The logo has been very successful in branding the company, as well as the companion verb "tweet". I think a company has reached peak when its name or something connected is used as an action verb. If he had taken over McDs he'd be tossing out the arches and even Big Mac with claims that they are the problem.

Twitter may have not been in great shape financially when he took over, but at least it had somewhat of an image. Musk is the contractor you called to fix a leak in the roof, and he burns the house down. He fixed the leak alright.

[–] root@socialmedia.fail 15 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Twitter was doing fine financially before Musk bought it. He paid more than twice what it was worth and he used loans to do it, that's what this is all about.

[–] atomWood@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Twitter has never really been a financially viable company. They were losing money year after year. That’s not what I would call financially stable. There’s a reason they did everything they could to force Musk to buy it when he tried to back out.

[–] root@socialmedia.fail 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah there is a reason, the reason is because his dumbass offered more than twice what the company was worth.

Lots of tech companies operate at slightly under profitability. They were doing fine.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (18 replies)