Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

Post by throwawaymaroon » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

seabird wrote: post #149

vonnik wrote: post #104

Earlier 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 conman It is no surprise that Trump won when his name can't be mentioned without an absolutely asinine, incorrect comment following it. Addressing dishonesty with hyperbole is not helping anyone.

Post by zghst » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 6:56 PM UTC

samcheng wrote: post #5

It'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.

Post by bhandziuk » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #114

jjeaff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although few have any experience operating at that scale, one can make comparisons. I do find it curious that WhatsApp was operating at a much larger scale in terms of users and messages processed when they were sold to Facebook. And they had 55 employees. So obviously you don't need 4,000 employees for the technology at this scale. I'm not sure what in the world the other 3,945 employees are doing though.

You don't see how person to person and small group messaging is a more difficult engineering challenge than personalized feed multicast? It's also simpler to sell subscriptions than to sell targeted ads - there's at least one whole other product we don't see, which Twitter's advertisers use, and it's probably a few different ones for different sizes and kinds of advertisers. Clearly, there's also a whole group workin…

Post by Swizec » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

vonnik wrote: post #104

samcheng wrote: post #5

It'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.

Post by craftyguy » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

ImSkeptical wrote: post #145

kbhn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Threatening a country that is threatening us isn't exactly genocidal. Killing families of terrorists is deeply immoral and murderous - but it's also in keeping with current U.S. policy (see Anwar al-Awlaki - both Trump and Obama administrations have killed Awlaki's children). Terrorists aren't a race though, so wanting to kill them and their families isn't genocide.