Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#161

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

vermontdevil wrote: post #101
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is ALL ABOUT who you follow. I hated it for years, until a popular post here on HN a couple months ago. A user compiled an absolute SUPER LIST of the best people to follow, and now my feed is full of really interesting information, diverse viewpoints, and stuff I wouldn't find anywhere else. This one account was kind of the tipping point for me, finding GOOD TWITTER https://twitter.com/humanprogress

Where is this list?

https://twitter.com/mxschumacher/following

Another great one from that list is @FermatsLibrary

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#162

Post by JohnTHaller »

krick wrote: post #116
JohnTHaller wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't even need to do that previously. Just hit the API and look if it originated on iOS or Android.

So does Trump use Android or iOS?

Trump had an Android phone while his handlers used iOS.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#163

Post by wildmusings »

craftyguy wrote: post #159
ImSkeptical wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't confuse yourself. It's not the millions of people El Cheeto would kill in a nuclear strike on DPRK that are threatening the US, it is effectively one trump-like individual in charge of DPRK that is threatening the US.

Government has consequences. That's why democracy is so important. This is especially true with regards to foreign policy. If a country threatens another such that the threatened country's only viable defense is to attack the civilians of the aggressor, that would be a totally legitimate tactic of war.

Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve the deaths of many innocent North Koreans, since North Korean artillery is spread widely throughout the southern part of the country. That is tragic, and no small part of why we've allowed this madness to go on for so long. But at some point a people must protect their security, and do what must be done.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#164

Post by orwin »

Danihan wrote: post #146
travmatt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand he says that he isn’t a part of the order, on the other hand he wore their insignia to the inaugural ball. Maybe he was using neo nazi symbolism ironically?

>Leslie Waters, prof of European History at Randolph-Macon College, said: “It definitely is a symbol that a lot of Hungarians would associate with racist ideology and anti-Semitism but plenty of Hungarians also associate it with some sort of generic patriotism and anti-communism.” Or he wore it to reflect his family history and as an anti-communist symbol....

I agree with you in your comment that point that these disguised insults against trump are inappropriate here (saying this more directly could have better effect imo). But please, you seems to be a good guy, do not fall into the Tribal trap, whether it is "i must defend m own even if i'm wrong" or "He has opinions from the opposite side, he must be wrong on everything else". The people this man hang out with AND this symbol he wore are enough evidences that he support, even if it is a little, Nazi ideology.

Since nowaday, nazi ideology has several sides, xenophobic, antisemitic, racist ant anti-feminist (i might forgot some), he might agree on at least one, and if you're dead set on defending him you can say he is only xenophobic or something, and the other part of neonazism, he doesn't support, but are you really believing that he wore this to say "i'm anti-communist"? If he did, he must have been seriously misinformed (and anyone this out of touch, honestly, deserve to be kicked of of any job that require you to understand history).

Please do not go tribal on Hn.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#165

Post by tclancy »

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.

Ha, this reminds me of a story from economics class that Hamburger Helper was one of a set of products whose profits correlated negatively with the overall economy's health.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#166

Post by [deleted] »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #76
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.

And thus why he will never have violated the ToS. He could openly threaten to murder someone and Twitter would not suspend him. (Though in fairness they rarely suspend anyone else either.)

[deleted]

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#167

Post by ifhd »

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.

The news still loved Twitter regardless. You can write an "article" just by going "look what twitter says"

The public in general, not so much.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#168

Post by ifhd »

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.

He's probably not genocidal.

I doubt he's particularly against it, but it doesn't actually benefit him so he's probably not for it.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#169

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nkozyra wrote: post #19
cyberpunk0 wrote: post #2

More and more these social media platforms feel like scheme's. Round after round of funding without ever reaching profitablity

Don't VCs constantly fund things (social media or otherwise) that never reach profitability? Isn't that the whole gamble of "venture" funding in the first place? The monetization aspect is supposedly solved. If I suspect you can garner audience, I posit that said audience can be translated into ad dollars at some point in the future. Only the first part is speculative. And speculation is what venture funding is all a…

> Don't VCs constantly fund things (social media or otherwise) that never reach profitability?

The expectation isn’t perpetual. Evert company must become profitable, be acquired by someone who believes it will make them (more) profitable (or attractive to another party with that belief), or go bust.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#170

Post by craftyguy »

wildmusings wrote: post #163
craftyguy wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't confuse yourself. It's not the millions of people El Cheeto would kill in a nuclear strike on DPRK that are threatening the US, it is effectively one trump-like individual in charge of DPRK that is threatening the US.

Government has consequences. That's why democracy is so important. This is especially true with regards to foreign policy. If a country threatens another such that the threatened country's only viable defense is to attack the civilians of the aggressor, that would be a totally legitimate tactic of war. Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve t…

> That's why democracy is so important

Too bad there is not a true democracy in the US.

> Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve the deaths of many innocent North Koreans,

How about we concentrate on their leadership, instead of 'spraying and praying'?

Post reply on HN