Extremely Hardcore

Extremely Hardcore Plot Summary

Introduction

In October 2022, the world witnessed one of the most dramatic corporate takeovers in modern history when Elon Musk strode into Twitter's San Francisco headquarters carrying a porcelain sink - a visual pun for his tweet: "Let that sink in!" This theatrical entrance marked the beginning of a tumultuous transformation that would reshape one of the internet's most influential platforms. For sixteen years, Twitter had served as the digital town square where world leaders announced policies, celebrities connected with fans, and ordinary citizens documented history in real-time. Its 140-character (later 280) format had revolutionized how information spread in the digital age. The story of Twitter's acquisition and subsequent transformation reveals profound questions about power, speech, and the fragility of digital public spaces. How does a platform balance free expression with safety? What happens when a single individual gains control over a communication system used by hundreds of millions? Can technological solutions alone address complex social problems like misinformation and harassment? This account offers readers a front-row seat to the collision between Silicon Valley idealism and the messy realities of human communication, providing valuable insights for anyone interested in technology, media, business strategy, or the future of public discourse in the digital age.

Chapter 1: Twitter's Origins: Building the Digital Town Square (2006-2021)

Twitter emerged in 2006 as a revolutionary social media platform, the brainchild of Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, Evan Williams, and Noah Glass. Unlike Facebook, which connected friends with each other, Twitter pioneered a one-way social graph that allowed users to follow others without reciprocation. This simple innovation created a more public, broadcast-oriented platform where anyone could potentially reach a global audience. The service gained mainstream attention during the 2007 South by Southwest conference, where usage increased from 20,000 to 60,000 tweets per day as attendees used it to coordinate meetups and share event highlights. By 2010, Twitter had evolved from a quirky status update service to an essential tool for breaking news and public discourse. The Arab Spring demonstrations of 2011 showcased Twitter's power as protesters used the platform to organize and share information with the world. During the 2012 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama's victory tweet became the most retweeted post of all time, demonstrating the platform's growing political significance. These events cemented Twitter's reputation as a force for democratizing information and giving voice to movements that might otherwise be silenced by traditional media gatekeepers. Despite its cultural impact, Twitter struggled financially throughout much of its existence. The company didn't turn a profit until 2018, twelve years after its founding. By 2020, Twitter had 192 million daily active users—a fraction of Facebook's 1.84 billion—and generated less than 5% of Facebook's revenue. This disconnect between cultural influence and business success made Twitter vulnerable to acquisition attempts, as investors grew increasingly impatient with the company's inability to monetize its user base effectively compared to competitors like Facebook and Google. Content moderation presented another persistent challenge. As Twitter grew, so did problems with harassment, hate speech, and misinformation. The platform became notorious for its toxic culture, particularly toward women and minorities. Studies by organizations like Amnesty International revealed shocking levels of abuse directed at female journalists and politicians. These moderation difficulties made potential acquirers wary - Disney CEO Bob Iger later admitted the company backed away from purchasing Twitter because "the nastiness is extraordinary." The 2016 U.S. presidential election brought further scrutiny when Russian government-linked accounts spread propaganda, reaching millions of users. By 2021, Twitter had become essential infrastructure for global communication despite its business challenges. The company had taken increasingly aggressive steps to combat harmful content, culminating in the permanent suspension of then-President Donald Trump's account following the January 6 Capitol riot. This decision, while praised by many, drew fierce criticism from free speech absolutists and conservative figures who accused the platform of political bias. The tension between Twitter's role as a public forum and its responsibility to moderate harmful content would soon become the central issue in Elon Musk's interest in the platform. Inside Twitter, employees (who called themselves "tweeps") believed in the company's mission to improve public discourse. The culture was described by veteran engineer Yao Yue as "benevolent anarchy"—inefficient but collaborative, where anyone could influence product direction if they knew who to talk to. This approach fostered innovation but hindered execution, as even small design changes required weeks of meetings with numerous stakeholders. This cultural dynamic would prove fundamentally incompatible with the management style of the billionaire who would soon take control.

