Hide BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to check out our fundraiser »

Twitter’s Pre-Musk Plans Mirrored Elon’s Vision—Until He Abandoned, Trashed Or Ignored Them

from the so-much-missed-opportunity dept

Today, the new book by NY Times reporters Kate Conger and Ryan Mac, Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter, comes out. If you’re at all interested in what went down, I can’t recommend it enough. It’s a well-written, deeply researched book with all sorts of details about the lead-up to the acquisition, the acquisition itself, and the aftermath of Elon owning Twitter.

Even if you followed the story closely as it played out (as I did), the book is a worthwhile read in multiple ways. First, it’s pretty incredible to pull it all together in a single book. There was so much craziness happening every day that it’s sometimes difficult to take a step back and take in the larger picture. This book gives readers a chance to do just that.

But second, and more important, there are plenty of details broken by the book, some of which are mind-boggling. If you want to read a couple of parts that have been published, both the NY Times and Vanity Fair have run excerpts. The NY Times one covers Elon’s infatuation with “relaunching” Twitter Blue as a paid verification scheme a week after he took over. The Vanity Fair one looks at the actual closing of the deal and how chaotic it was, including Elon coming up $400 million short and demanding that Twitter just give him the money to cover the cost of closing the deal.

Both excerpts give you a sense of the kinds of amazing stories told in the book.

But as I read an advance copy of the book, two things stood out to me. The first was Elon’s near total lack of understanding of the concept of Chesterton’s Fence. The second was how much the old regime at Twitter was already trying to do almost everything that Elon claimed he wanted to do. But as soon as he took over, he was so sure (1) that the old regime were complete idiots and (2) that he could reason his way into solving social media, that he not only ignored what people were telling him, he actively assumed they were trying to sabotage him, and did away with anyone who could be helpful.

Elon rips out some fences

If you’re unaware of the concept of Chesterton’s Fence, it’s that you shouldn’t remove something (such as a fence) if you don’t understand why it was put there in the first place. Over and over in the book, we see Elon dismiss all sorts of ideas, policies, and systems that were in place at Twitter without even caring to find out why they were there. Often, he seems to assume things were done for the dumbest of all reasons, but never bothered to understand why they were actually done. Indeed, he so distrusted legacy Twitter employees that he assumed most were lying to him or trying to sabotage him.

It’s perhaps not that surprising to see why he would trust his own instincts, not that it makes it smart. With both Tesla and SpaceX, Elon bucked the conventional wisdom and succeeded massively. In both cases, he did things that many people said were impossible. And if that happens to you twice and makes you the world’s wealthiest person, you can see how you might start assuming that whenever people suggest that something is a bad idea or impossible, you should trust your gut over what people are telling you.

But the point of Chesterton’s Fence is not that you should never do things differently or never remove policies or technology that is in place. The point is that you should understand why they’re there. Elon never bothers to take that tiny step, and it’s a big part of his downfall.

In Character Limit, we see that Elon has almost no actual intellectual curiosity about social media. He has no interest in understanding how Twitter worked or why certain decisions were made. Propped up by a circle of sycophants and yes-men, he assumes that the previous regime at Twitter must have been totally stupid, and therefore there is no reason to listen to anything they had to say.

It is stunning how in story after story in the book, Elon has zero interest in understanding why anything works the way it does. He is sure that his own instincts, which are clouded by his unique position on the platform with tens of millions of followers, represent everyone’s experience.

He’s quite sure that his own instincts can get him to the right answers. This includes thinking he could (1) double advertising revenue in a few years (when he’s actually driven away over 80% of it) and (2) eclipse even that erroneously predicted increased advertising revenue by getting millions of people to pay for verification. In actuality, as the book details, a tiny fraction of users are willing to pay, and it’s bringing in just a few million dollars per quarter, doing little to staunch the losses of billions of dollars in advertising that Elon personally drove away.

The stories in the book are jaw-dropping. People who try to explain reality to him are fired. The people who stick around quickly learn the only thing to do is to lie to him and massage his ego. And thus, the book is full of stories of Elon ripping out the important pillars of what had been Twitter and then being perplexed when nothing works properly anymore.

He seems even more shocked that tons of people don’t seem to love him for his blundering around.

Old Twitter was already planning on doing what Elon wanted, but way better

Perhaps this is somewhat related to the last point, but the book details multiple ways in which Parag Agrawal, who had just taken over from Jack Dorsey a few months earlier, was already looking to do nearly everything Elon publicly claimed he wanted to do with Twitter.

