Twitter is a Private Company
Smedley said:
It's indisputable that every Twitter investor, ie Musk + the other 19, are "wrong" so far. But IMO that wrong is a function of very bad luck and timing, in that tech and social media stocks tanked between April, when the deal was agreed to at $54.20 per share, and October, when the deal closed and $TWTR probably would have been in the $20-$25 range.
So yeah, everyone is starting in a big hole, but that has little to do with how Musk has run the company in the past 3 months. I'm sure all the investors would undo their investment if they could, but at the same time they're all big boys (and girls) and they know that markets sometimes tank, and sometimes you get hosed by that happening. Right now and going forward it's about what Musk can do to build back the value of Twitter, and only time will tell whether he's able to do so.
I guess we have different assessment of Musk's actions then. It seems very clear to me that Musk is unable to build back the value of Twitter, barring some dramatic changes in his approach thus far.
Yes, I guess we do. With a transaction of this nature, I don't think anything is very clear after 3 months, unless we saw obvious drain-swirly stuff like 50% of users gone and lengthy outages every day. There's a ton of noise about Twitter, sometimes on Twitter, but other than that I find my Twitter UX is more or less the same as before, maybe with slight enhancements at the margin.
I think any 3-month-in proclamation that the new owner has failed is premature, and a fair timeframe to assess is more like 1-3 years.
Smedley said:
Yes, I guess we do. With a transaction of this nature, I don't think anything is very clear after 3 months, unless we saw obvious drain-swirly stuff like 50% of users gone and lengthy outages every day. There's a ton of noise about Twitter, sometimes on Twitter, but other than that I find my Twitter UX is more or less the same as before, maybe with slight enhancements at the margin.
I think any 3-month-in proclamation that the new owner has failed is premature, and a fair timeframe to assess is more like 1-3 years.
as with almost anything hot takes are not always the best takes, and the long term will determine real success or failure. which is not all that different than my comment:
ml1 said:and all of this is not to say that Musk can't turn this around if he has the humility to backtrack on some of his not well-thought out decisions. But I'm not sure that Musk and "humility" are compatible words. We'll see if the prospect of losing billions makes him a little more humble though.
and I'll stand by that because I can't see Twitter turning around in a 1-3 year time frame without Musk admitting mistakes, probably implementing TOS that are enforced similarly to the old TOS, and working hard to make the platform more brand-safe to bring back advertisers.
if he isn't willing to eat a little crow, good luck trying to grow advertising revenue. Advertisers and media agencies really don't need Twitter as long as YouTube, FB, and the rest allow them to achieve reach without the PR headaches.
but if he's going to insist that Twitter is a place where people can post just about anything they want as long as it isn't a literal call for violence, I don't see where the necessary revenue growth is going to come from.
Smedley said:
Yes, I guess we do. With a transaction of this nature, I don't think anything is very clear after 3 months, unless we saw obvious drain-swirly stuff like 50% of users gone and lengthy outages every day. There's a ton of noise about Twitter, sometimes on Twitter, but other than that I find my Twitter UX is more or less the same as before, maybe with slight enhancements at the margin.
I think any 3-month-in proclamation that the new owner has failed is premature, and a fair timeframe to assess is more like 1-3 years.
If that's the optimistic scenario, then Musk's in trouble, as Twitter was losing money before he bought it, so a Twitter that's "more or less the same as before" isn't going to quite cut it in the face of the debt he's loaded the company up with. Musk needs to do more approach break even, he needs to grow revenue substantially and, as ml1 noted, it's hard to see where that growth is going to come from in Musk's current approach.
PVW said:
Smedley said:
Yes, I guess we do. With a transaction of this nature, I don't think anything is very clear after 3 months, unless we saw obvious drain-swirly stuff like 50% of users gone and lengthy outages every day. There's a ton of noise about Twitter, sometimes on Twitter, but other than that I find my Twitter UX is more or less the same as before, maybe with slight enhancements at the margin.
I think any 3-month-in proclamation that the new owner has failed is premature, and a fair timeframe to assess is more like 1-3 years.