Chapter 2: Musk's Ambition: From Power User to Owner (Jan-Apr 2022)

In January 2022, Elon Musk began quietly purchasing Twitter shares, accumulating a massive stake in the company without public knowledge. By March, he had acquired over 9% of Twitter, making him its largest shareholder—a fact he didn't disclose to the SEC within the required ten-day window. This stealth approach reflected Musk's growing obsession with the platform, where he had amassed nearly 80 million followers and regularly posted about everything from Tesla updates to cryptocurrency memes. For years, Musk had used Twitter as his primary communication channel, bypassing traditional media to speak directly to fans, customers, and investors. Musk's interest in Twitter wasn't merely financial; he had grown increasingly concerned with what he perceived as Twitter's "woke mind virus" that suppressed free speech. In private text messages later revealed through court documents, Musk complained to friends and business associates about content moderation policies he viewed as politically biased. "Twitter has become the de facto public town square, so it's really important that people have both the reality and perception that they can speak freely," he texted to Twitter board chairman Bret Taylor. This ideological motivation would prove far more significant than any business rationale for the acquisition. On April 4, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal announced that Musk would join the company's board of directors, a move intended to integrate him into Twitter's governance structure and limit his ownership to 14.9%. Agrawal hoped that if Musk could meet employees face-to-face, they would see he was more reasonable than his provocative online persona suggested. However, the relationship quickly soured when Musk began pressuring Agrawal to fire Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's chief legal officer whom Musk viewed as Twitter's "top censorship advocate." Within days, Musk rejected the board seat, freeing him to pursue a more aggressive strategy. On April 14, Musk shocked the business world by announcing an unsolicited offer to buy Twitter outright for $54.20 per share, valuing the company at approximately $44 billion—a 38% premium over Twitter's stock price before his investment became public. "I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe," Musk wrote in his offer letter. "However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company." Twitter's board initially resisted, adopting a "poison pill" defense to prevent Musk from acquiring more than 15% of the company. However, after Musk secured financing commitments from banks including Morgan Stanley, the board reluctantly accepted his offer on April 25. The deal included a $1 billion termination fee and specific performance clause that would prove crucial in later developments. The speed of this transaction was unprecedented for a company of Twitter's size and importance, reflecting both Musk's determination and the board's awareness of their fiduciary duty to shareholders. By the end of April 2022, Musk had positioned himself to take control of one of the world's most influential communication platforms. His stated goal was to transform Twitter into a haven for free speech, though his definition of that concept remained ambiguous. What was clear was that the platform that had shaped global discourse for over a decade was about to undergo radical changes under the leadership of its most famous and controversial user. Few could have predicted just how chaotic and consequential those changes would be.

Chapter 3: The Hostile Acquisition: Legal Battles and Forced Closure (May-Oct 2022)

