Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
Capitalism. The incentive for any large, profit-motivated firm will always be to get the most people to pay as much as possible for as little as possible.
The growth of online advertising revenue slowed in 2022 for the first time since 2009.It still grew, just slower.
Interest rates went up.
With the collapse of crypto and Silicon Valley Bank (which was overleveraged in crypto), VC money isn't as free flowing. There really wasn't that much institutional money in crypto, but it's still a destablizing force and has had a ripple effect.
AI is making more people aware of bots. This is related to point #1. A huge, unknown percentage of of FAANG revenue is selling online ads to bots instead of real eyeballs and once the word gets out, ad revenue will slow even more for any service depending on online ads (eg reddit).
The interest rate hike in the USA by the federal government caused this. The companies can't borrow money for nearly free any more. All the entities who would have been offering these loans are now able to buy government bonds with a much more guaranteed return on investment. This means the corporations must squeeze more profit out of their products to pay back loans. There are an enormous amount of large money transactions like this used to run a large business. They do not operate on cash reserves all the time. They have assets and are always evolving to stay relevant. Most businesses have enormous asset holdings but limited liquidity.
Regarding Twitter, Elon seems to like trial and error, right? That's how SpaceX developed their rockets - by trying new things and testing them frequently, to see if they work.
So with Twitter I think he's just trying to see what he can get away with. And if he can't get away with something then he'll just roll it back.
As for Reddit, I guess they saw Twitter trying to squeeze more money from their platform and thought "let's try that too".
Interest rates had been historically low for a long time. Loans were cheap and venture capital was flowing freely. Tech companies could focus more on growing their market share with lots and lots of runway before they needed to become profitable.
Then during the pandemic, Congress gave a massive bailout to businesses. Inflation went skyrocketing, and the Fed had to raise interest rates to limit the damage.
Now money isn't flowing nearly as freely for tech companies. Loans are more expensive, and investors are more content to leave their money in high-yield bonds instead. Tech companies are pivoting to stop chasing market share and instead start taking their profits from their current market share, even if it means their market share stops growing.
The companies want to make more money, and they have (what they think) a captive audience that will put up with the increase in costs. Pull off the bandaid all at once to maximize the probability that everyone will shrug and take it.
Long story is that a lot of these tech companies started as startups funded by VCs.
Borrowing money was cheap so they got dumped buckets of money onto them to burn in an effort to try to get a foothold and/or kill off competition by undercutting them.
Now that they've gained a foothold and in some cases have a near monopoly or duopoly and now that borrowing money isn't cheap anymore, they need to start cutting cost if not outright turn a profit.
Specifically for Twitter, Musk needs to cut cost because he bought Twitter at a severe premium and has made it less valuable by the minute ever since he took over. This to the point that he is leaving bills unpaid.
Specifically for Reddit, they've burned through all that VC money and have been eying a juicy exit in the form of an IPO. An IPO would be a payday for everyone who initially invested into Reddit because now they can sell their shares for more than what they invested (or at least that's their hope). In order to get a good price once they go public they want to cut cost and increase revenue to seem as valuable as possible.
Specifically for YouTube, the ad game has been generating less and less revenue over time and advertisers have been burned in the past by having their ads placed next to objectionable content.
So the knee-jerk reaction is to severely tighten the rules for content, lest they be demonetized.
This however made creators realize that their livelihood in the form of the pittance that's called AdSense payout is very fragile, so they started moving to doing sponsorships, soliciting Patreon donations and partnering with Nebula.
Now YouTube is missing out on those revenue streams and often ad revenue as well as creators often turn off ads on their video when they have sponsor deals etc.
So what does YouTube do? They started monetizing videos of creators who are not eligible for their partner program (i.e. place ads on videos and not share it with creators) and not give those creators the option to turn off ads, they started severely increasing the amount of ads on videos that do run ads, they started severely pushing YouTube Premium and now they're cracking down on adblockers.
When a company goes public it becomes something that needs to “appeal to the public”. It’s like when a movie wants to appeal to everyone. By doing so it ends up appealing to no one in particular and it’s a successful meh movie.
Going public then you have a committee of board members making decisions. And who’s going to be on a board? Bunch of rich people who only care about making it the best company for the public. Effectively ditching everything that makes a company risky or unique.
Going public can also be good cos you’ll have public money to invest in new and better tech or systems or acquisitions. So the future they have in mind seem to not include a lot of us. It’s a direction that’ll strip anything unique about reddit and become a successful meh platform
Twitter had experimented and had a fair system in place through previous trial and error. Elon thought it wasn't good enough and then ran into the wall face-first thinking he was smarter than the average guy. Spoiler: he wasn't.