If that's the optimistic scenario, then Musk's in trouble, as Twitter was losing money before he bought it, so a Twitter that's "more or less the same as before" isn't going to quite cut it in the face of the debt he's loaded the company up with. Musk needs to do more approach break even, he needs to grow revenue substantially and, as ml1 noted, it's hard to see where that growth is going to come from in Musk's current approach.
I worked on the sell side of media advertising for a very long time, so I know a bit about how brands can be very restrictive about where their messages appear. Fifteen years ago lot of national advertisers were too squeamish about content to even advertise on Good Morning America. In the past five years, news sites had to more or less ban the verb "trump" because content safety bots were blocking ads from being served on pages with that word. (I guess that meant fewer stories being written about card games).
So Musk can pat himself on the back for reinstating the capital-letter Trump, and the likes of Nick Fuentes, but that won't help Twitter on the business side. Could advertisers like MyPillow and Black Rifle Coffee make up for P&G or AT&T? My Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook not so good."
Mostly fair points. But I do think there's some crowding out of rationality on the part of progressives who disagree with Elon Musk politically and then extend that to opine that he's a hopeless moron doomed to failure.
For example the above statement "I'm not sure that Musk and "humility" are compatible words." What is the basis for that statement? I just did a quick search and it seems Musk has no problem admitting mistakes.
Smedley said:
Mostly fair points. But I do think there's some crowding out of rationality on the part of progressives who disagree with Elon Musk politically and then extend that to opine that he's a hopeless moron doomed to failure.
For example the above statement "I'm not sure that Musk and "humility" are compatible words." What is the basis for that statement? I just did a quick search and it seems Musk has no problem admitting mistakes.
we'll see. I said I'm not sure.
It takes a certain amount of megalomania just to decide "I'm going to buy Twitter", so that's what I'm basing my opinion on.
Not to mention thinking that hosting SNL would be a good idea.
And admitting mistakes isn't in and of itself and indication that someone possesses the trait of humility. Admitting mistakes, especially big ones, can be a way of adding to ones "great" image.
Smedley said:
Mostly fair points. But I do think there's some crowding out of rationality on the part of progressives who disagree with Elon Musk politically and then extend that to opine that he's a hopeless moron doomed to failure.
Maybe, though that's another point of trouble for Musk. As I've mentioned, I had slightly negative, but not super strong, feelings about Musk before he bought Twitter. Now I have a very firm, and very negative, opinion of him. To the extent that Musk's ability to be an effective spokesperson has been an important part of his companies (especially Tesla), if my experience isn't unique here then he may have caused himself some permanent brand damage.
PVW said:
Smedley said:
Mostly fair points. But I do think there's some crowding out of rationality on the part of progressives who disagree with Elon Musk politically and then extend that to opine that he's a hopeless moron doomed to failure.
Maybe, though that's another point of trouble for Musk. As I've mentioned, I had slightly negative, but not super strong, feelings about Musk before he bought Twitter. Now I have a very firm, and very negative, opinion of him. To the extent that Musk's ability to be an effective spokesperson has been an important part of his companies (especially Tesla), if my experience isn't unique here then he may have caused himself some permanent brand damage.
my disgust with Musk isn't about politics. It's that he's acting like a major league ****.
And I have no pressing need to use Twitter or buy a Tesla.
So why do I want to give him my $$?
ml1 said:
And admitting mistakes isn't in and of itself and indication that someone possesses the trait of humility. Admitting mistakes, especially big ones, can be a way of adding to ones "great" image.
good clip. all new to me.
ml1 said:
And admitting mistakes isn't in and of itself and indication that someone possesses the trait of humility. Admitting mistakes, especially big ones, can be a way of adding to ones "great" image.
Well we were talking about admitting mistakes in the context of whether Musk is capable of course-correcting as CEO/owner of Twitter Inc. I showed 3 examples where apparently Musk has admitted mistakes, which lends credence to the view that he is capable of doing so at Twitter.
As far as whether he has the personal trait of humility, which I guess is your point here, who cares? If I'm a Twitter investor, I don't give a crap about that. I don't wanna go for a beer with the guy, I only want him to run the company in a way that's gonna make me money.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
And admitting mistakes isn't in and of itself and indication that someone possesses the trait of humility. Admitting mistakes, especially big ones, can be a way of adding to ones "great" image.