When Elon first announced the deal to buy Twitter, I suggested a few (unlikely, but possible) ways in which Elon could actually improve Twitter. First up was that by taking the company private, Elon could remove Twitter from the whims of activist investors who were more focused on the short-term than the long-term.

The book goes into great detail about how much activist investors created problems for both Dorsey and Agrawal, pre-Musk. Specifically, their revenue and user demands actually made it somewhat more difficult to put in place a long-term vision.

In my original post, I talked about continuing Twitter’s actual commitment to free speech, which meant fighting government attempts to censor information (not just when you disagreed with the political leaders).

But beyond that, there were things like further investing in and supporting Bluesky (see disclaimer)* and its ATprotocol. After all, Elon claimed that he wanted to “open source” the algorithm.

Moving to an open protocol like ATProtocol would have not just allowed the open sourcing of the recommendation algorithm, it would have opened up the ability for anyone to create their own algorithm, both for recommendations and for moderation. Instead, that’s all happening on the entirely independent Bluesky app, which really only exists because Elon threw away Twitter’s deal to work with Bluesky.

Furthermore, the book reveals that well before Elon came on the scene, Parag and other top execs at the company were working on something called Project Saturn, which was discussed a bit in Kurt Wagner’s earlier book on this topic, but which is explained in more detail here.

The book reveals that Parag very much agreed with Elon (and Jack) that expecting companies to constantly completely remove problematic content was not a very effective solution.

So they created a plan to basically rearchitect everything around “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.” Ironically, this is the very same motto that Elon claimed to embrace soon after taking over the company (and after firing Parag).

Image

But Parag and others at Twitter had already been working on a system to operationalize that very idea. The plan was to use different “levels” and “circles” in which users who were following the rules would have their content eligible to be promoted to varying degrees within the algorithm. The more you violated the site’s rules, you would move to further and further outer layers/rings of the system (which is where the Project Saturn name came from). This would lead to less “reach,” but also less of a need for Twitter to fully remove accounts or tweets.

It was a big rethinking of how social media could work and how it could support free speech. In reading about it in the book, it sounds like exactly what Elon said he wanted. A small team within Twitter, pushed by Parag’s vision, had been working on it since way before Elon purchased his shares and started the takeover process. According to the book, even as Elon caused such a mess in the summer of 2022 trying to back out of the deal, Parag kept pushing the team to move forward with the idea.

Once Elon took over, it appears that a few remaining people at the company tried to show him Project Saturn and explain to him how it would match the ideals he had talked about.

But Elon ignored them, tossed out all the work they had done on it, and just randomly started unbanning people he thought belonged back on the platform without any plan on how to deal with those users if they started causing problems (and driving away advertisers). He assumed that his new verification plan would solve both the revenue issues for the company and all moderation issues.

Even the idea that Twitter was too bloated with excess employees and a lack of vision seemed to be part of Agrawal’s plans. Before Elon had made his move, the book reveals that Agrawal had drawn up plans to lay off approximately 25% of the company and greatly streamline everything with a focus on building out certain lines of business and users. He did move to lay off many senior leaders as part of that streamlining, though it wasn’t as clearly explained at the time what the larger plan was. Elon’s effort to buy Twitter outright (and then back out of the deal) forced Agrawal to put the layoff plans on hold, out of a fear that Elon would view those layoffs as an attempt to sabotage the company.

It’s truly striking how much of what Elon claimed he wanted to do, Parag and his exec team were already doing. They were making things more open, transparent, and decentralized with Bluesky. They were decreasing the reliance on “takedowns” as a trust & safety mechanism with Saturn. They were betting big on “freedom of speech, not reach” with Saturn. They were fighting for actual free speech with legal actions around the globe. They were cutting employee bloat.

But the company was doing all of those things thoughtfully and deliberately, with a larger strategy behind it.

As the book details, Elon came in and not only tore down Chesterton Fences everywhere he could, he dismissed, ignored, or cut loose all of those other projects that would have taken him far along the path he claimed he wanted to go.

So, now he’s left with a site that has trouble functioning, has lost nearly all of its revenue, and is generally seen as a laughingstock closed system designed just to push Elon’s latest political partisan brain farts, rather than enabling the world’s conversation.

Of course, in the wake of all that destruction, it has enabled things like Bluesky to spring forth entirely unrelated to Twitter, and to put some of this into practice. Just this weekend, Bluesky passed 10 million users, helped along by Elon’s (again) hamfisted fight with Brazil, which (like so many other things Elon) may have a good reason at its core (fighting against secretive government demands), but was done in the dumbest way possible.

