"Over the weekend, a glitch on the platform meant that the site removed pictures and links on posts made before December 2014. The posts showed broken links instead of the pictures and videos that were previously there.

Several users noticed the glitch, with the technologist Tom Coates among those pointing it out. Coates referred to the glitch as “epic vandalism by Musk” and suggested it could be a cost-saving exercise."

  • @Diplomjodler@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    542 years ago

    Take a somewhat successful company, pay way more than it’s worth and then run it into the ground through kack-handed incompetence fueled by unlimited arrogance. Only a true business genius could do that.

      • Obinice
        link
        fedilink
        102 years ago

        At best, I think it could be an actual plan of his, he was pissed when he was forced to buy Twitter after backing out, real pissed.

        Maybe now he’s intentionally destroying it as a way to destroy the accomplishments of those he was forced to buy it from, but he’s doing it in a way that won’t land him in legal trouble for intentionally destroying it.

        I would believe it if it turned out to be true, but at the same time, he could simply be an extremely incompetent, super ultra mega wealthy idiot. I dunno.

    • @agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Another lemmer commented on a similar post and got me thinking… Who paid for Twitter, really? It was not all Musk. I have to wonder if he got marching orders from those bankrolling him to run it into the ground. Also what got deleted? Arab Spring.

      Edited for link and more better words

      • Out of 46.5 billion total cost, 27 billion was out of Musk’s pocket. 13 billion were bank loans, most as a leveraged buyout so technically Twitter owes the banks, but the banks do not own shares. 5.2 billion, only a little more than 10% came from other sources. The biggest is 1.89 billion from the Saudi Prince, but those are just his previously owned shares that he decided to keep. It wasn’t a new investment. He obviously has influence (same as he did before the acquisition) but I doubt he’s giving marching orders with less than 5% stake. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-is-financing-elon-musk-s-us-44-billion-deal-to-buy-twitter-1.6100579?

        • Drunemeton
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          You’re thinking like a shareholder.

          A very rich friend helped out a very rich man, who now owes him a favor…

    • Chariotwheel
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      It’s like someone who feels like there are some communication issues with their spouse go to marriage counseling and it somehow ends up with their house blown up. There was some struggle, but somehow the help turned it into a mess of an entirely different scale.

      • bdesk
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        Talking a traffic ticket down to Murder 1

  • Jaysyn
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    Good. If you’re still on Twitter, you’re part of the problem.

  • What in the fuck is a technologist? Is that what journalists are calling themselves now because they realized how embarrassing the journalist title has become?

  • theodewere
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    as if destruction wasn’t his entire goal… assuming he did this to make money is silly…

    • mephiska
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      At this point I’m thinking destroying twitter is just a scheme to write off losses so he can sell more TLSA stock and avoid taxes.

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        i think it’s more about fun… there weren’t many other toys he could buy and have this much fun with… and he’s just a nasty kid who likes to destroy other people’s nice things…