Well we were talking about admitting mistakes in the context of whether Musk is capable of course-correcting as CEO/owner of Twitter Inc. I showed 3 examples where apparently Musk has admitted mistakes, which lends credence to the view that he is capable of doing so at Twitter.
As far as whether he has the personal trait of humility, which I guess is your point here, who cares? If I'm a Twitter investor, I don't give a crap about that. I don't wanna go for a beer with the guy, I only want him to run the company in a way that's gonna make me money.
throw out the word humility if it gets you distracted from my larger point. First, I do think we could see Musk backtracking from some of the layoffs and rehiring many positions.
But more specifically his public stance for buying Twitter was to make it a bastion of what he considers "free speech" and to reinstate users who were previously banned for TOS violations. It's one of the things his fans love about him. Former advertisers not so much.
So my question is -- does Musk have it in him to go back on that principle? Can he make a public statement that Twitter is going to go back to more robust moderation of hate speech?
That would be a lot more ego-bruising than just admitting they got rid of too many engineers. But without doing something like that I don't see a path forward to growing advertising revenue the way Twitter needs to in order to get to profitability. Frankly, even if he does I'm not sure Musk hasn't already burned that bridge with a lot of advertisers.
I can't recall where I saw this, but someone pointed out that Musk doesn't have a lot of experience working with advertisers. Tesla generally doesn't advertise. SpaceX doesn't, and doesn't need to. But ads are the core of Twitter's business model. Maybe over time Musk learns the needed skills, but this underscores how different Twitter is from his other business ventures and why his previous successes don't guarantee success here.
Discussion I listened to on "Marketplace" this morning, on WNYC.
Lessons so far from Elon Musk's tweet trial - Marketplace
Excerpt:
Brancaccio: By the way, Musk now testifies that he really did have the funding to take Tesla private, he just didn’t do that in the end. Now, another interesting phrase we heard from Mr. Musk is that there are limitations to communicating on Twitter because of the short-form nature of what is a tweet. He said you can be truthful, but you can’t be comprehensive in that format. But here’s another Musk quote, “Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or act accordingly.” That’s kind of like the irony defense. Maybe I’m saying one thing, but I mean something else and it’s up to people to not listen to me.
Gordon: You know, and maybe that’s the best advice he’s ever given us: don’t believe everything I say.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
And admitting mistakes isn't in and of itself and indication that someone possesses the trait of humility. Admitting mistakes, especially big ones, can be a way of adding to ones "great" image.
Well we were talking about admitting mistakes in the context of whether Musk is capable of course-correcting as CEO/owner of Twitter Inc. I showed 3 examples where apparently Musk has admitted mistakes, which lends credence to the view that he is capable of doing so at Twitter.
As far as whether he has the personal trait of humility, which I guess is your point here, who cares? If I'm a Twitter investor, I don't give a crap about that. I don't wanna go for a beer with the guy, I only want him to run the company in a way that's gonna make me money.
throw out the word humility if it gets you distracted from my larger point. First, I do think we could see Musk backtracking from some of the layoffs and rehiring many positions.
But more specifically his public stance for buying Twitter was to make it a bastion of what he considers "free speech" and to reinstate users who were previously banned for TOS violations. It's one of the things his fans love about him. Former advertisers not so much.
So my question is -- does Musk have it in him to go back on that principle? Can he make a public statement that Twitter is going to go back to more robust moderation of hate speech?
That would be a lot more ego-bruising than just admitting they got rid of too many engineers. But without doing something like that I don't see a path forward to growing advertising revenue the way Twitter needs to in order to get to profitability. Frankly, even if he does I'm not sure Musk hasn't already burned that bridge with a lot of advertisers.
Fair. My guess is he lands somewhere in between, ie less moderated than it was before when it was arguably over-moderated, but more moderated than it has been since he took over. And I also think he'll hire a CEO sooner rather than later and step back from the day-to-day management.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
And admitting mistakes isn't in and of itself and indication that someone possesses the trait of humility. Admitting mistakes, especially big ones, can be a way of adding to ones "great" image.
Well we were talking about admitting mistakes in the context of whether Musk is capable of course-correcting as CEO/owner of Twitter Inc. I showed 3 examples where apparently Musk has admitted mistakes, which lends credence to the view that he is capable of doing so at Twitter.
