"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."

  • Savaran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    He must be incredibly shocked that nothing else he’s tried has caused it’s complete collapse yet. I guess just deleting it is all that is left.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He MUST have some ulterior motive.

      Nobody could fuck up this comprehensively by accident, even roling dice to make his decisions he would have to roll the random good idea.

      • Hoomod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        His other companies literally have “handlers” for him so he doesn’t fuck everything up, redirect his attention, etc

        Twitter doesn’t, so when he spouts a stupid idea they just start doing it

      • 1bluepixel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” —Robert J. Hanlon

        More likely, Musk drank his own kool-aid and makes snap decisions believing he’s a genius that will invariably succeed, and no one is able to talk him out of his own hubris.

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But surely he would have to make atleast 1 excellent snap decision. Even if it was an accident.

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe…

            But there is a “flavour” of “stable genius” that is really just being arrogantly contrarian.

            And, if you’re surrounded by people around you giving you generally good advice, and your schtick is to say “when the crowd zigs, I zag”, then you’re doomed to be making generally bad decisions.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I still believe that he is running it into the ground out of a combination of childish pride and demands from his authoritarian financiers in Saudi Arabia.

        He wanted the platform dismantled or reduced to his personal echo chamber because people were making fun of him and he couldn’t do much about it, and the regime wanted the platform under control because free communication is dangerous to their rule.

      • Mechaguana@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        He probably wanted to make space for more data by simulating an “accident” to avoid paying for more memory.

      • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what happens when you’re so powerful that you only have bootlicking yes-men around you that applaud every stupid of your ideas. At that point everyone trying to tell you that you’re wrong in some way looks like the weird one.

      • Overzeetop@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unlike his other ventures, Twitter was already in decline. Trump and his outrage machine was the only thing propping up the aging, relevancy-challenged platform. And in the rest of his endeavors he had competent people managing around him - an isolation and filter layer - that he’s decided he doesn’t need or want at X.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anything to distract from the fact that the $13bn debt the purchase entailed is what actually killed the business.