Why do you think that?
back
2 comments
Because Musk fanboys have a deep drive to provide rational explanations for the myriad of idiotic things he states
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
The fact that this rule is now seen as optional is, IMHO, a genuinely bad sign for the health of the Hacker News community.
It's just the simplest explanation, I wouldn't overthink it.
True. I for one thought it was pretty clear it was a simpleton comment you didn't think through.
Snark for me, not for thee
From a user perspective it's messy and confusing. What does "half as many" even mean? The experience is only different in degree, not in kind. There's less value, both real and perceived, in such a position.
It's hard to imagine that the conversation started from "half as many." My hunch is that it started as "no ads" and somehow backed down to "half" for one reason or another.
A couple reasons I can imagine are: - They could've justified No Ads at the rumored $20 price point. Cut the price in half? Add half the ads back. - They want to make room for a $20 SKU later and need to reserve some features for it, which could include getting rid of all ads. - They want to anchor at "half" so that "No Ads" sounds even better if they change their minds down the line.
Or some combination of all those.
Why do you have that hunch? Do you presume good will? My hunch says, what if the conversation started as "how do we make users believe there will be less ads"?
Should one presume bad faith here?
Why would you presume good faith here?
Burning Twitter to the ground seems quite counterproductive, given the debt that was assumed for the sale. Misguided sure, but bad faith? I generally tend to assume that most people do things in good faith.
It's business, good faith isn't really the issue... this isn't your neighbor asking for some eggs....
>"Burning Twitter to the ground seems quite counterproductive"
Good faith or not, it doesn't mean someone can't be misguided. which is why I asked, who cares about their faith??
Because I am not a heavy enough Twitter user for this to affect me at all, so I'm just curious to see if Musk's gamble works. He's gambling that the network effect is as important for Verified users as it is for non-Verified users, which is not a bet most other creator-based social media sites have made. Judging by the number/temperature of comments you've made about this topic over the last two days, I think you're a lot more emotionally invested in this topic than I am. I'm just here with popcorn.