As far as whether he has the personal trait of humility, which I guess is your point here, who cares? If I'm a Twitter investor, I don't give a crap about that. I don't wanna go for a beer with the guy, I only want him to run the company in a way that's gonna make me money.
throw out the word humility if it gets you distracted from my larger point. First, I do think we could see Musk backtracking from some of the layoffs and rehiring many positions.
But more specifically his public stance for buying Twitter was to make it a bastion of what he considers "free speech" and to reinstate users who were previously banned for TOS violations. It's one of the things his fans love about him. Former advertisers not so much.
So my question is -- does Musk have it in him to go back on that principle? Can he make a public statement that Twitter is going to go back to more robust moderation of hate speech?
That would be a lot more ego-bruising than just admitting they got rid of too many engineers. But without doing something like that I don't see a path forward to growing advertising revenue the way Twitter needs to in order to get to profitability. Frankly, even if he does I'm not sure Musk hasn't already burned that bridge with a lot of advertisers.
Fair. My guess is he lands somewhere in between, ie less moderated than it was before when it was arguably over-moderated, but more moderated than it has been since he took over. And I also think he'll hire a CEO sooner rather than later and step back from the day-to-day management.
and to my earlier point, a halfway effort is probably not going to allow him to grow Twitter's advertising revenue.
I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not going to say I know definitely what's going to happen to Twitter and Musk in the next couple of years. But if someone forced me to bet $1000 on what I thought the most likely outcome would be in 2-3 years I'd say this -- Twitter while it's owned by Musk will not be profitable, and it will not grow its advertising base. I don't think some advertisers will come back at all, no matter what changes Musk makes. And at some point Musk ends up divesting himself of Twitter, loses perhaps half of his original investment, and he'll move on.
Trying to reestablish brand safety and being a good place for advertisers is like trying to glue a vase back together.
The bull case is that Twitter has been known as a poorly managed company for years now, and lots of folks say there are ways to unlock value that previous management failed to do. When $TWTR was ~$40 a few years back, Jim Cramer (whom I respect) said that if he was CEO he could get it to $100 within a year via various initiatives, like for example doing more local-targeting on the platform. Now TBH I'm not sure what such initiatives are exactly but apparently there are opportunities that I imagine Musk will roll out over time. If - and it's a big if - such initiatives are successful, content moderation is reasonable and Twitter's user base grows, advertisers would see dollar signs and would let bygones be bygones wrt to the early days of Musk's ownership.
I'd take a speculative flyer with $1000 if I could get Twitter shares at an appropriate current valuation which I'm guessing would be around $20/sh. Wouldn't touch it at $54.20.
(from back on 1/23)
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
My old rule for highway driving was to steer clear of cars with side damage, such as scrapes or serious dents.
My new rule is to steer clear of those cars, and also of Teslas because I don't know if I can trust "who" is in charge of steering it.
He might say this was said in jest, but I don't think so. I think @nohero means it literally.
Why would anyone think nohero's post was not meant literally?? My own policy regarding damaged cars is the same as his (and has been since the 60s). His new rule about Teslas seems just as sound.
Smedley said:
The bull case is that Twitter has been known as a poorly managed company for years now, and lots of folks say there are ways to unlock value that previous management failed to do. When $TWTR was ~$40 a few years back, Jim Cramer (whom I respect) said that if he was CEO he could get it to $100 within a year via various initiatives, like for example doing more local-targeting on the platform. Now TBH I'm not sure what such initiatives are exactly but apparently there are opportunities that I imagine Musk will roll out over time. If - and it's a big if - such initiatives are successful, content moderation is reasonable and Twitter's user base grows, advertisers would see dollar signs and would let bygones be bygones wrt to the early days of Musk's ownership.
I'd take a speculative flyer with $1000 if I could get Twitter shares at an appropriate current valuation which I'm guessing would be around $20/sh. Wouldn't touch it at $54.20.
I wonder what Jim Cramer would say today.
