61–70 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're rather missing the point the parent was making. It doesn't matter what you're there for, if the experience feels Fox-News-like, a lot of people will leave. The people remaining will be those who like Fox News.
Fox news is the biggest news organization in the US by viewership, which seems to be a positive shift then? This does not reflect in the numbers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. With Jack confidently predicting a conspiracy theorist will win the presidency, it tells me Bluesky isn't going to be my destination. In fact I'm at a stage in my life where the idea of social media participation just isn't appealing any more.
> With Jack confidently predicting a conspiracy theorist will win the presidency 2016 can't be repeated, people have learnt that hard way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their revenue is massively larger than the cost to run their servers (I used to run 3000 physical servers with a small team, it doesn't cost much) > advertising revenue for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was $88 million
Ad revenue is mostly tied to sales people talking with big companies, addressing their issues. For example: Southwest airlines has a huge number of advertisements across the internet. But Southwest doesn't want these advertisements to appear next to airport disasters. This kind of "custom request" is the bulk of $Millions+ revenues. You need to constantly cater to these company's seemingly arbitrary requests as they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that it is literally an anonymous (not named) source.
I'm not sure if you're... into newspaper lingo. But "anonymous source" usually means "Dude who emails reporter", and often someone who is an executive level or above. You know, someone who matters, but for their own sake they need to stay anonymous. If its just a document, then the "source is the document". You don't need to quote an anonymous person (who likely has their own biases), you just quote the document itse…
In a journalistic context, a source is a person. That's why words like "my source" are used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're rather missing the point the parent was making. It doesn't matter what you're there for, if the experience feels Fox-News-like, a lot of people will leave. The people remaining will be those who like Fox News.
Fox news is the biggest news organization in the US by viewership, which seems to be a positive shift then? This does not reflect in the numbers
They had a business that (in theory) appealed to every human on the planet. Now they don't. It's shedding its userbase as a result.
Not to mention the Venn diagram between "people who are not already on Twitter and are evaluating Twitter as a platform to use" and "Fox News / right wing information consumers" has a very narrow overlap.
I use Twitter to keep up on AI and the new space industry (there really is no alternative). Revenue could shrink further and none of that would be lost. Growing revenue could let them improve things I don't care about (spaces, video, payments, etc). I guess yay for them if they improve revenue, yawn if they don't.
$88mm per month is ~$1bn per year. That yields a low single-digit enterprise value on a generous revenue multiple, which implies—as do Twitter’s bond prices—that the equity is already worthless. (Twitter Blue is revenue irrelevant [1].)
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/24/twitter-blue-subscriptions...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're rather missing the point the parent was making. It doesn't matter what you're there for, if the experience feels Fox-News-like, a lot of people will leave. The people remaining will be those who like Fox News.
Fox news is the biggest news organization in the US by viewership, which seems to be a positive shift then? This does not reflect in the numbers
How so? If Twitter goes under due to debts and lack of revenue, all of that will disappear.