By summer 2022, Musk appeared to be experiencing buyer's remorse as technology stocks declined sharply amid rising interest rates. On May 13, he tweeted that the deal was "temporarily on hold" pending verification that spam accounts represented less than 5% of users. This marked the beginning of a protracted legal battle as Musk tried to extricate himself from an agreement that had become financially disadvantageous. Twitter executives maintained that bots represented fewer than 5% of monetizable daily active users, but Musk insisted the figure was much higher, perhaps 20-25%, claiming this constituted a "material adverse effect" that would justify terminating the deal. The bot dispute quickly escalated into open hostility. Musk publicly mocked Twitter executives, including posting a meme featuring CEO Parag Agrawal's face on Soviet propaganda. When Agrawal attempted to explain Twitter's spam detection methods in a detailed thread, Musk responded with a poop emoji. Meanwhile, Twitter's stock price plummeted as investors grew skeptical the deal would close at the agreed-upon price. By July, the situation had reached an impasse, with Musk formally notifying Twitter he was terminating the merger agreement, claiming the company had made "false and misleading representations" about its user base. Twitter responded by filing suit in Delaware's Court of Chancery on July 12, seeking to force Musk to complete the acquisition. The company's legal team argued Musk was suffering from "buyer's remorse" and that his bot concerns were merely a pretext to escape a deal that had become financially disadvantageous. Legal experts largely sided with Twitter, noting the merger agreement gave Musk limited grounds to walk away. The specific performance clause meant that if Musk lost in court, he could be compelled to complete the purchase rather than simply paying damages. As the October trial date approached, Musk's legal position weakened further. His private text messages, made public through court filings, revealed his early enthusiasm for the deal and undermined his claims about being misled. In one particularly damaging exchange, Musk told a banker that "a weak economic environment" was a reason to get out of the deal—not concerns about bots. Twitter's lawyers also presented evidence that Musk's team had conducted extensive due diligence on the bot issue before signing the merger agreement, contradicting his claims of being surprised by the information afterward. Facing likely defeat in court, Musk abruptly reversed course on October 4, 2022, informing Twitter he would proceed with the acquisition at the original price of $54.20 per share. This sudden capitulation came just days before Musk was scheduled to be deposed. The timing suggested Musk recognized his legal position was untenable and preferred to own Twitter, even at an inflated price, rather than suffer a humiliating court defeat that might damage his reputation and potentially impact his other companies. On October 27, 2022, the deal officially closed. Musk immediately fired CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and legal chief Vijaya Gadde. He entered Twitter's San Francisco headquarters carrying a sink—a visual pun for his tweet "Let that sink in"—symbolizing the dramatic changes he intended to implement. The hostile takeover was complete, and Twitter's transformation was about to begin. What had started as a stealth accumulation of shares had evolved into one of the most contentious corporate acquisitions in recent history, setting the stage for even more dramatic changes to come.

Chapter 4: Dismantling Twitter: Mass Layoffs and Cultural Destruction (Nov-Dec 2022)

On November 3, 2022, just one week after taking control, Twitter employees received an ominous email informing them that layoffs would begin the following day. The next morning, approximately 3,700 people—roughly half of Twitter's global workforce—were terminated in a single day. Many learned they were fired when they could no longer access their work email or Slack accounts. Others received impersonal notifications to their personal email addresses. The cuts were indiscriminate, affecting teams across the organization including engineering, content moderation, marketing, human rights, accessibility, and ethical AI. The manner of these layoffs violated employment laws in several countries, including the U.S. WARN Act requiring 60 days' notice for mass layoffs. Twitter quickly faced multiple class-action lawsuits from former employees. International teams were particularly hard hit—90% of employees in India were let go, while the entire Africa team was eliminated. The human cost was immense. Employees with decades of institutional knowledge were dismissed overnight. Workers on parental leave or with medical conditions found themselves suddenly without jobs or health insurance. International employees on work visas faced potential deportation. But the November 4 layoffs were just the beginning. Two weeks later, Musk issued an ultimatum to remaining staff: commit to an "extremely hardcore" work culture with "long hours at high intensity" or leave with three months' severance. Employees were given just 36 hours to click "yes" on a form committing to "Twitter 2.0" or be considered to have resigned. Approximately 1,200 more employees chose to leave rather than accept these terms. One departing engineer explained: "There was no vision shared with us. No five-year plan like at Tesla. Nothing more than what anyone could see on Twitter." The exodus extended beyond rank-and-file employees to Twitter's leadership. By December 2022, most of Twitter's pre-Musk executive team had departed, including Yoel Roth, the respected head of trust and safety who had initially tried to work with Musk. Many left voluntarily, unwilling to implement policies they considered harmful or unethical. Others were publicly fired after questioning Musk's decisions on Twitter itself—a practice previously unheard of in corporate America. When engineer Eric Frohnhoefer corrected Musk's inaccurate tweet about Twitter's performance issues, Musk fired him along with a dozen other engineers who had posted critical comments. The cultural transformation was equally dramatic. Twitter had been known for its employee-friendly policies, including remote work flexibility, generous parental leave, and wellness days. Musk eliminated these benefits and mandated a return to office, declaring, "If you can show up in an office and you do not show up at the office, resignation accepted. End of story." This policy created hardships for employees who had relocated during the pandemic or had family obligations. The company that had once prided itself on its collaborative, inclusive culture had been transformed into what one engineer described as a "maniacal" environment focused solely on execution and cost-cutting. By December 2022, Twitter's workforce had shrunk from approximately 7,500 to fewer than 2,000 employees. The mass exodus of talent and institutional knowledge had profound implications for Twitter's ability to maintain its infrastructure, moderate content, and develop new features. Former employees warned that the platform had become increasingly vulnerable to outages, security breaches, and content policy violations. What Musk described as necessary "rationalization" of an bloated organization, critics viewed as a reckless dismantling of the human infrastructure that had made Twitter function. The stage was set for the platform's transformation into something very different from what it had been.