FWIW, I do know what Cramer was talking about regarding geotargeting on the platform. And a few years ago he was absolutely right. That's where Google and FB make a lot of their money, and it's how they distinguish themselves from TV and even to some extent from radio. That said, technology doesn't solve the problem of advertisers not wanting to associate with the platform which is the elephant in Twitter's room right now.
but just because Unilever or Coke might not want to be on Twitter, maybe the local pizzeria or car dealer won't care about being next to a Nick Fuentes tweet. So maybe that's the solution, and it can be built through technology by creating self-serve tools for local advertisers instead of having a human sales force going out to potential advertisers.
but I don't see it. The first time an Arturo's or Maple Leaf has a customer show them their ad following white supremacist content, they'll likely bail as quickly as a national advertiser.
If Twitter doesn't go back to banning people who post hate speech, I don't see how technology alone gets them out of their dilemma.
Smedley said:
Fair. My guess is he lands somewhere in between, ie less moderated than it was before when it was arguably over-moderated, but more moderated than it has been since he took over. And I also think he'll hire a CEO sooner rather than later and step back from the day-to-day management.
I'm not a professional in advertising, but I suspect that advertisers did not think that the Twitter was "arguably over-moderated" when they made their pre-Musk decisions about whether to pay for advertising there.
nohero said:
I'm not a professional in advertising
Turns out, neither is Elon Musk!
mjc said:
Why would anyone think nohero's post was not meant literally?? My own policy regarding damaged cars is the same as his (and has been since the 60s). His new rule about Teslas seems just as sound.
I always avoided red cars. And just so others would avoid me, too, for 30 years I drove one.
DaveSchmidt said:
I always avoided red cars. And just so others would avoid me, too, for 30 years I drove one.
I try to avoid cars with NJ plates.
(my dad, an extremely conscientious and conservative driver, bought a red car in 1960 and was almost immediately pulled over going maybe 2 miles over the limit. we assumed the cop just wanted to look at the car.)
sorry, will hold off on further drift.
DaveSchmidt said:
I always avoided red cars. And just so others would avoid me, too, for 30 years I drove one.
every red car I had, got people crashing into them. My last one was parked on Springfield avenue, some idiot just rear ended it into the old mechanic school store front. After that I never bought a red car again. It’s like a magnet.
Interesting that "liberals" here are criticizing Musk because he's not pandering to big corporations to attract advertising, the way a capitalist enterprise should. That's why we have a mainstream corporate media that's virtually monolithic, excluding dissenting views.
Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money. He's trying to create a "a common digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence".
In other words, Musk is trying to create a platform for dialogue that "looks like America". Actually one that looks like "the world".
Dear Twitter Advertisers pic.twitter.com/GMwHmInPAS
— Mr. Tweet (@elonmusk) October 27, 2022
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Actually the examples of anti-labor actions by Google are a response to a direct request for such examples by @PVW:
(my bold)PVW said:
Smedley said:
Companies that are taken private often slash jobs and make dramatic and jarring changes. So comparing Twitter with publicly traded Google, Microsoft, etc is comparing apples and oranges. And while Musk may be a dick, Twitter being meaner to its employees than Google and Microsoft is not evidence that he is a dick.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/technology/twitter-changes.amp.html
I think Musk's actions are still significantly different -- and worse -- than your typical taking of a public company private (where does "bring your own toilet paper" fit in the going private road map?), but yes, it would be great if Paul were to at least try to compare apples to apples rather than insisting that, actually, lots of things rhyme with "orange."
If you think those were "apples to apples", you shouldn't do the grocery shopping.
Are you suggesting that the complaints workers of the Google labor union are less important than the problems of Twitter workers reported by @PVW? [ I'll concede that Google workers haven't complained about supplies of toilet paper and body odors of colleagues. ]
https://alphabetworkersunion.org/press/press-kit/
On Nov. 1, 2018, at 11:10 a.m., some 20,000 Google employees, along with employees of Waymo, Verily and other Alphabet companies, stopped working and walked off the job in cities around the world. A week earlier, The New York Times reported that the company had paid tens of millions of dollars to two executives who had been accused of sexual misconduct toward our co-workers, staying silent about the alleged abuse and letting them walk away with no consequences.People speaking at the protests that morning recounted their own experiences of harassment and discrimination at the company. In San Francisco, one woman held up a sign reading, “I reported and he got promoted.” Others read, “Happy to quit for $90 million, no sexual harassment required” and “Unfair workplaces create unfair platforms.”
We’d had enough.
Read the full op-ed in The New York Times.