If there’s one thing that is painfully clear throughout the book, it is that Elon was correct that there were all sorts of ways that Twitter could be more efficient, more open, and less strict in takedowns. But he handled each in the worst way possible and destroyed what potential there was for the site.

Later today on the podcast, I’ll have an interview with Kate Conger about the book and Elon where we talk some more about all of this.

* As I’ve said before, I’m now on the board of Bluesky, which wouldn’t have been necessary if Elon hadn’t immediately cut Bluesky free from Twitter upon taking over the company.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: bluesky, twitter, x

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Twitter’s Pre-Musk Plans Mirrored Elon’s Vision—Until He Abandoned, Trashed Or Ignored Them”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
57 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

fighting against secretive government demands

The government demands of Brazil weren’t even that secret. It was just “block these accounts of people who helped with a literal coup in our country.”

Regarding ATProtocol, Project Saturn, and algorithms: From what I’m reading here in your article, it sounds like what I was afraid that Twitter was gonna do with Bluesky and having Twitter become just another part of the ATProtocol; algorithms as a substitute for fully deplatforming bad actors, with said action taken only if those bad actors do things that are particularly heinous.

Under Project Saturn and ATProtocol, people like Chaiya Raichick and more would still be able to ply their trade and amass huge amounts of followers to have attack others. It’s just that they’d be on the farthest outer ring where none of their stochastic terrorism would be visible to regular users or advertisers, so everything would be “okay”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Under Project Saturn and ATProtocol, people like Chaiya Raichick and more would still be able to ply their trade and amass huge amounts of followers to have attack others. It’s just that they’d be on the farthest outer ring where none of their stochastic terrorism would be visible to regular users or advertisers, so everything would be “okay”.

This argument seems to be saying “because those horrible people still exist, the proposed solution isn’t good enough”.
Sounds to me like it’s complaining that the plan wasn’t to murder them. I mean right now, even if someone denied the reach of all major Social media sites, they can still say horrible things. They could even setup their own web server, and give lectures on their horribleness in local parks.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Arianity says:

Re: Re:

This argument seems to be saying “because those horrible people still exist, the proposed solution isn’t good enough”.

It’s not that they exist at all, but that they exist on the platform when they don’t have to, that makes it not good enough.

Sounds to me like it’s complaining that the plan wasn’t to murder them.

There is a big difference between moderating someone off a platform, and murdering them. They’re not remotely comparable.

I mean right now, even if someone denied the reach of all major Social media sites, they can still say horrible things. They could even setup their own web server, and give lectures on their horribleness in local parks.

Yes, they can. They don’t have the same tradeoffs (although similar). In particular, things like reach/on-ramping people/scale are really important, and something like a webserver doesn’t necessarily have the same reach.

You can’t (reasonably) prevent bad people from existing. You probably can’t get rid of their freedom of speech/access to critical infrastructure (ISPs), due to abuse concerns. You can do what you can to limit their reach on private platforms like a social media site, especially when it’s by private action. We pay a price for free speech/common carriers because the alternative would be more painful. It’s not the same price on a social media platform, precisely because they have alternatives.

Is it perfect? No. Does it need to be perfect to be worth doing? No. Is it better than doing nothing? Probably (and if not, why would anyone care either way in the first place?).

They could even setup their own web server

It’s a bit ironic you use that example, because one of the reasons I dislike this approach is precisely because history with web servers like say Stormfront give us some idea of where it’s likely to be problematic/insufficient.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. My point was criticism of what I viewed as an overzealous behavior.

IMHO If horrible people can be minimized reach-wise, while remaining on a platform. This probably actually good. Of course studies should be done, but I think that will increase the odds that they stay someplace we can see them if we want. So that we can be aware of their existence, and work to mitigate the damage they do, while at the same time not amplifying their voice.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

IMHO If horrible people can be minimized reach-wise, while remaining on a platform. This probably actually good. Of course studies should be done, but I think that will increase the odds that they stay someplace we can see them if we want. So that we can be aware of their existence, and work to mitigate the damage they do, while at the same time not amplifying their voice.

We know, from a study, that deplatforming works to detox online spaces. One of the issues with using algorithms and labelers and such as the raw bulk of moderation, as it seems that Twitter and Bluesky and ATProto were set to do under the pre-Elon plans, is that it doesn’t affect the reach of bad people with tons of followers like Chaya Raichik or catturd2, and thus it doesn’t really decrease the damage they and their communities as organized mobs can do.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

My argument is that de-prioritizing people on an algorithm is not a good solution to the “reach” problem. Deplatforming is a good solution to deal with bad actors who repeatedly violate the rules, so as to deny them the reach that they need in order to hurt others the way they do.