Chapter 5: Engineering the Algorithm: Prioritizing Musk's Voice (Jan-Feb 2023)

By January 2023, Elon Musk faced a new problem: his engagement on Twitter was declining. Despite having over 120 million followers, the view count on his posts had dropped significantly from December to early February. For a man who had spent $44 billion partly to control the digital town square, this was unacceptable. Musk suspected sabotage, asking his cousin James Musk, who now worked at Twitter, to investigate whether a fired employee had hacked the algorithm to suppress his account. When data scientists found no evidence of tampering and explained the decline was organic, reflecting waning public interest in Musk's tweets, James dismissed their findings, saying, "I get that the data says this, but Elon thinks something is wrong. I trust his intuition more than the data." The situation came to a head on February 7, when Musk called engineers into his office and demanded to know why his engagement was dropping. When a veteran programmer showed Musk a Google Trends graph demonstrating that public interest in him had naturally declined since the Twitter acquisition, Musk fired him on the spot. The message was clear: find a technical explanation for the engagement drop or face consequences. Engineer Randall Lin developed a theory that the recommendation algorithm might be sensitive to negative engagement like blocks and unfollows, which could be affecting Musk's performance. This explanation temporarily appeased Musk but didn't address his fundamental concern. Musk's frustration boiled over again on February 12 after the Super Bowl. Musk had tweeted support for the Philadelphia Eagles, as had President Biden. When Biden's tweet received significantly more views than Musk's, the CEO deleted his post and flew directly to Twitter's headquarters. That night, approximately 80 engineers worked through the night rewriting Twitter's algorithm. They applied a special signature to Musk's profile to ensure he appeared in almost every user's feed and implemented a "power user multiplier" that artificially boosted his tweets by a factor of 1,000. The next morning, Twitter users logged on to find their feeds dominated by Musk's posts and replies, prompting widespread complaints. This algorithm manipulation wasn't limited to Musk. Lin created a list of "VIP users" that included Musk, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, and a few left-leaning figures like President Biden and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. What began as a way to track how algorithm changes affected high-profile accounts evolved into a system that gave these users preferential treatment in Twitter's recommendation system. The engineering team was effectively creating a two-tiered platform where certain voices—particularly Musk's—received dramatically amplified reach regardless of user preferences or engagement metrics. The technical changes to prioritize Musk's voice represented a fundamental shift in Twitter's approach to content distribution. Previously, the platform had used engagement metrics and user preferences to determine what appeared in feeds, with the goal of showing people content they would find interesting or relevant. Now, the primary consideration was ensuring Musk's satisfaction with his own reach and engagement. This shift reflected Musk's increasingly personal approach to platform governance, where his experience as a user took precedence over data, user preferences, or established product development practices. By manipulating the algorithm to prioritize his own voice, Musk had transformed Twitter from a platform where engagement was earned through compelling content to one where the owner's posts were force-fed to users regardless of their preferences. The irony was lost on no one: the man who had purchased Twitter in the name of free speech was now engineering the system to ensure his speech was heard above all others. This period marked a critical inflection point in Twitter's evolution under Musk, as the platform increasingly reflected the personal priorities and biases of its owner rather than serving as a neutral infrastructure for public discourse.

