Elon Musk’s first year of owning Twitter – looking back on a tumultuous timeline

Published

2 years ago

October 28, 2023

admin

Start with the big idea and deal with any issues down the line.

That was the assessment of Elon Musk biographer Michael Vlismas a year ago when asked how the world’s richest man might go about running Twitter.

The SpaceX owner had just bought the bird app for $44bn (£38bn) with a vague goal of transforming it into an “everything app” called X.

Modelled on China‘s WeChat, it could become your one-stop shop for not just getting into arguments online and posting memes, but video calls, podcasts, and even banking.

All while being an internet town square, committed to free speech, where anyone’s views have as much cache as a celebrity, news outlet, or academic – no matter how controversial.

A noble goal, many would argue.

But as Vlismas had indicated, a plan light on detail. And the execution – from huge lay-offs to putting verification behind subscriptions – has been debatable at best.

“He always has a grand vision, but in this instance the details have been a quagmire for him,” says Vlismas.

“Perhaps it’s showing you can’t be everything to everyone – and that’s the challenge with an ‘everything app’.

“It’s got to be a clear vision in terms of what he wants out of it.”

A tumultuous timeline

Musk’s own Twitter timeline was rarely dull, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that once he ruled the roost, Twitter’s own timeline would follow suit.

His first act (other than carrying a sink into the firm’s San Francisco HQ for the sake of a bad pun) was firing executives and thousands of employees quickly suffered the same fate.

Skittish advertisers, concerned about Musk’s stance on content moderation, helped see revenues fall and within a month even the prospect of bankruptcy was being mooted.

Musk’s flagship attempt to drive up company income was to offer verification ticks as a paid-for benefit in a subscription that has expanded to include features like an edit button and longer posts.

A fake Tony Blair, OJ Simpson, and very naughty Super Mario later, it was clear there were flaws in this plan to allow anyone to pay to add the once-respected blue tick to their account.

According to analysis by research group AMPLYFI, which used AI to judge user sentiment on Twitter over time, the furore was “the initial catalyst for things turning sour” for much of the platform’s audience.

“It created chaos,” says Drew Benvie, founder of communications agency Battenhall.

“People don’t know if they’re talking to the real deal.”

Ahead of a year that will include a US presidential election, and with ever-improving AI deepfakes, it’s an issue that could become even more serious.

Other changes have included reinstating banned accounts like those of Andrew Tate and Donald Trump, raising further concerns about the proliferation of hate speech on the platform.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a group X has sued over its damning assessments of its content moderation standards, says Musk has welcomed back a host of bad actors “with open arms”.

Speaking to mark the Muskiversary, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed condemned it as a “grave betrayal of users, advertisers and the wider public”.

That, coupled with the gutting of the company’s trust and safety teams, damaged Twitter’s reputation as a place to seek out verified news – an issue brought home by the Israel-Hamas war.

And then, of course, came rebranding Twitter into X.

A name so embedded in modern society that “tweet” had entered the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, now one which would have once done nothing but arouse suspicion in your browsing history.

‘He has decimated the business’

Musk said Twitter’s transition from talking shop to everything app meant the name no longer made sense, and has claimed the rebranding reflects his ambitions.

Of course, some may have spotted an obvious trend and concluded he simply likes the letter X.

Not only is it part of the name of his successful rocket company, but one of his children; his AI start-up; and an internet banking firm he co-founded that became PayPal.

Social media expert Beth Caroll, of Wunderman Thompson, is sceptical of Musk’s apparent plans.

“There’s a vague possibility he could have this bigger picture idea, this super app like a WeChat, and if he were to deliver that then he might have a viable product,” she says.

“But for now he has just decimated the business.”

Indeed, earlier this year the company was valued at less than a third of the $44bn Musk paid for it.

Even the hiring of Linda Yaccarino, an experienced figure from NBCUniversal, as chief executive has done little to repair the monetary or reputational damage.

