Elon Musk may flip the switch to make X — the social network formerly known as Twitter — an entirely subscription-based platform. Musk brought up the idea of charging all users of X/Twi…

I’m not sure if this is technically Technology news, but I can remove this post if it’s in the wrong community

Archive link: http://archive.today/3XM6s

Musk brought up the idea of charging all users of X/Twitter during a wide-ranging conversation focused on AI that featured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday. “[We’re] moving to a small monthly payment for use of the X system,” Musk told Netanyahu, claiming that it is the only way to eliminate the problem of bots, as reported by Bloomberg’s Dave Lee.

Musk didn’t mention timing of his plan to charge X/Twitter users, nor did he say how much it would cost.

Musk, who also is CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said X/Twitter ad sales have plunged 50% since he bought the company. “We’re still negative cash flow, due to ~50% drop in advertising revenue plus heavy debt load,” Musk posted on July 15.

  • Thorny_Thicket
    1·
    1 year ago

    He’s the wealthiest man in the world. That doesn’t mean he has a lair full of cash and just wants more. People really struggle to understand the difference between wealth and money in the bank. This isn’t about hoarding money just for the sake of it.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      3·
      1 year ago

      I understand the difference, but he’s collecting stuff just because it’s shiny. He’s short of cash because he has no impulse control, and I fail to see why he shouldn’t fail the same way other people who overextend themselves fail.

      • Thorny_Thicket
        1·
        1 year ago

        What makes you think he’s short on cash? Wealthy people don’t store their wealth in cash anyways. The money is tied to the stocks of the companies they’re running. That’s why he needed to lend the money for twitter too; he doesn’t have that kind of cash, but people are willing to borrow it to him because of his wealth.

        If you just had read the article you’d see that they have lost 50% of the advertisers and are losing money. This isn’t about wanting more money just for the sake of it. No company can exist if their finances are on the negative.

      • Thorny_Thicket
        3·
        1 year ago

        Is he just supposed to pay for the running of twitter out of his pocket or what? It says there they’ve lost 50% of advertisers, and are making negative profit. That isn’t sustainable. The purchase of twitter has cost him 40-something billion, and still keeps costing him even more. It’s not about just wanting more profit, but to atleast break even.