- Posts
- 7,984
- Likes
- 27,963
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberYep, I've read the Doomberg. It's interesting for sure. Though it IS written with the bias of, "Now we can't drive traffic to our content for free so come join us here!" His view of Elon vs Substack seems a bit disingenuous since Elon and the Twitter Files Four are all on substack and broke their stories there.
Once again, you are revealing much more about yourself than those who you imagine to be reflexive Elon haters.
Doomberg began his piece by describing how Twitter operated pre-Musk, and suggested that there were "three broad categories of human users: Lurkers, Participants, and Creators", all of which found value in the platform. He then argued this:
What made the entire thing viable were the several hundred thousand Creators—those accounts whose content drew a critical mass of eyeballs to the site in the first place. Celebrities, musicians, journalists, influencers, and all manner of expert analysts contributed original work, generating the impressions Twitter could monetize via its advertising model. The unspoken deal between the site and its core Creators was simple enough: Twitter would keep all the advertising revenue, but Creators were free to derive benefit from building an audience. Actors might promote their new film, singers their new album, or journalists their latest article. In many instances, such promotional work invited followers to click away from Twitter where Creators could capture value offsite, which was fine enough with Twitter management—the symbiotic relationship meant both sides had to win.
He then goes on to explain how he believes that Musk has broken that very successful model, and why substack is, for his business, a logical alternative.
Now, if you would care to argue against his specific points and/or positions, perhaps it would add value to the conversation. But writing it off, with the sweep of a hand, as being biased, is lazy at best.
