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

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#231

Post by cisanti »

WalterSear wrote: post #108
aaron-lebo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: why should Dorsey not be seen as an exaggerated media story (by the media and himself) and what has he done which justifies the stock jumping that high? He's run both companies for awhile now, Twitter has basically been stagnant. Doesn't he supposedly work like 80 hours a week anyway? It's already a full time job. Examples from 2011 and 2016: http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/13/technology/dorsey_techonom…

"So if he's actually working 80 hours a week, where are the results?" And here I am, trying to find just one job in tech that's only 40 hours a week.

Help me find a 20h/w job and I'll be grateful for the rest of my life.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#232

Post by cisanti »

kbhn wrote: post #133
Danihan wrote: post #124

Earlier 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…

You just describes every American president . Trump is a fool, but the witch hunt is ridiculous.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#233

Post by seabird »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #181
seabird wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Uhhh, did you miss the tweets where he threatened Nuclear Holocaust on North Koreans if they didn't start behaving the way he wanted?

You're being completely and totally intellectually dishonest. North Korea is a nuclear threat with an extremely vulnerable neighbor. Trump's interest in a first strike has nothing to do with eradicating the North Korean people.

Again, trying to justify your strong feelings about Trump by fabricating these insane narratives does nothing but hurt you and your political causes.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#234

Post by SyneRyder »

VVayneTracker wrote: post #190
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.

Agreed. I wonder how much of that money is from strawman purchases that can't be traced directly to russia yet. When the dust finally settles on all this we'll see that twitter received millions from russian surrogates.

There's already a news report from RT today claiming that Twitter actively courted them (RT) for advertising during the elections, and have published a Keynote slide deck from a presentation they claim Twitter presented to them:

https://www.rt.com/news/407919-twitter-multi-million-offer-r...

They claim that in return for $1.5m upfront spend during the elections, Twitter would promote Russia Today's tweets and provide them with an inhouse team to curate content and provide strategy. For $500K extra, Twitter would promote RT's moments to 60 Million users. There was an offer for a $3.3m total ad spend.

But it should be pointed out that would not feed into this quarter's revenues, as it was for late 2016. And the story all depends on whether you believe the slide deck from RT is genuine or not.

(There's a separate HN discussion about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15566663 )

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#235

Post by JohnTHaller »

T2_t2 wrote: post #228
JohnTHaller wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By bots I'm not talking about Trump fans who have Twitter accounts. I'm talking about actual bots. Huge networks of fake accounts with predictable combos of words for names based around Trump that solely post/retweet about Trump that only follow and are followed by 10s of thousands of similar accounts and use a specific schedule for hundreds and thousands of these tweets/retweets/likes. The kind of bots that take an…

> it turns off anyone with a brain. Exactly. So it has mass appeal :) That's the sad reality. The Kardasians aren't popular because of people with a brain. Mass appeal matters.

Except that these don't appeal to anyone, really, whether you're a Democrat or Republican or independent. They're designed to shut conversation down. And to make it appear like a specific point of view has many times more support than it does. And they're working.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#236

Post by Danihan »

awj wrote: post #178
theseatoms wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Undoubtedly. The left's reaction to DJT has pushed me closer to the Republican party than I could've ever imagined.

> The left's reaction to DJT has pushed me closer to the Republican party than I could've ever imagined. Do you think it's a good thing that your political opinions are so profoundly influenced by shitposting you see online?

The entire predominant media narrative is not just "shitposting online."

https://c4.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/...

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#237

Post by lucas_maximus83 »

odammit wrote: post #192
lucas_maximus83 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ronald Reagan used the same campaign slogan in the 80s get a fucking grip. It is a short memorable slogan and it is simply good marketing. Hitler was a vegetarian and liked dogs. According to your logic that makes you a nazi. Also you probably don't remember, but everyone called George W Bush a nazi when he was elected. It is complete fucking bullshit and tbh I think it is pretty disgusting to demean the real meaning…

People called Obama one too. I think the difference is the subtle embrace of white supremacy via the inability to dismiss or criticize those “good people” on both sides.

Growing up as a kid in the late 80s and 90s the whole message from society was "Racism and Sexism is bad, treat everyone equally". Now the message is "If you are a white person you should accept being treated like a second class citizen".

This is the thing that has led to a growing white supremacy movement, even Jared Taylor (a prominent white supremacist in the US) has said so "They are driving them [white men] into our arms".

Ridiculous comments like yours saying that Trump is dog whistling to the alt-right when he said there "was violence on both" sides is again bullshit (there has been clashes between the far right and the far left in the US months before that statement) as what he said was more or less accurate.

Also why would he subtly dog whistle? White supremacy movements in the USA are tiny (in the few thousands), there aren't any votes in it. It simply doesn't make any sense from a campaign standpoint.

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#238

Post by ryguytilidie »

seabird wrote: post #233
ryguytilidie wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh, did you miss the tweets where he threatened Nuclear Holocaust on North Koreans if they didn't start behaving the way he wanted?

You're being completely and totally intellectually dishonest. North Korea is a nuclear threat with an extremely vulnerable neighbor. Trump's interest in a first strike has nothing to do with eradicating the North Korean people. Again, trying to justify your strong feelings about Trump by fabricating these insane narratives does nothing but hurt you and your political causes .

"trying to justify your strong feelings about Trump by fabricating these insane narratives"

This is the first time we've ever interacted and you're projecting my feelings? Great, we're off to a good start here.

From there, I'm "fabricating a narrative" because I implied that casually threatening to kill millions of people on twitter might be what someone else was referring to as "genocidal"?

You know what is WAY more disingenuous than calling killing millions of people "genocide"? Implying that a first strike which would kill millions of people has nothing to do with killing millions of people. Now THAT would be disingenuous.

And, just to throw a cherry on the top of those other weird behaviors, you tell me I'm doing nothing but hurting my political causes, when you don't know what they are.

Couldn't you at least have the self awareness to realize that just because you get cranky when someone calls threatening to kill millions of people "genocide" does not actually mean that all points that person makes somehow lose credibility with all other human beings on earth...because you said so...?

Re: Twitter says it could turn first-ever profit

#239

Post by sanderjd »

bhandziuk wrote: post #155
sanderjd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But as with many engineering challenges, throwing more people at the problem doesn't solve it faster and often makes things worse. A harder problem to solve might just need and other person or two or more time but thousands of people? It does seem excessive, right?

Honestly, it's impossible for me to say whether it seems excessive, because I have no idea what it takes to run their business. But I don't think you have any inside information either, do you?

Let me put it this way: I think it's arrogant that management consulting companies think they can send in a couple recent ivy league grads to learn about a company for a few weeks and then suggest a bunch of changes. This is like that, but without even bothering to go in and learn about the company at all.

Post reply on HN