Live data from Hacker News

Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

npr.org

221–230 of 320 posts

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#221
See the #1 HN article today about returning the web (or the internet) to its decentralized origins.

The existence of Twitter and many other technolpolies that dominate with what could basically be a shared protocol is what's holding back decentralization.

Actually I think all of the giants will eventually fall hard because of (re)-decentralization. That includes Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, the United States, etc.

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatsapp only had 50 engineers even when they reached 900M users. Now, granted, Twitter may be a more complex system, but assuming they would just be maintaining it, they could be enough.

WhatsApp isn't real-time, and there's no reason for traffic 2 weeks ago to be any bigger than tomorrow. However, there's a Presidential Debate tonight so you know Twitter's traffic is going to be off the charts.

WhatsApp isn't real time?

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#224

Twitter's best bet is cut costs by bring employee count down to 100, 50 sales related, 50 engineering and move their infrastructure to AWS/Google Cloud which take the company to profitability. I think once they become profitable, it opens a lot more opportunities to explore new markets. Right now they are in a scramble to get users. Being profitable and focusing on one thing at a time will do them wonders. Should sta…

50 people to maintain a site the size of Twitter?

Look at WhatsApp.

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#225
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy that claim at all. No way you're building private infrastructure for 1/5 the cost of Azure or AWS. Or even 1/2. If you're comparing some servers in a 4th tier colo with a poor SLA to AWS and pretending that devops time is free, then sure. But if you're actually building something with comparable reliability and availability, then no way. You're going to spend a lot more than you'd expect on extra capacity…

What availability does Twitter actually deliver? I might be getting mixed up with reports about other sites or biased toward older events that happened when Twitter's architecture was less mature, but it seems like it's at least a semi-regular victim of "break the Internet" phenomena.

Twitter hasn't gone down in ages. (At least 2-3 full years.) It's reliable enough that hundreds of sites use Twitter as their "if our site is down, check for updates here" alternative.

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#226

Twitter's best bet is cut costs by bring employee count down to 100, 50 sales related, 50 engineering and move their infrastructure to AWS/Google Cloud which take the company to profitability. I think once they become profitable, it opens a lot more opportunities to explore new markets. Right now they are in a scramble to get users. Being profitable and focusing on one thing at a time will do them wonders. Should sta…

50 people to maintain a site the size of Twitter?

I doubt 50 people is enough to even field the various legal requests Twitter gets during a normal month.

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#227
At the very least twitter should have never gone public. The stresses of a public company don't jive with the needs of a platform like Twitter. Thousands of employees looking to monetize our tweets aren't what Twitter needs, in any case.

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#228
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The silicon valley bleeding hearts don't like to hear the truth when it doesn't fit their narrative or look good through their valley, rose colored, horn rimmed glasses. Even Mountain View coordinated with her campaign. As much as a self serving narcissist Trump is, I find it equally appalling that she gets so much support. The entire Wallstreet transcript scandal once again got buried by Trump-mania. This will be th…

LOL, most openly corrupt president. Somebody clearly hasn't read much US history. Andrew Jackson literally handed out political appointments to his supporters and relatives. Hilary Clinton isn't even close to being the most corrupt. She probably wouldn't even be in the top ten.

>Hilary Clinton isn't even close to being the most corrupt. She probably wouldn't even be in the top ten.

Technically you are right, but this sounds pretty depressing.

At least she didn't make it to the top 10!

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50 people to maintain a site the size of Twitter?

I doubt 50 people is enough to even field the various legal requests Twitter gets during a normal month.

Whether or not it's 50 people to field legal requests, it's certainly more than zero. And I'm sure that you don't need to look hard to find complaints that, even given current staffing levels, it's hard to reach a human who can deal with a hijacked account/harassment/etc. Scaling up from narrowly scoped technical support takes a lot more people.

Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've gone from "Twitter mostly only bans people throwing around death threats" to, "well this one guy once wrote some bad stuff under a pseudonym in another forum, and this other guy has rude followers" Do you see why people might not exactly trust Twitter's commitment to being a content-neutral platform, or why they might be reluctant to give them huge amounts of free content and network effects that can be tak…

I asked seany if they should unban people who make death and rape threats. I didn't assert that Twitter bans only people who make death and rape threats. So, no, I'm not "going" anywhere. Now, as to your eliding of actual malicious intent: pointing the Eye of Sauron at people, when you know-and-can't-not-know that your followers will deluge whoever you point at with death and rape threats, is not, in my book, merely…

I'm impressed by your ability to ignore the banning of people like RSM for apparently no reason other than having wrote wrongthink in another forum. I suppose that was "harmful" too?

Given the left's continuing efforts to restrict freedom of association, I don't find myself under any obligation to respect their desire to exclude people of my ideological persuasion from any given platform.

Ironically Twitter's censorship efforts are just barely effective enough to drive respectable, real-name conservatives off of their platform, but laughably underpowered against dedicated trolls. If anything it's giving them a nice lesson in disposable identities and minor opsec.

Post reply on HN