3 ms·

I hope they buy it for a different reason: so they could drain this useless sea of vapidity and narcissism, and drive the company into the ground within 3 years

by melted 11y ago

I hope they buy it for a different reason: so they could drain this useless sea of vapidity and narcissism, and drive the company into the ground within 3 years tops. Or maybe Dorsey will do it on his own, who knows. Twitter's chance of death goes up dramatically if it's not a standalone entity.

mschuster91 11y ago
> Twitter's chance of death goes up dramatically if it's not a standalone entity. Currently the whole TWTR management is looking to please short-term "investor" and "speculator" scum. Companies don't exist for 3-month intervals and maximum gains, they exist for creating LONG TIME wealth (and that's the mistake Capitalism does). Existence inside a huge, rock-solid company frees management from the cognitive and financial round to be hyper-effective for capitalists instead for their users (who actually create the work that makes Twitter exist).
- melted 11y ago
  It also frees the management from "fear of God", which results in ridiculous investments and initiatives, accelerated (and unnecessary) hiring, proliferation of middle management, empire building, politics, etc, etc.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > It also frees the management from "fear of God" It doesn't really matter if the "God" is Wall Street or a holding company like Alphabet. Only that I'd trust a holding company to be forced to maintain the company in order to not risk its value. A stock holder on Wall St just wants as much profit as possible as fast as possible, and if it goes bust then you can always sell shorts and still profit.
    - melted 11y ago
      It does. Alphabet would care a great deal more if Twitter lives or dies. Wall St doesn't care in the slightest.
      - mschuster91 11y ago
        On the other side, Google doesn't always follow this rule and I wouldn't trust them much more to look after Twitter than Wall St. Google has killed off (or left to rot, and then kill off) projects with huge user counts/business outlooks in the past... remember Google Reader and Google Code? Both could have kicked Feedly's and Github's/SF's asses multiple times over with a bit of investment, and Google basically let them rot until the backend of Google's infrastructure changed too much to justify the needed adaptions on the projects.
        melted 11y ago
        User counts were so pitifully small in those projects that they were destaffed for years before they were shut down.
        mschuster91 11y ago
        Reader had iirc at least a million users, that's only small when you compare it with FB/Instagram/Twitter/Youtube/Snapchat. Most startups would kill for a million highly engaged users.
        melted 11y ago
        I believe G+ had 300M+ users at the time, and G+ was still considered a failure. 1M is a rounding error by Google standards. They can get 1M users by releasing _anything_ that does _anything_ at this point.

by melted 11y ago

mschuster91 11y ago

> Twitter's chance of death goes up dramatically if it's not a standalone entity. Currently the whole TWTR management is looking to please short-term "investor" and "speculator" scum. Companies don't exist for 3-month intervals and maximum gains, they exist for creating LONG TIME wealth (and that's the mistake Capitalism does). Existence inside a huge, rock-solid company frees management from the cognitive and financial round to be hyper-effective for capitalists instead for their users (who actually create the work that makes Twitter exist).

melted 11y ago
It also frees the management from "fear of God", which results in ridiculous investments and initiatives, accelerated (and unnecessary) hiring, proliferation of middle management, empire building, politics, etc, etc.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > It also frees the management from "fear of God" It doesn't really matter if the "God" is Wall Street or a holding company like Alphabet. Only that I'd trust a holding company to be forced to maintain the company in order to not risk its value. A stock holder on Wall St just wants as much profit as possible as fast as possible, and if it goes bust then you can always sell shorts and still profit.
  - melted 11y ago
    It does. Alphabet would care a great deal more if Twitter lives or dies. Wall St doesn't care in the slightest.
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      On the other side, Google doesn't always follow this rule and I wouldn't trust them much more to look after Twitter than Wall St. Google has killed off (or left to rot, and then kill off) projects with huge user counts/business outlooks in the past... remember Google Reader and Google Code? Both could have kicked Feedly's and Github's/SF's asses multiple times over with a bit of investment, and Google basically let them rot until the backend of Google's infrastructure changed too much to justify the needed adaptions on the projects.
      - melted 11y ago
        User counts were so pitifully small in those projects that they were destaffed for years before they were shut down.
        mschuster91 11y ago
        Reader had iirc at least a million users, that's only small when you compare it with FB/Instagram/Twitter/Youtube/Snapchat. Most startups would kill for a million highly engaged users.
        melted 11y ago
        I believe G+ had 300M+ users at the time, and G+ was still considered a failure. 1M is a rounding error by Google standards. They can get 1M users by releasing _anything_ that does _anything_ at this point.