What's your point? That it gets people to click on links? I'm not disputing that. I'm merely stating that doesn't translate into anything useful. I don't think many will sign up to Twitter over this and clicks alone don't make Twitter money (ads do, but HN users are more likely to have them blocked or at least not click on them) so this is just adding load to their systems for nothing in return.
1. Elon was planning to put in a new CEO all along. He admitted this back in November!
2. The erratic behavior was a publicity stunt (which PG was in on).
The purpose is to get lots of stagnant and new users engaged with Twitter as the saga unfolds, and to set the stage for the new “hero” CEO to take the reigns from the eccentric owner and lead Twitter into a “new era” etc.
This spikes their active user count, boosts all of their KPI’s, and gets those new/reactivated users following the saga until they form a Twitter habit. It also gives Twitter more favorable optics with “establishment” advertisers as the “bad guy” is dethroned to go focus on rockets and cars, while the tension and drama remain with Elon on the board. I’m sure there will be future drama between Elon and the new CEO that will unfold openly on Twitter. That is also by design.
It’s obvious. They know mastedon isn’t a threat. It’s a federated mess and can’t handle the load.
There are independent Twitter alternatives that are a threat, refuse to to respect any facet of the establishment Overton window and allow all legal speech, don’t rely on their 3rd party hosting services/app stores, and could easily scale, but notice PG didn’t go to any of those. The Twitter policy also didn’t mention any of the real threats. That is by design. I’m not sure why people here can’t see it.