Press releases
Follow us for updates: RSS feed
- 2022-11-18 – Google Cancels Talk by Hindu Fundamentalist & Announces New Policies Regarding External Speakers Thanks to Efforts by Workers to End Caste Discrimination at Google
- 2022-11-15 – Recent Layoffs in the Tech Industry
- 2022-11-03 – Alphabet Workers Union-CWA Call Out Attempts by Google to Block Pay Transparency Efforts Amongst Temporary, Vendor and Contract Workers with Filing of Unfair Labor Practice Charges
- 2022-10-24 – YouTube Music Contract Workers Unionize with Alphabet Workers Union-CWA & File Petition with NLRB to Win Bargaining Rights
- 2022-10-06 – AWU-CWA files two Unfair Labor Practice charges against Google Data Center contractors
- 2022-08-30 – Jewish Google worker forced to resign after opposing company’s $1.2 billion contract with Israel
- 2022-08-23 – Company settles after AWU-CWA filed NLRB charge in response to Google Fiber worker being told “union members not eligible for raises”
- 2022-08-17 – Over 650 Alphabet workers sign petition demanding post-Roe protections
- 2022-06-06 – Alphabet must add caste as a protected category and address caste-based harms in its workplace
- 2022-06-06 – Google contract workers with Artech win thousands in backpay, highlighting pay transparency & wage theft issues facing Google TVCs
- 2022-06-02 – After Workers Threaten Strike, Google Maps Workers Win Return to Office Extension with Support from AWU-CWA
- 2022-05-24 – Google Maps Contract Workers in Bothell, WA say NO to RTO
- 2022-05-04 – Google broken promises: Subcontractors paid $10/hr in spite of Google policy which claims $15/hr minimum
- 2022-03-25 – Google Fiber Subcontractors Celebrate Blowout NLRB Election Win
- 2022-03-14 – Google Employees Launch Petition Calling Foul as Google Cloud Support Announces Layoffs
- 2022-02-18 – AWU-CWA Workers Demand Pay Equity for Offices Aimed at Diversity Recruitment as Google Cuts Worker Pay
- 2022-01-06 – Google Fiber TVC Workers in Kansas City Unionize with Alphabet Workers Union & File Petition with NLRB to Win Bargaining Rights
- 2021-12-01 – Google Contractor Fired for Being “UnGoogley”—Workers Fight to End Retaliation For Discussing Wages
- 2021-11-04 – Modis Workers At Google Data Centers Succeed in Getting Hazard Pay, Following Collective Actions
- 2021-09-15 – AWU Letter Calls On Alphabet to Deliver Pay Parity For All Temporary Workers
- 2021-06-01 – Alphabet Workers Union calling on Google and G4S to #DroptheDeadnames
- 2021-05-07 – Google early childhood education workers launch letter asking for transportation stipend
- 2021-04-13 – Caste discrimination must be addressed in the US
- 2021-03-31 – Google, Modis Must Post Notices Informing Workers of Rights, Rescind Suspension of Worker Following Settlement with Alphabet Workers Union
- 2021-03-25 – Statement of the Alphabet Workers Union On “the Misinformation and Disinformation Plaguing Online Platforms” Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee March 25, 2021
- 2021-02-04 – Workers Fight Google Contractor’s Attempt to Bar Discussion of Wages
- 2021-01-20 – AWU statement on retaliation against Margaret Mitchell
- 2021-01-07 – AWU statement on fascist coup attempt
- 2021-01-04 – Google Workers, Demanding Change at Work, Are Launching a Union With the Communications Workers of America
It's indisputable that every Twitter investor, ie Musk + the other 19, are "wrong" so far. But IMO that wrong is a function of very bad luck and timing, in that tech and social media stocks tanked between April, when the deal was agreed to at $54.20 per share, and October, when the deal closed and $TWTR probably would have been in the $20-$25 range.
So yeah, everyone is starting in a big hole, but that has little to do with how Musk has run the company in the past 3 months. I'm sure all the investors would undo their investment if they could, but at the same time they're all big boys (and girls) and they know that markets sometimes tank, and sometimes you get hosed by that happening. Right now and going forward it's about what Musk can do to build back the value of Twitter, and only time will tell whether he's able to do so.