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

Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 444 posts

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#301

Post by kec »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #297
cronix wrote: post #75

So I never created a Twitter account. Over the years, there are a few people that I liked to read their thoughts on Twitter, so I'd manually go to their wall and read occasionally. They're all verified. Over time, it became cumbersome to continue doing this and I thought I'd give in and create an account (on the website) so that these people were all easy to access from a single point. So I did, and went and immediat…

> Twitter started putting up an overlay up prompting you to log in or create an account to continue after viewing x tweets. Annoying, but not a huge issue as you could just dismiss the modal and continue. you can no longer dismiss the modal, or in any other way bypass this as of a few days ago. (at least on mobile)

copying the URL into a new tab usually seems to work.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#302

Post by carapace »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #246
lotsofpulp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO of Twitter has control over how the President is able to communicate on Twitter. As an American, this makes sense because Twitter is private property.

It's one of those things where in theory and in the rule of law the CEO can do so. It does make me feel uncomfortable, though. As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies. I don't know what 'the solution' is, but I do sense a precedent being established that I am weary of. Twitter is simultaneously a public spher…

I think the root problem is that a single private platform has become a de facto public sphere, like, at all. Is there any precedent for this? I also don't know what a solution might look like, I mean, what are you going to do? Nationalize Twitter?

It's a general problem too (IMO): Microsoft/Github mediates FOSS development, Facebook (I'm never going to call them "Meta", I think the rename was a huge dick move by Zuckerberg that pollutes our language and culture. Nyah.) Facebook is Easy-Bake oven Internet for normies and they love it. Smart phones are malls.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#303

Post by kleinsch »

whoisjuan wrote: post #186

Honestly, Twitter is just a weird product. On the authoring side, it has a tremendous product-market fit with particular outspoken groups (investors, founders, politicians, journalists, activists, etc) and a terrible product-market fit with everyone else. I believe their biggest bet on revenue has always been to grow their passive audiences (people who just use the feed and don't tweet) but their product lacks the im…

Yea, TikTok is playing in a similar place (big creators, lots of passive people) but their algo + video being stickier has led to massive wins. I think it’s late for Twitter, but interesting thought exercise on what could have been if they had the TikTok discovery algo.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#304

Post by lotsofpulp »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #272
lotsofpulp wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either. The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.

Sure, but you'll have a hard time convincing people that is an effective alternative. How many people do you know who visit the official website of the White House to read press releases and memos? Does the average person know that the president used to give a weekly radio address? The medium of the message is just as important as the message itself. I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter a…

That is a court order due to the President’s status as a particular type of government employee, not a Twitter policy.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#305

Post by reaperducer »

lordnacho wrote: post #180
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #160

As a heavy twitter user who mostly enjoys it (I'm very particular of who I follow), I just don't understand what they've been doing all this time. Their product has been incredibly stagnant for years save for the occasional feature here and there and some styling. They've screwed over devs trying to build on their APIs and eroded all trust along the way. New features have been rolled out haphazardly, and they totally…

One could argue they filled out their niche. Took the VC money, made the thing global, does what it says on the tin. The world now has a broadcast-short-messages service that can be used by people to reach their audience. Unfortunately that's not enough, since these tech firms tend to be priced to eat the whole planet, thus requiring a lot more than going global with a little thing that works.

One could argue they filled out their niche

Between this and Facebook's recent woes, I wish this was a sign of a global tiring of social media in general.

I'm frequently wrong about these things, but one can hope.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#306

Post by dragonwriter »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #246
lotsofpulp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO of Twitter has control over how the President is able to communicate on Twitter. As an American, this makes sense because Twitter is private property.

It's one of those things where in theory and in the rule of law the CEO can do so. It does make me feel uncomfortable, though. As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies. I don't know what 'the solution' is, but I do sense a precedent being established that I am weary of. Twitter is simultaneously a public spher…

> Twitter is [...] a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users

No, it's not.

When a public official uses their Twitter account as an official channel, that account becomes a limited public forum from which users cannot be blocked for reasons that they could not be excluded from official government fora more generally (e.g., viewpoint discrimination is not permitted.) This is not a restriction on Twitter, but on the conduct of government business by public officials that applies wherever and whenever they conduct such business.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#307

Post by BitwiseFool »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #304
BitwiseFool wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but you'll have a hard time convincing people that is an effective alternative. How many people do you know who visit the official website of the White House to read press releases and memos? Does the average person know that the president used to give a weekly radio address? The medium of the message is just as important as the message itself. I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter a…

That is a court order due to the President’s status as a particular type of government employee, not a Twitter policy.

Okay. The whole situation still makes me uncomfortable. I don't particularly think that being a "private company" on the size and scale of Twitter justifies their ability to censor the president.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#308

Post by PKop »

nradov wrote: post #278
dktp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are they a dividend stock? They don't pay dividends and despite share buyback stock is down since IPO

From an investor standpoint, dividends and stock buybacks are roughly equivalent. Both are ways of returning cash to investors. Buybacks can be more tax efficient for investors using taxable accounts.

I don't think the confusion is around the concept, but the characterization of "them" as an instance of one, given the stock has performed terribly.

They are simply in no way that matters a "dividend stock" literally or figuratively.

Many are familiar with the concept of buybacks, but Twitter seems to be a "growth" stock that hasn't grown.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#309

Post by krapp »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #246
lotsofpulp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO of Twitter has control over how the President is able to communicate on Twitter. As an American, this makes sense because Twitter is private property.

It's one of those things where in theory and in the rule of law the CEO can do so. It does make me feel uncomfortable, though. As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies. I don't know what 'the solution' is, but I do sense a precedent being established that I am weary of. Twitter is simultaneously a public spher…

>As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies.

There is no such notion - private companies have to obey the laws of the land like anyone else.

Platforms like Twitter have the right to ban politicians on the basis of the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. The same rights that allow restaurants to eject people for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and allow radio stations and newspapers to choose what and what not to publish, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses off. I don't know why this suddenly makes people feel uncomfortable, when these rights, and the ability of private enterprise to exercise them, have been part of the basis of Western liberal democracies for hundreds of years.

The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians - including social media platforms, that supersede the rights and desires of the platform owners. That it would be illegal to ban any politician from any private property under any circumstances.

I believe it's a good thing that the President of the United States has no more right to act the fool on Twitter than you or I should. Twitter is not, and should not be, the sole nexus for all global political and cultural communication. It's a microblogging platform, ffs, the only reason it "matters" at all is because one specific paranoiac President didn't trust his own media apparatus.

It's a convenience. It's certainly useful, but it isn't necessary.

Post reply on HN