I see nothing in this article indicating why it would? Shareholders want profits. Why would they allow twitter to go non-profit?
If you want a non-profit twitter, make a non-profit alternative and hope for Twitter to die.
Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
301–310 of 320 posts
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you don't (and probably can't) know that this model is accurate? Also, there are a lot of populations which are not present on Twitter at all, and more which are not present in meaningful numbers.
Such models presumably can be tested in some sense. E.g. build some sort of predictive model of elections in each state using Twitter users as a surrogate, see how well you do. I'm not claiming that such a model is guaranteed to be perfect or even as good as a pollster, but it sounds in principle like a reasonable thing to do, if you take appropriate precautions to reduce bias.
At least one can try definitely.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#303Twitter's best bet is cut costs by bring employee count down to 100, 50 sales related, 50 engineering and move their infrastructure to AWS/Google Cloud which take the company to profitability. I think once they become profitable, it opens a lot more opportunities to explore new markets. Right now they are in a scramble to get users. Being profitable and focusing on one thing at a time will do them wonders. Should sta…
I agree that they should cut costs, but I don't agree with your thoughts of how they do so.
One of the notable things about Twitter is that they're a huge marketing machine. They have hundreds of employees that handle sales, marketing, advertising. Hell, they've acquired startups that handle advertising analytics, and have brought them in-house to build their own platform. They now directly sell contracts to TV channels and businesses that allow them to view how their brands interact on Twitter.
I'd argue that this has helped to create bloat. Anyone that has had to use Twitter's API over the years can see that they've gone from being an incredibly open company to building up a walled garden to protect their brand, in a similar way to how Facebook scaled back their efforts to be an application/gaming platform.
If I were Twitter, I'd give teams the opportunity to split from the company, but to continue to use their platform. If they believe in the product they've built within Twitter, they can be happy to compete against the open market. It allows them to drastically cut their workforce in key areas, while re-opening their product to the world. They can continue to be a sales company, but can fully allow others to continue to build great things on their platform, or to help shape how it works in the next decade.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#304Twitter's best bet is cut costs by bring employee count down to 100, 50 sales related, 50 engineering and move their infrastructure to AWS/Google Cloud which take the company to profitability. I think once they become profitable, it opens a lot more opportunities to explore new markets. Right now they are in a scramble to get users. Being profitable and focusing on one thing at a time will do them wonders. Should sta…
I agree that they should cut costs, but I don't agree with your thoughts of how they do so.
One of the notable things about Twitter is that they're a huge marketing machine. They have hundreds of employees that handle sales, marketing, advertising. Hell, they've acquired startups that handle advertising analytics, and have brought them in-house to build their own platform. They now directly sell contracts to TV channels and businesses that allow them to view how their brands interact on Twitter.
I'd argue that this has helped to create bloat. Anyone that has had to use Twitter's API over the years can see that they've gone from being an incredibly open company to building up a walled garden to protect their brand, in a similar way to how Facebook scaled back their efforts to be an application/gaming platform.
If I were Twitter, I'd give teams the opportunity to split from the company, but to continue to use their platform. If they believe in the product they've built within Twitter, they can be happy to compete against the open market. It allows them to drastically cut their workforce in key areas, while re-opening their product to the world. They can continue to be a sales company, but can fully allow others to continue to build great things on their platform, or to help shape how it works in the next decade.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#305Hard to imagine Twitter working as a non-profit when so much compensation is tied to equity.
Very little compensation has been delivered via equity since the IPO. The stock price is down 20% and the outlook is not good.
This exacerbates the problem. A company that got a lot of folks to work there because "We're giving double the equity of the other company you're looking at" will struggle with "We're converting to a non-profit" - just different types of employees.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its hard to tell if such sentiment comes from disappointed people on the far left, or pro Trump trolls concern trolling that Hitlery is the pro corporatist NEOLIB sell out.
"rose-colored horn-rimmed" glasses should give you a hint.
I was adamantly for Sanders, and Democrats in general until I learned that they play even dirtier thank Republicans. They kneecapped one of the most honest person I have ever seen run for president before his campaign even had a chance to get started.
Honestly, the threads underneath my original post give me more insight into how people can stomach voting for her, so it's eye opening at the very least.
"Aw comon! She's not that bad!" basically echos the sentiment my family has, as well, and it's why the status quo will never change.
Next time you convince yourself that Hillary is a great candidate, just know two things: 1. The only reason she even looks appealing as a candidate is because she is literally running against a walking dumpster fire. She is the second most disliked candidate in modern history, next to guess who? Donald Trump. Congrats.
2. Despite all of Trumps scandelous comments and bigotry, she still might actually lose. The polls don't mean anything this election, and 538 has even come out and said that, and even so, he's only down a couple points.
Truly remarkable candidate ya got there, DNC. It took underminding democracy, and the literal biggest turd nugget to run against her for to even have a shot.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of lazy journalism looking for a quote, any quote, because they're required to have one in a story they're writing. This isn't new. When I was an analyst, some reporters would call me for a quote about something. There were times when I didn't have anything to say because I didn't know anything about said thing. But some would pester me for a quote anyway so they didn't have to give someone else a call.…
The BBC was one of the most egregious pioneers in soliciting meaningless viewer responses in the pre-social media era. They would go so far as to kill 30+ seconds of airtime to soliciting/demanding "participatory" viewer responses that were invariably inane. On the plus side, at least it led to some good satire [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y
Auntie Beeb's insistence on such complete drivel has killed all the joy and interest. I find it utterly unlistenable much the time.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
The silicon valley bleeding hearts don't like to hear the truth when it doesn't fit their narrative or look good through their valley, rose colored, horn rimmed glasses. Even Mountain View coordinated with her campaign. As much as a self serving narcissist Trump is, I find it equally appalling that she gets so much support. The entire Wallstreet transcript scandal once again got buried by Trump-mania. This will be th…
LOL, most openly corrupt president. Somebody clearly hasn't read much US history. Andrew Jackson literally handed out political appointments to his supporters and relatives. Hilary Clinton isn't even close to being the most corrupt. She probably wouldn't even be in the top ten.
You just literally said "LUL but Andrew Jackson!" and it sums up basically every Hillary Supporter's defense. It's always "Yeah but _____" and that blank ranges from anything Bush, Colin Powell, Trump, and apparently Andrew Jackson related.
If you could step back and re-read that comment from an objective stance, you can see just how ridiculous it is. How Andrew Jackson has anything to do with anything a modern president would have to face is beyond me. The president today has many more obligations, decisions, power at the push of a button, etc.
Also the irony of your comment as you try to use a president from centuries ago as a reason why Clinton "ain't so bad" -- she too has literally sold a position of power with security clerance to her foundation donor, a man that had absolutely zero business having that sort of security clearance.
I hate to break it to ya my friend, not only is she in the top 10, she's the training model of how to do it. She makes Watergate not look so bad, afterall.
Re: Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal would be outsourced, marketing same, spam control - yup, the same. That leaves developers and critical function staff. Twitter could easily work with 200 staff from 2 locations.
I'm curious: do you have experience running an organization like this, or are you speculating?
Working for. I was working for an outsourcing company that catered for companies like that. My hourly rate were ridiculously high, but still companies would be better off hiring us, than employing.