Sounds to me like it’s complaining that the plan wasn’t to murder them.

Not what I’m saying at all.

I mean right now, even if someone denied the reach of all major Social media sites, they can still say horrible things. They could even setup their own web server, and give lectures on their horribleness in local parks.

And this would be far less reach than they had before, and far fewer people that they can hurt because of said decreased reach.

Arianity says:

Re:

It’s just that they’d be on the farthest outer ring where none of their stochastic terrorism would be visible to regular users or advertisers,

Until you’re one of the people they decide to harass on alt accounts or whatever (or off-platform), anyway. This has been my fundamental problem with Bluesky’s approach.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s clear from what Arianity said, is that they meant that their problem with Bluesky’s approach is the use of algorithms and labelers and labels as the main moderation tools.

The organizing to perform harassment using their main accounts, with alt accounts as the harassment tools or organizing off-platform harassment while they’re still on the site, just out of view thanks to algorithms and labelers, with a lack of enthusiasm for deplatforming as a moderation tactic, is the problem.

Not Space Karen says:

When can we stop talking about Space Karen?

Seriously. Every media outlet still follows his every word and reports on his brain farts like they are incredibly newsworthy. Every journalist needs to deactivate their bird site account. Otherwise it will continue to function as an overflowing cesspool of garbage that it is.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

When Space Karen is no longer running a major social media platform and exposing what a blithering idiot he is while simultaneously claiming that he’s a tech genius.

The good news is is that at the rate he’s burning the company to the ground it shouldn’t be around(or at least not to the scale where it’s considered a major platform) for too much longer, though I do agree it’s death would be sped up considerably if decent people stopped using the damn thing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

COngradulations! THis is not follwing Musk’s every owrd and reporting on one of his random bird site brain farts. This is a retrospective assessment of the actions of the richest man in the world, and serves as a case study in the ego of believing your own hype.

Were Musk dead 6 months ago and twitter completely shut down, this is still newsworthy as far as commentary on tech policy goes.

When can BestNetTech talk about tech policy again? Musk is currently the 50 ft tall gorilla when it comes to 1A tech policy. But I suppose learning lessons isn’t your strong suit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Wrath Of Khan

There’s a great scene in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan where Kirk and Spock tell the USS Reliants shields to go down by utilizing the “prefix code.” Now, horrifically bad security, even for the early 80s, aside, I love how Kirk tells Saavik “You’ve got to learn why things work on a Starship.”

It’s not Chesterton’s Fence, but it’s something that I struggle with getting people to do professionally all the time. You’ve got to understand why certain things are done. If you understand that, then you can make an informed decision when you need to modify or outright ignore something. I guess it’s a bit like the famous joke about cutting the ends off a pot roast.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Thus Musk exposes the core fault in bringing everything back to first principles. Captialism has been making deep cuts to eliminate bloat for decades. streamline everything to the bare minimum to maintain revenue. The bloat in most large operation has been massaged out to feed quarterly returns. Musk has been most successful in stagnant industries he can claim to ‘shake up’ by cutting the costs that everyone knows are needed long term, or absorbing the costs of destructive testing no one else would.

But social media isn’t a stagnant industry. Capitalism has been cutting social media costs for nearly a decade to achieve solid profits. The big costs left can’t easily be cut. But Musk, thinking that his secret sauce was the ability to just be willing to make hard decisions, just keeps trying to find the bloat that makes it all not work, just keeps trying to find the barrier he can remove that unleashes the revenue, rather than understand he poisoned the revenue in removing those blocks.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

Capitalism has been cutting social media costs for nearly a decade to achieve solid profits.

Minus one very large cost anyway, because…

The big costs left can’t easily be cut.

… the biggest costs a number of major companies face, and that could be solved with One Simple Trick can be seen any time an obscenely overpaid company exec looks into a mirror.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Stalled

But as soon as he took over, he was so sure (1) that the old regime were complete idiots

And he was right.

and (2) that he could reason his way into solving social media, that he not only ignored what people were telling him, he actively assumed they were trying to sabotage him, and did away with anyone who could be helpful.

And he was right again! The main reason that twitter 1.0 was a problem was because folks with a political agenda would put together a new plan, and then continue with the old bias system.

Ninja (user link) says:

It’s worth mentioning that Twitter/X was banned for refusing to follow supreme court orders but one specific issue pointed by the judge, Alexandre de Moraes, seems very, very problematic: there was a breach (inside job, not hack) in government systems, specifically federal police (approximately equivalent of the FBI in the US) and some accounts in X exposed sensitive information endangering officers, judges and others involved in the investigations of the coup attempt on January 8th last year. The supreme court repeatedly asked Twitter to remove the content because of the danger it posed and was ignored.

