adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

People would pay to leave social media

Published

 on

The world would be a better place without social media.

I’m not talking about teenage suicide. This is not meant to channel the fury of Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) at the chief executives of TikTok, Meta, X (formerly Twitter) and the like for turning a profit off platforms where teens drive themselves to despair.

I make no claims as to whether TikTok might be addictive. Nor is this about the “harmful image exploitation” online and the proliferation of child sex abuse materials on social media that Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) wants to stop. It’s not about cracking down on the online illegal drug business.

This is a standard, no-frills proposition from the comparatively staid land of economics: All things considered, social media platforms detract from human welfare.

Several scholars have toyed with this hypothesis. But a group of economists from the University of Chicago, the University of California at Berkeley, Bocconi University in Milan and the University of Cologne come pretty close to nailing it. Basically, they measured what people would pay for these platforms not to exist. It turns out, people would pay a lot.

 

Follow this authorEduardo Porter‘s opinions

 

One of the standard propositions from bread-and-butter economics is that you wouldn’t pay for something you don’t want. You lose nothing by not having it. But this idea gets weird when it comes to branded goods. Not having that Rolex you can’t afford makes you feel like an outcast at the Met Gala. The same logic applies to the teen craving for Air Jordans. It’s a hall of mirrors: You would rather not splurge. Still, you want them because your friends want them because they think all their friends (including you) want them, too.

Social media amounts to Air Jordans on steroids: Many people join it just because others do. But they rather wouldn’t.

Imagine that social media appears in a community — say, at a university campus (which is where Facebook first showed up). There is a first wave of enthusiastic adopters, eager to share puppy pictures and lame jokes with their buddies on this new thing. The second wave is more “meh” about the experience. But hey, sometimes the jokes are funny.

Then there’s that last batch of adopters. They would prefer to hang with their friends at the mall or the quad. But they don’t have a choice. Everybody else has signed up to Instagram or TikTok. Not joining amounts to severing themselves from their social circle. So these folks cave and, ultimately, pay for something they would prefer wasn’t there. This is, literally, the price of FOMO.

A quick detour to get over the idea that Instagram and the rest amount to free stuff: You are paying for them, just in attention and data rather than cash. Where the new research gets interesting, though, is where it offers real money to people — university students, in fact — to leave the service.

They value being on the networks. In an experiment run by the researchers, the students demanded to be paid to leave TikTok or Instagram for a month. But the wrinkle appeared with the next question, about the monetary value of having all of their friends drop the networks, too. It turned out that students would actually pay for that.

The researchers found that students on TikTok would be willing to pay $28 for TikTok to disappear from their social circle for a month. The equivalent for Instagram was $10. Being on the networks, in other words, detracted from their lives. But they would be even worse off if they abandoned the network while their friends stayed on. By the way, non-users in the experiment were willing to pay even more for the networks to disappear from existence.

“Users’ utility is negative but would have been even more negative if they didn’t use the platform, which is why they continue using it,” wrote the economists. Kind of like teens who would rather not spend $200 or more on sneakers but do so anyway because all their friends are wearing them.

Incidentally, this is not about students being naive, lacking self-control and getting addicted. Their decision to stick to social media even if it makes them unhappy is entirely rational. As the researchers wrote, “Our evidence shows the existence of a social media trap for a large share of consumers, who find it individually optimal to use the product even if they derive negative welfare from it.”

The research is not definitive. For starters, the experiment asked people to put a price on leaving social media platforms for only four weeks, not for life. The students in the survey could take the offer like a detox break. Or maybe they surmised they could hop on a different network. Still, the responses suggest that the desire for social media to go away is real.

The researchers present a rather dystopian view of the human condition. Leonardo Bursztyn, one of the economists, from the University of Chicago, said subsequent work found that about half of respondents spent about 2.5 hours a day on activities they wish didn’t exist — mostly involving the internet.

Their research opens a different dimension in the conversation about the harms of social media. The problem here is not that there are bad things on it. The problem is that it exists at all — sucking social interaction into a narrow funnel, trapping people in a world they would rather not live in.

Graham and Hawley’s fury and Klobuchar’s proposals can’t fix this. This isn’t about stopping porn online. Any solution would have to make it easier for people not to be part of the social network, to reduce the social cost of opting out. Maybe there is some clever trick to make it socially viable to say no.

Or if the senators are really furious, they might go for the nuclear option and ban social media altogether. That doesn’t seem easy. But Americans would be better off.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

 on

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

 on

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

 on

Tech News in Canada

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending