at all is denied access to advertising networks. Just yesterday Aporia announced that another left wing doxxing raid had been successful and they’d lost their primary funder.
These tactics are extremely immoral, unethical and very likely illegal. X could be making significantly more money if woke marketing cartels are broken up. Musk is the only executive with the wherewithal to actually try this, in fact he’s already gone after one such organizing node which immediately shut up shop in an attempt to protect the others. We may infer that this activity is why Musk has now gone all-in on Trump. He tried being neutral for a while, but the left don’t tolerate neutral. They will attack and destroy anything that isn’t absolute loyalty. If Musk ends up important in a future Trump administration, you can bet that one of the first moves will be new interpretations of anti-trust law that forbid advertising cartels. The left is already laying the groundwork, ironically, by going after Google on anti-capitalist grounds, and Trump is a populist not a libertarian capitalist so he won’t have any qualms about using the same tools. Musk could yet end up a winner.
Well once again the comments give us more substantial content than Unherd writers do. Thank you NP. In the end it may be the comments we refer to and the articles are just sign posts.
Great comment. In the battle against advertising cartels, I’m putting my money on Musk.
You talk about “woke marketing cartels” and “advertising cartels”. What are you referring to? I don’t know of any cartels like that.
The globalist are hard at work to cencor speech across the globe https://foundationforfreedomonline.com
‘……..but the left don’t tolerate neutral.’
And don’t we that in all its ugly glory now in the Washington Post furore.
This author is back-to-front with his ‘analysis’. X used to be a playground for a specific subset of the population (leftist/liberal/woke); Musk turned it into a place where all can come and make their voices heard. X marks the spot! 😉
“When powerhouse liberal-mainstream firms like Apple and Disney, (pull) their ads over concerns about appearing next to extremist content … you know something’s fundamentally broken in the business model.”
I don’t think it’s the business model so much as the fact that these “liberal mainstream firms” are wholly in the hands of ideological activists on the Left.
The author’s point is that it doesn’t matter why most of your customers have decided not to buy your product, if you have lost your main revenue stream, you need to change your business model. And he’s right.
We’re talking about something vastly more important than business, here. For instance, free speech and the forces threatening it.
The right to free speech is a right against the government. No one has a right to free speech against other people or private companies. UnHerd, for example, has the right to muzzle speech, and to among other things moderate comments on this forum however it likes. If people don’t like it, they can go elsewhere (as some seem to be doing).
Reminds me of the old Visa commercials:
”Take over a failing echo-chamber social media site: $44 billion…
…make it ‘the last place where different ideological camps still meaningfully clash’: Priceless.”
There was a time long ago when the art of debate was valued, regardless of who won a particular skirmish. As uncomfortable as it may be, a marketplace of ideas and equal-and-opposite force is critical.
Advertisement is not about advertising (cause you and I do not buy Boeing lol); it is about controlling what you can and cannot say ( free speech). So yes, in that sense, X/musk is successful.
He basically broke down the bubble advertisement is selling products. It is purely control of discourse! Musk does not want money from X as long as it pays itself…he wants free speech from advertising! Do not be surprised distribution to take over advertisement in the future! Or perish!
Twitter is virtually the physical space which separates the two women leaning out of the window having a go at each other and having, as observed by Dr Johnson, no chance of agreeing with each other because they were arguing from different premises. I do not know what purpose Twitter is supposed to serve but a debating forum it is not. I have not noticed anyone on it ever conceding that the other party may have a point. Lot of ex-cathedra statements are issued apparently from on high and there is no evidence that reactions to those are monitored and adverse ones taken notice of. I have several times posed the question: why, when the West professes to be waging a war on terror, they are busily aiding terrorists to destroy their victims in Palestine? Answer there has been none!
I have learned enormous amounts on X. I also follow endless entertaining accounts.
Maybe you are just posting where people don’t agree with you and they can’t be bothered to answer?
.
Twitter has become home for the far right cultists and conspiracy theorists. Whatever value it once had has evaporated and Musk has shown his true colours.
Enjoy hanging out on X with your fellow racists and morons!
How would you know, unless you too were “hanging out on X”?
If you want to know what a moron looks like, look in the mirror.
[Too easy]
‘bringing the total to 251 million’
251 million people you have just poured scorn and judgement on.
251 million racists and morons in your opinion.
How have you managed to analyse the political views of 251 million people?
How do you define a moron.
I just saw a speech given by Michelle Obama on X. How do you explain that?
If you had twice as many brain cells you would still, in my opinion, be a half-wit. Anyone who would casually denigrate so many people without any knowledge of who they are and what they represent is not worthy of serious attention.
The author misses the point. As Twitter has become less profitable Musk net worth has increased due to his many other ventures. I don’t think Musk has any sleepless nights due to X
It won’t die if people continue to want to use it, as we do, but it will have to find a financial model that will allow it to survive. If Musk sold it (no doubt at a huge loss), advertisers would probably return. On the other hand, if Trump wins the election advertisers will probably return with or without Elon Musk in charge.
It is not surprising that advertisers have fled. Unless you are selling something that specifically appeals to Right Wing nut jobs, why would you advertise on X?
Good point.
Here is a report of what Disney’s CEO Bob Iger said at the Deal Book Summit in New York on November 22, 2023 after Elon Musk had commented favorably on an anti-Jew tweet:
Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Here is a report of what Elon Musk said in response later in the day:
Not so reasonable. But that’s just my opinion. I may be wrong.
I like the bumper stickers that have started appearing on Teslas: “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy”.
On October 26, 2022, Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk made a dramatic entrance into Twitter headquarters in San Francisco carrying a porcelain bathroom sink. He tweeted a video of himself with the caption, “Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!” That was signature Elon Musk — a playful and memorable moment during the tumultuous takeover of a company.
On November 22, 2023, Elon Musk made a statement that was not at all playful but equally memorable. After he had commented favorably on an anti-Jew tweet (he later admitted that his comment was one of his “most foolish” tweets ever), even more advertisers abandoned Twitter. So at the Deal Book Summit in New York he took out his anger on advertisers, his own customers, telling them: “Go f— yourself. Go. F—. Yourself. Is that clear?”
This interesting article brings those moments back to mind, and more. It’s been two years since his takeover sunk in, and Elon Musk has tried a lot of things. Some worked, like his laying off most of Twitter’s employees. Some didn’t, like him driving away advertisers. But that’s how Elon Musk operates, and that’s why he is the richest man in the world. He tries things knowing that some will be mistakes. He then learns from his mistakes.
For me, then, the most memorable words from Elon Musk’s adventures at Twitter are those he made in a tweet on November 9, 2022:
Genius.
“That was signature Elon Musk“. Yep. Creepy and weird.
Creepy and weird? I thought it was pretty punny.
‘For the foreseeable future, expect X to continue its precarious and provocative existence as the internet’s last and perhaps only genuine public square.’
And isn’t that great; a splash of colour in an otherwise bald and unconvincing terrain (to borrow, and mutilate a little, from The Mikado)
Utter nonsense. Twitter pre-Musk was vile and hate filled, spewing bile about anything and everything that was anti ‘progressive’ or sightly right of centre.
The fact it continues to grow, by 4 million a day, proves its popularity. ‘Brand safety ratings’ are a confected left wing invention to frighten advertisers away by threats and intimidation, any company that cowers to this mob deserves to fail.
Not quite, give X a few more years, especially if Trump wins. Musk is for free speech and he was willing to put his money where his mouth was. Rare, these days.