It’s worth remembering, Caroll says, that Musk did try awfully hard to back out of buying Twitter, and all the challenges he’s faced are perhaps a sign of why.

Can Musk really have it all?

Yet despite it all, for its remaining users – whether enthusiastic or reluctant – X remains best at this particular type of social media, where real-time updates reign supreme.

For Dr Annmarie Hanlon, lecturer in digital and social marketing at Cranfield School of Management, would-be rivals from the “clunky” Mastodon to Meta‘s “basic” Threads have failed to offer a comparable experience.

“The everything app is still a work in progress,” she says.

“But when Threads opened, everyone said ‘this is the death of Twitter’. And it hasn’t been.”

Of course, given the contempt Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have for each other, don’t expect the Meta boss to abandon his company’s new app anytime soon.

And when it comes to “the death of Twitter”, Musk would happily claim responsibility, with X the phoenix rising from its ashes.

But unlike the rockets of SpaceX (well, most of them), biographer Vlismas doubts how far it can fly.

“With SpaceX, the grand vision is colonising Mars,” he says.

“But the core purpose is launching rockets into space and it’s very effective at that.

“If you wanted to do anything else with it, it dilutes that purpose.

“The longer X is a bit muddled like this, the worse it is. And the more people will turn away.”

US

‘Never-before-seen’ images of Jeffrey Epstein’s island released – showing ‘disturbing look into his world’

Published

21 hours ago

December 3, 2025

admin

'Never-before-seen' images of Jeffrey Epstein's island released - showing 'disturbing look into his world'

Images and video of Jeffrey Epstein’s private Caribbean island have been released by politicians in the US.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee said on X that they were “a harrowing look behind Epstein’s closed doors”.

“We are releasing these photos and videos to ensure public transparency in our investigation and to help piece together the full picture of Epstein’s horrific crimes,” said representative Robert Garcia.

“We won’t stop fighting until we deliver justice for the survivors.”

The images show empty courtyards, bedrooms and other rooms from his villa.

Mr Garcia said: “It’s time for President Trump to release all the files, now.”

President Trump recently approved their release after US Congress voted overwhelmingly in favour.

The US Department of Justice now has until mid-December to release thousands of files linked to civil and criminal cases involving Epstein.

It could shed more light on the paedophile financier, who socialised with figures including Donald Trump, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson.

Their connections have already been revealed in more than 20,000 other files disclosed last month.

But much more is set to follow as the Epstein Files Transparency Act demands release of all files relating to Epstein, including investigations, prosecutions and custodial matters, as well as records connected to Ghislaine Maxwell.

Politicians have said the files’ release is critical to uncovering whether powerful figures have received special treatment or protection.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

US

Why Putin won’t agree to latest Ukraine peace plan

Published

1 day ago

December 3, 2025

admin

Why Putin won't agree to latest Ukraine peace plan

The Americans were given the full VIP treatment on their visit to Moscow.

There was a motorcade from the airport, lunch at a Michelin-starred restaurant, and even a stroll around Red Square.

It felt like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were on more of a tourist trail than the path to peace.

They finally got down to business in the Kremlin more than six hours after arriving in Russia. And by that point, it was already clear that the one thing they had come to Moscow for wasn’t on offer: Russia’s agreement to their latest peace plan.

According to Vladimir Putin, it’s all Europe’s fault. While his guests were having lunch, he was busy accusing Ukraine’s allies of blocking the peace process by imposing demands that are unacceptable to Russia.

The Europeans, of course, would say it’s the other way round.

But where there was hostility to Europe, only hospitality to the Americans – part of Russia’s strategy to distance the US from its NATO allies, and bring them back to Moscow’s side.

Putin thinks he’s winning…

Russia wants to return to the 28-point plan that caved in to its demands. And it believes it has the right to because of what’s happening on the battlefield.

It’s no coincidence that on the eve of the US delegation’s visit to Moscow, Russia announced the apparent capture of Pokrovsk, a key strategic target in the Donetsk region.