Musk is leveraging the reach he still has with Twitter to destabilize entire governments. He should be in jail already.

Best article about the whole mess here.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

He's right about one thing

“Indeed, he so distrusted legacy Twitter employees that he assumed most were lying to him or trying to sabotage him.”

Well, they weren’t. But some of them certainly are now, after he repeatedly lied to them, screwed them out of money he owed them, berated them, destroyed their work, and demanded that they sacrifice their personal lives for the sake of the job. He turned people who could have helped him into enemies.

And the thing is: it’s not that hard. Elmo doesn’t know how anything works, can’t be bothered to even try to learn, and probably isn’t capable of understanding anyway.

And the other thing is: a highly effective way to sabotage Twitter is to do exactly what Elmo says as soon as he says it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rich Kulawiec says:

Another apropos quote for situations like this

“The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. That is okay as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can’t be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t very important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured doesn’t exist. This is suicide.”

— social scientist Daniel Yankelovich describes the “McNamara fallacy”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Ah, boss? Regarding Tesla...

With both Tesla and SpaceX, Elon bucked the conventional wisdom and succeeded massively.

Can’t say with SpaceX, but … Tesla. Dilbert Stark managed to push out one of the actual founders of Tesla, Martin Eberhard. Musk came in as a significant investor, not a founder.

So he had success, sure. But I ain’t gonna give him no laurels because of that one.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Joe Crow says:

It Takes a Team to Manage a Rich Idiot

With both Tesla and SpaceX, Elon bucked the conventional wisdom and succeeded massively. In both cases, he did things that many people said were impossible. And if that happens to you twice and makes you the world’s wealthiest person, you can see how you might start assuming that whenever people suggest that something is a bad idea or impossible, you should trust your gut over what people are telling you.

Except that wasn’t really the case with Tesla or SpaceX, either. What kept them working and succeeding where Twitter failed massively was an entire management team devoted solely to stroking Musk’s massive ego. They communicated their ideas for making the company better in a way that made Musk feel like they were his ideas or that he could take credit for while interpreting what few reasonably decent ideas he had into something tangible that employees could actually work with. They also shielded those same employees from his mercurial temperament and outright rejected a lot of his worst ideas while still making it seem like they were listening to him. Ultimately the thing that Musk brought to Tesla and SpaceX that were the biggest benefit were his piles of money.

Twitter had no such buffers in place when Musk took over and the world got to see how a company actually run directly by Musk fared. In only a year he managed to devalue Twitter by more than half the value of when he bought it. This has also been born out by projects that Musk has had a more direct hand in at Tesla and SpaceX (hello Cybertruck). His management of Twitter has been so bad that it’s actually now affecting Tesla and SpaceX’s reputation and business, too.

At the end of the day we really need to do away with this myth that billionaires of the tech world are “geniuses” because of the success and money that their companies have brought them. It provides so much cover for the underhanded practices and cruel treatment and underpaying of employees that fuels their fortunes while ignoring the people actually putting in the work to make those companies succeed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

At the end of the day we really need to do away with this myth that billionaires of the tech world are “geniuses” because of the success and money that their companies have brought them. It provides so much cover for the underhanded practices and cruel treatment and underpaying of employees that fuels their fortunes while ignoring the people actually putting in the work to make those companies succeed.

Exactly so. These are some of the worst people on the planet, and they should be bullied mercilessly at every possible opportunity.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'If it's not MY idea it's a BAD idea.'

The best part is that Elon’s ego is the biggest block in him actually fixing any of the mess he created, as unless someone still in the company managed to manipulate him into thinking that the previous good ideas were actually his ideas any attempt to point out that the people who had experience in the field might have known what they were doing is just going to get shut down because obviously they weren’t/aren’t as smart as Elon.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

nerdrage (profile) says:

he wants to "solve" social media?

Someone tell this halfwit that social media has already been solved. It’s a platform for delivering a product (users) to a customer (advertisers). That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Not hard to comprehend unless you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe Musk disliked that and wanted to invent a form of social media where the users would also be the customers? First off, you’d have to give up the idea of large network effects because a paywall would run off at least 90% of the audience.

Why would people pay? If they were really committed to some narrow interest or point of view, such as, if Twitter truly became a fascist bar with an entrance fee, so the fascists could yell at each other.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech needs your support! Get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...