Elon Musk is speeding up.

Shortly after he took over the short message service Twitter, he fired the top management and dissolved the board of directors.

That may be harsh and perhaps unwise, but it is logical: If Musk, as the new owner, does not trust the previous board and does not trust them to advance Twitter, he can save himself a months-long transition phase.

Because time is pressing.

Alexander Armbruster

Responsible editor for business online.

  • Follow I follow

Of course, the platform continues to stand out in its importance for public discourse.

Former American President Donald Trump has demonstrated what is possible there.

Many incumbent top politicians use Twitter, but also wealthy investors, celebrities, scientists and, last but not least, opinion leaders in a broader sense.

In any case, there is currently no comparable forum.

Nonetheless, Twitter has so far remained a commercial flop.

While other platform operators such as Alphabet (Google) or Meta (Facebook) not only constructed popular services from their own innovative ideas and skilful acquisitions, but also business models with continuously flowing billions in revenue, the changing Twitter management did not even remotely succeed in doing something similar.

Musk needs to change that if his new acquisition isn't going to remain a permanent grant operation.

Musk wants more paying customers

In the past few days he has revealed what he has in mind: First, he wants more paying customers.

He suggested $8 a month for a verified account and some additional functionality.

Like other new and classic media, Twitter is to be financed from advertising revenue and subscription prices in the future.

The horror book author Stephen King was outraged and argued that he made the platform more attractive as a prominent user and should not be asked to pay for it.

He has a point with that.

But of course celebrities also get involved there because they find it very useful or entertaining;

It is therefore not unreasonable to demand a price, on the contrary.

Second, Musk simply wants to attract more users.

For months he has presented himself as a champion of freedom of speech and has announced that he will “liberate” Twitter;

this is also aimed at clients who turned away as a result of Trump's account blocking.

However, the concern now and then occasionally expressed that "everything is allowed" on Twitter in the future is unfounded: the Internet is not a legal vacuum, there are legal limits in dealing with one another and there are corresponding obligations for providers, which have increased in many countries.

Musk can't ignore that.

And market forces also set certain limits: Companies that advertise on Twitter usually want to be sure that their ads don't appear where people glorify extreme violence or emulate Nazis.

The layoffs are on

Third, Musk wants to significantly reduce staffing costs first.

Thousands of employees are likely to lose their jobs.

The first layoffs came on Friday: As announced, dismissed employees received e-mails with the message that it was their last day at the company.

Those who remain should come back to the office, because it is hardly possible to fundamentally change the culture and business of a company in a decentralized manner.

Fourth, there is speculation fueled by Musk himself as to whether Twitter will one day be part of or the basis of a “super app” that users can use to do much more everyday than just communication and information.

It is well known that Musk is interested in digital currencies and blockchain in general.

However, it is difficult to predict what this could mean for Twitter, because many financially stronger companies are also working in this direction and are technically much more advanced in some cases.

Finally, Musk himself could turn out to be a major risk for Twitter.

It is hard to imagine that alongside the car manufacturer Tesla, the space company SpaceX and a few other projects, he will also be in charge of Twitter permanently – not least because of possible conflicts of interest between the various positions.

And then Musk differs from other American tech managers in another respect: He often comments politically, reveals party preferences or gets involved, for example, in the future of Ukraine and Taiwan.

For the first time, there is not just a nerd at the helm of a world-renowned platform who has to deal with accusations of market power and data protection.

But one with a public political agenda.