These are old era internet companies from when it was considered fiscally fine to be unprofitable as long as you were growing. Those days of the internet are over and the last few companies clinging to that model now have to plan their shift toward either profitability or being sold off for parts.
To take Reddit’s case: so far, they could raise money at increasing valuation, and that’s how they’d fund their operations without having to have solid monetization. Now that all valuations are down including theirs, they can’t raise anything anymore, leaving them with four (non-exclusive) choices: running out of money soon and closing shop, exiting as fast as possible to get capital injection that way, letting go of most of their staff quickly in order to get leaner, or finding aggressive ways to monetize shortly.
I think Reddit’s monetization situation was grim enough that they’re making precipitated moves towards all the last 3 options, in order not to pick option 1 and die soon. For having been a part of it, a startup looking to exit will choose some very specific metrics that they’re choosing to market their exit on, and then they’ll make all their subsequent moves based on ruthlessly optimizing for those metrics alone. Since those metrics can be way different from the ones the company was using to raise money so far, that by itself can turn a company’s ethos on its head.
I think that’s what we’re seeing across the board in tech companies; except Twitter, which was a rare case of being driven by political calendar, and one person’s political goals. The acquisition agreement was signed just before the markets tightened, and in fact, Musk tried hard to wiggle himself out of it when the market started tightening, because that kind of wasteful ownership doesn’t make sense in the new climate. But this is really specific, and I believe the timing is a coincidence; unlike all the other ones.
They are trying to squeeze as much money out of their platforms as possible, regardless of the fact that it's at the expense of users and will downgrade users experiences.
The user bubble has popped now that investors started questioning why the fuck they’ve been investing huge amounts of money into companies that make no money just because they have lots of users. With that investment money drying up, these tech companies are desperate to start making a profit so they can survive and grow their value still.
TLDR: investment in unprofitable tech companies is drying up and companies that aren’t profitable are scrambling to make money.
My idea is that they didn't/don't havse a choice but to try something.
They are probably running out of money and no one is giving it to them in this econimical climate.
Maybe profitability, or at least drastic measures, is the request by investors (similary how IMF is "blackmailing" countries when they give them loan).
It might also be an experiment, planned or accidental to male profit of social networks after 20 years of investing.
It is a gamble, but cut has to be made at some point.
Tbh, not sure many of us would behave differently in the same situation.
Imagine you can get a billion dollars, and in exchange you need to destroy your product.
Would you take the deal?
The other issue to consider is MBAs. Or at least the MBA way of thinking, that "caring about customers" actually means "leaving money on the table." The relentless search for "business efficiency," evaluated in pure accounting terms, can easily lead to destroying the core business due to a lack of understanding of how the core business shows up on a P&L statement.
I feel like they all see the inevitability that AI will drastically change the money model very soon. And it will not be to their profit, so best make every penny they can right now is their mentality.
Ultimately a for-profit social platform can only make money via advertising. If you are depending on advertisers to be profitable you become beholden to those advertisers. Advertisers do not care about "community," "sustainability," or what made the platform attractive to users in the first place. But they do care about "public perception," and "number of users," and most importantly number of impressions per user, per hour. The advertisers customers care about things that hurt their branch, so they dont' want NSFW content, they don't want violent content, they don't want controversial content, they don't want anti-capitalist content, they want "quality" impressions.
So if you are twitter or reddit, or facebook, or whatever, if your advertisers make a demand that will piss off your users and make it worse for them you will always do it and you will continue to do it until the platform dies.
Reddit wanted to kill third party apps because they have ad blocking features and don't show unwarranted sponsored posts. Reddit wants to serve users as much ads and sponsored content as possible, which was not really able to happen with third party apps.
I wonder if restricting API access might be related to the explosion of GPT where ML companies need training data and they've been sucking it up from everywhere they can. Reddit and Twitter realized that they could charge these companies for access instead and hence all of a sudden API access costs money.
Billionaires are circlejerking all push backs against wealth redistribution mechanisms. They want to use the fallout of any apparent mechanism shutdown as swag within billionaire soundbite circles. The ultimate tool is a flamethrower, or something similar. It's all a flex!
Sycophants, cronies, and useful idiots will be doing shout outs on handouts, commies, vox populi, failures, freaks, basket cases, lay offs, recessions, leftists, parasites, leaners, blah, blah, blah -- weird ass rich people lickboot enshittifications.