It was a message designed to assert Russian dominance, and by extension, reinforce its demands rather than dilute them.

…and believes US-Russian interests are aligned

The other reason I think Vladimir Putin doesn’t feel the need to compromise is because he believes Moscow and Washington want the same thing: closer US-Russia relations, which can only come after the war is over.

It’s easy to see why. Time and again in this process, the US has defaulted to a position that favours Moscow. The way these negotiations are being conducted is merely the latest example.

With Kyiv, the Americans force the Ukrainians to come to them – first in Geneva, then Florida.

As for Moscow, it’s the other way around. Witkoff is happy to make the long overnight journey, and then endure the long wait ahead of any audience with Putin.

It all gives the impression that when it comes to Russia, the US prefers to placate rather than pressure.

According to the Kremlin, both Russia and the US have agreed not to disclose the details of yesterday’s talks in Moscow.

I doubt Volodymyr Zelenskyy is filled with hope.

US

Hegseth cites ‘fog of war’ in defence of second US strike on alleged drug boat

Published

1 day ago

December 3, 2025

admin

Hegseth cites 'fog of war' in defence of second US strike on alleged drug boat

US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has cited the “fog of war” in defence of a follow-up strike earlier this year on a boat alleged to be carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea.

His comments came on the day the Pope urged Donald Trump not to try to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro using military force.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday alongside Mr Trump, Mr Hegseth said the US had paused strikes because it was hard to find drug boats.

But strikes against drug traffickers would continue, he said.

During the cabinet meeting at the White House, Mr Hegseth said that he did not see that there were survivors in the water when the second strike was ordered and launched in early September, saying that “the thing was on fire”.

Mr Hegseth also said he “didn’t stick around” for the rest of the mission following the first strike, adding that the admiral in charge had “made the right call” in ordering it, which he “had complete authority to do”.

The Washington Post first reported that Mr Hegseth issued a verbal order for the second strike that killed survivors on the boat.

On Monday, the White House said that Navy vice admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley acted “within his authority and the law” when he ordered the second strike.

Asked if he supported the second strike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea in September, President Trump said he “didn’t know anything” and “still haven’t gotten a lot of information because I rely on Pete”, referencing Mr Hegseth.

On Tuesday, Pope Leo, the first American pontiff, said it would be better to attempt dialogue or impose economic pressure on Venezuela if Washington wanted to pursue change there.

The Trump administration has been weighing options to combat what it has portrayed as Mr Maduro’s role in supplying illegal drugs that have killed Americans.

The socialist Venezuelan president has denied having any links to the illegal drug trade.

Asked during a news conference about President Trump’s threats to remove Mr Maduro by force, the Pope said: “It is better to search for ways of dialogue, or perhaps pressure, including economic pressure.”

He added that Washington should search for other ways to achieve change “if that is what they want to do in the United States”.

The Pope was speaking as he flew home from visiting Turkey and Lebanon – his first overseas trip in the role.

Mr Maduro has said Venezuelans are ready to defend their country as the US considers a land attack.

The president held a rally in Caracas amid heightened tensions with Mr Trump’s administration, which has been targeting what it says are boats carrying drug smugglers.

Mr Trump met his national security team on Monday evening, having warned last week that land strikes would start “very soon”.

It has not been confirmed what was discussed at the meeting. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: “There’s many options at the president’s disposal that are on the table – and I’ll let him speak on those.”

US forces have carried out at least 21 strikes on boats it claims were carrying narcotics to its shores over the last few months.

Mr Maduro – considered a dictator by many in the West – said on Monday that Venezuelans were ready “to defend [the country] and lead it to the path of peace”.

“We have lived through 22 weeks of aggression that can only be described as psychological terrorism,” he said.

Venezuela has said the boat attacks, which have killed more than 80 people, amount to murder – and that Mr Trump’s true motivation is to oust Mr Maduro and access its oil.