Twitter, like FaceBook, should be an open, distributed platform. They are too valuable to remain under the control of a person or small group of people. They are communities and their value slides, and danger to society increases, when they are under centralized control.
Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
131–140 of 252 posts
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#132It's not mentioned in the article, but I really think President Trump has been a savior for Twitter. Without those controversial tweets, Twitter would rarely be in much of the public's mind, and the company would have continued its slow slide into irrelevance. As it is, barely a day goes by without "Twitter" being mentioned in national news.
Yeah, all Twitter needed was a pack of neo-Nazis, some Russian bots, and a genocidal conman in the White House. Not worth it. The health of Twitter's balance sheet is a counterindication of the health of the world. When their stock goes up, the market should dive.
>genocidal
What?
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, all Twitter needed was a pack of neo-Nazis, some Russian bots, and a genocidal conman in the White House. Not worth it. The health of Twitter's balance sheet is a counterindication of the health of the world. When their stock goes up, the market should dive.
What an ignorant comment. Who has Trump committed genocide on? Who is a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi in the white house?
> Who has Trump committed genocide on?
Genocidal doesn't necessarily mean he's committed genocide; it means that he's prone to (and to some extent, fascinated by) mass acts of killing. The tweets about promising fire and fury on an entire nation of people (North Korea), telling Fox that we need to kill the terrorist families as well, etc. He gets off feeling like he's the most powerful man in the world.
He's a strongman, whose solutions often involve labeling entire categories of people as bad/evil (Muslims, Mexicans, the media). If you haven't noticed this you're either not paying attention or willfully ignorant.
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, i'd not be surprised if he holds TWTR stocks :)
Are the president's holdings a matter of public record (I honestly don't know)?
No. Historically, modern presidents have made their holdings public and put their assets into a blind trust while they've been in office. However, this is not required of the President, and Trump has chosen to do neither so far.
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, all Twitter needed was a pack of neo-Nazis, some Russian bots, and a genocidal conman in the White House. Not worth it. The health of Twitter's balance sheet is a counterindication of the health of the world. When their stock goes up, the market should dive.
>genocidal What?
[deleted]
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an ignorant comment. Who has Trump committed genocide on? Who is a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi in the white house?
> Who has Trump committed genocide on? Genocidal doesn't necessarily mean he's committed genocide; it means that he's prone to (and to some extent, fascinated by) mass acts of killing. The tweets about promising fire and fury on an entire nation of people (North Korea), telling Fox that we need to kill the terrorist families as well, etc. He gets off feeling like he's the most powerful man in the world. He's a strong…
Genocidal means a proclivity to commit genocide. I believe you have do it once before you can be called that, in all fairness.
Generally, threatening war (and generally even going to war) is not considered genocide.
>and to some extent, fascinated by
We don't call people murderers just because they like watching CSI Miami.
In fact, the person Trump was threatening with his "fire and fury" remarks legitimately IS genocidal and has ACTIVE CONCENTRATION CAMPS in his country. Yet you think it's more important to criticize Trump for entering into a war of words, rather than the dictator himself?
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#137"may become profitable for the first time next quarter after ... ramping up deals to sell its data to other companies" Cool, so any indication on who is buying all my data?
I would assume they are selling data without personally identifiable information so it isn't your data. You are a set of data points that is aggregated with the millions of other users.
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#138Twitter, like FaceBook, should be an open, distributed platform. They are too valuable to remain under the control of a person or small group of people. They are communities and their value slides, and danger to society increases, when they are under centralized control.
How do you propose we identify companies that fit that criteria, and take ownership and control of them away from the people who created them?
And remember, your proposal can't be a greater danger to society than the problem you're trying to fix, or that would defeat the purpose.
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, all Twitter needed was a pack of neo-Nazis, some Russian bots, and a genocidal conman in the White House. Not worth it. The health of Twitter's balance sheet is a counterindication of the health of the world. When their stock goes up, the market should dive.
What an ignorant comment. Who has Trump committed genocide on? Who is a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi in the white house?
Well, "Make America great again" seems essentially like a nazi expression, based on the fact that Hitler and his crowd used the same for Germany. I don't know what it needs to make somebody a nazi -- not a single phrase certainly, but I reckon that brings them closer at least.
Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an ignorant comment. Who has Trump committed genocide on? Who is a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi in the white house?
> Who has Trump committed genocide on? Genocidal doesn't necessarily mean he's committed genocide; it means that he's prone to (and to some extent, fascinated by) mass acts of killing. The tweets about promising fire and fury on an entire nation of people (North Korea), telling Fox that we need to kill the terrorist families as well, etc. He gets off feeling like he's the most powerful man in the world. He's a strong…
Saying someone is prone to genocide because they are xenophobic is a massive stretch.