Time will tell. The issue is not scalability. The main issue is conflict. Twitter has both sides there. Truth social is not mainstream even if the main actor is posting every day. Same goes for the other side. There's also social media fatigue. Tiktok came with something "new" and it's growing because of that. Twitter is trying to move into yt space. Fb is trying to stay relevant in anything related to their core business (aka, ads).
I think political content has run its course as a source of eyeballs. Politicians engaging with people was novel in the 2008-12 " hope and change/Arab Spring" era.
It's since been gamified and weaponized for electoral gain. The algorithms pushed it too hard and monetized division to the point where all but the most addicted people have tuned out.
If you're downvoting this because you haven't tuned out yet don't consider yourself addicted, I'm really curious why you still engage with politics on platforms like Twitter? The friends of mine that still do it talk about it like it's something they really wish they could quit, hence I think "addiction" is a fair label, though some genuinely believe it's important to have voices on the platform countering some of the more heinous things being posted.
And just because it makes $2B/yr vs $4b/yr or whatever doesn't mean it cant sustain as a business indefinitely. The bulk of the critique of Twitter these days is whether Musk can make a profit on $40B as if that's what will determine Twitter's survival long term.
Musk losing billions of dollars in the short term is a private loss for bankers and his own vast ever growing wealth. It's not exactly something that kills a business in the timeline people are hoping for. If anything there's probably a long line of B-tier investors willing to prop it up long enough for the dividends to pay off.
Far shittier companies have survived for much longer on much less.