Chapter 6: Platform in Crisis: Hate Speech and Technical Failures (Mar-Jul 2023)

As Twitter transformed into X under Musk's direction, the platform experienced an unprecedented crisis in content moderation. One of Musk's first acts was to reinstate thousands of previously banned accounts, including those of far-right extremists, conspiracy theorists, and users suspended for hate speech. In November 2022, he restored former President Donald Trump's account after running a Twitter poll. By December, he had granted "amnesty" to over 62,000 suspended accounts, including those belonging to neo-Nazi website founder Andrew Anglin and far-right figures involved in the January 6 Capitol riot. The results were quickly apparent. Research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that hate speech increased dramatically after Musk's takeover. Daily use of racial slurs tripled compared to the 2022 average, while anti-LGBTQ+ slurs increased by more than 50%. The Anti-Defamation League documented similar trends, noting a surge in antisemitic content. When confronted with this data, Musk claimed the opposite was true and later sued the CCDH, accusing the nonprofit of trying to drive away advertisers. This pattern of denying objective evidence and attacking researchers became a hallmark of Musk's approach to platform governance. The platform's approach to misinformation also changed radically. Musk disbanded Twitter's Trust and Safety Council, a group of outside experts who advised on content policies. He eliminated dedicated teams fighting state-backed disinformation and health misinformation. When major events occurred, such as the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, X was flooded with false information, including manipulated images and videos that spread widely before being identified as fake. Musk's solution to misinformation was "Community Notes," a crowdsourced fact-checking system that allowed users to add context to misleading posts. While innovative in concept, the system proved inadequate during fast-moving crises when notes took days to appear on viral misinformation. Technical stability also suffered dramatically. The mass layoffs had decimated the teams responsible for maintaining Twitter's infrastructure. In December 2022, Musk ordered the shutdown of one of Twitter's three data centers to save money, despite warnings from engineers about the risks. In the first half of 2023, the platform experienced six major outages—compared to nine in all of 2022. Links broke, images failed to load, and users regularly encountered error messages. The situation became so dire that Twitter's remaining engineers created a special "break-glass" protocol for critical failures, acknowledging they no longer had enough staff to maintain normal operations. Perhaps most alarmingly, security vulnerabilities increased. In March 2023, Twitter discovered that its source code had been leaked on GitHub, potentially exposing critical systems to hackers. The company's ability to comply with its FTC consent decree—requiring specific data security practices following previous violations—came into question as the teams responsible for privacy and security were gutted. Damien Kieran, the chief privacy officer, reported that Twitter no longer had anyone responsible for about 37% of its privacy program controls before resigning along with the Chief Information Security Officer and Chief Compliance Officer. The crisis culminated in July 2023 when Musk implemented severe rate limits on how many posts users could view daily—ostensibly to prevent data scraping by AI companies. Regular users were limited to viewing just 600 posts per day (later increased to 1,000), while subscribers could see 6,000. The restrictions rendered the platform nearly unusable for many, triggering widespread outrage and accelerating user migration to alternatives like Meta's newly launched Threads. This self-inflicted wound exemplified how Musk's impulsive decision-making and disregard for user experience had transformed Twitter from an essential communication tool to an increasingly dysfunctional platform struggling to maintain basic functionality.

Chapter 7: The Financial Aftermath: Advertiser Exodus and Debt Burden (2022-2023)

The commercial consequences of Musk's Twitter takeover were swift and severe. Within days of the acquisition, major advertisers including General Motors, Pfizer, and General Mills paused their spending on the platform, concerned about brand safety amid the chaotic transition. This initial pause turned into a prolonged exodus as Musk's erratic behavior and policy changes alienated the advertisers who had provided 90% of Twitter's revenue. By December 2022, Twitter's weekly ad bookings had fallen 49% compared to pre-acquisition levels. The top 30 advertisers reduced their spending by approximately 42% in the two months after Musk took over. Musk's personal behavior exacerbated the advertising crisis. He publicly attacked and threatened companies that paused their spending, calling out executives by name and encouraging his followers to boycott their products. In November 2022, he told advertisers who sought brand safety assurances that they could "go fuck themselves" during a live interview. These unprecedented attacks from a CEO against his own customers drove away even more business. When Linda Yaccarino joined as CEO in May 2023, her primary mandate was to repair these fractured relationships, but the damage had already been done. By mid-2023, Twitter's U.S. ad revenue was down 59% year-over-year. To replace lost advertising revenue, Musk pinned his hopes on Twitter Blue, a subscription service that offered verified checkmarks and various premium features for $8 per month. Despite Musk's ambitious goal of having subscriptions provide half of Twitter's revenue, adoption rates were dismal. By February 2023, internal documents showed Twitter Blue had attracted just 290,000 subscribers worldwide—representing less than 0.2% of users and generating only about $28 million in annual revenue, a fraction of the billions lost in advertising. Even after Musk removed legacy verification badges from non-paying accounts in April 2023, forcing celebrities and organizations to subscribe to maintain their verified status, subscription numbers remained far below expectations. The financial pressure intensified as Twitter struggled to service the $13 billion in debt Musk had loaded onto the company to finance his acquisition. The first interest payment of approximately $300 million came due in January 2023, with quarterly payments of similar size to follow. These obligations, combined with the collapse in advertising revenue, created an existential threat to the company's solvency. Cost-cutting became increasingly desperate. Twitter stopped paying rent at many of its offices worldwide, leading to eviction proceedings in several locations. Vendors went unpaid for months. Employee benefits were slashed, including a reduction in parental leave from 20 weeks to the legal minimum plus two weeks. By July 2023, Musk estimated Twitter's value had fallen to approximately $19 billion, less than half what he paid for it nine months earlier. Fidelity, which had invested in the deal, marked down the value of its Twitter stake by 65%. The financial deterioration continued throughout 2023, with Musk acknowledging in an October all-hands meeting that the company was still losing money and facing significant challenges. The rebranding to X, while intended to signal a fresh start and broader ambitions, did little to address the fundamental financial problems facing the company. The Twitter acquisition stands as one of the most financially destructive deals in recent corporate history. Musk paid a premium price for a company that was already struggling financially, then implemented changes that dramatically reduced its value. The $44 billion purchase price now appears wildly inflated, with some analysts suggesting the company might be worth as little as $15 billion by late 2023. For Musk personally, the financial impact has been substantial—he sold approximately $23 billion in Tesla stock to finance the deal, only to see the value of his investment plummet. What began as a mission to "save" Twitter had instead put its very existence at risk, transforming a flawed but functioning platform into a company fighting for survival under the weight of massive debt and collapsing revenue.

Summary

The story of Twitter's transformation under Elon Musk represents one of the most dramatic corporate takeovers in modern business history. At its core, this saga reveals the fundamental tension between technological idealism and practical governance. Musk purchased Twitter with grand pronouncements about free speech and creating a digital town square, but his implementation revealed a profound misunderstanding of the complex balancing act required to maintain a healthy social platform. What began as a promise to create an open forum for diverse voices devolved into an exercise in personal power, as Musk dismantled safety mechanisms, alienated advertisers, and ultimately engineered the platform to amplify his own voice above all others. This cautionary tale offers crucial lessons about the fragility of digital public spaces. First, it demonstrates that technology platforms serving as essential communication infrastructure require responsible stewardship that balances freedom with safety—not impulsive leadership driven by personal grievances. Second, it highlights how quickly trust can be destroyed and how difficult it is to rebuild once lost, as evidenced by the mass exodus of advertisers and users. Finally, it serves as a warning about the dangers of concentrated ownership of communication platforms. When a single individual can unilaterally transform a global public square used by hundreds of millions, we must question whether our digital infrastructure is sufficiently protected from the whims of billionaire owners. As we continue to build and rely on digital spaces for public discourse, we must develop governance models that preserve their independence, sustainability, and commitment to serving the public good rather than private interests.

About Author

Loading...

Zoë Schiffer

Read more