17 ms·
Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
- Rustydave 10y agoHow about charging users?. Like monthly plans etc.
- echelon 10y agoWasn't there some "Twitter alternative" launched by someone who used HN? Its entire business model was to bill users. I can't remember the name of it, or the founder, but I think the service failed to gain traction. edit: The service was/is App.net, and it was founded by Dalton Caldwell. It used to make the rounds on HN all the time.
- Klibarchu 10y agoIt was a good idea, but the execution was ridiculous.
- ori_b 10y agoIf they do this, there will probably be no users left to charge.
- RileyKyeden 10y agoMost of the people I talk to on Twitter don't have money to spare. They're the kind of people who have to toss up a fundraiser to make rent because they had a surprise medical bill or car repair.
- blakeyrat 10y agoThey could offer "premium" accounts, the way Amazon does or Hulu used to, where there are no ads and some add-in services are discounted or free. Or they could offer little widgets you can buy and post on your profile page, like LiveJournal does (assuming it still does; it's been ages.) Or a combination of the two, like DeviantArt. There's plenty of options. Hell, sell Twitter plushies. That failwhale image was pretty cute.
- andromeduck 10y agoIMO the best way would be to do microtransactions and go whale hunting. For example, you could charge a quarter for every character past the current word limit and a dollar per character after 200 and kill two birds with one stone.
- nhebb 10y agoInstead of charging all users, they could offer premium accounts that allowed longer posts, did not display ads, have private circle-like channels that you could post to for closed conversations, etc. They haven't expanded the feature set to take advantage of these opportunities, though, so senior management seems to lack the imagination to drive it towards profits.
- ghaff 10y agoI don't know if Twitter has ever spoken about it but the lack of premium accounts has long puzzled me. Surely there are worthwhile features they could offer without degrading the free tier experience. My circles are perhaps atypical but for those of us who use it as a fairly important professional tool, a $50/year pro account would be a complete no-brainer. Maybe there aren't enough people like this to deal with the complications. It seems unlikely they haven't thought about it. But the lack is still surprising.
- olivermarks 10y agoThere's no reason a craigslist style nonprofit version of a service similar to Twitter couldn't launch. The open Facebook alternatives never took off though - very hard to get traction against deep pocketed and connected rivals. Doesn't look as though anyone is going to buy Twitter which is embarrassing for them
- eropple 10y ago> There's no reason a craigslist style nonprofit version of a service similar to Twitter couldn't launch. Launch, sure. Scale? That's a much harder problem in terms of user acquisition (and if you can do that, you can deal with the technical side of things even as a nonprofit, maybe). I think there's only room for one Twitter. If you don't have 99% of the people interested in that sort of service, you might as well have nobody. And I don't think the arguments towards federation and distribution help--you can have a thousand federated hosts, and if you have no users, you will get no users. It's a really hard problem.
- pessimizer 10y agoExisting and being architecturally scalable while Twitter is failing or as it fails should be enough to get users.
- eropple 10y agoDoes that follow? "Existing" doesn't strike me as a sufficient prerequisite. Building something that scales is easy. I do it all the time. It's all the non-technical stuff that matters, and open-source/decentralized services don't seem to really be good at that.
- sosborn 10y ago> Doesn't look as though anyone is going to buy Twitter which is embarrassing for them It will be bought eventually. Everyone is just waiting for the price to come down, which is inevitable.
- zanny 10y ago
- Raed667 10y agoI can't forgive Twitter for what it has done with TweetDeck after buying it. They have taken a great tool and striped it so that it fits their blurry vision of what the service should look like.
- err4nt 10y agoAre you talking about https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/ https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/ or a desktop or mobile app? I think tweetdeck.twitter.com is my preferred Twitter UI because it allows me to keep on top of keyword searches as well. Staying on top of current conversations and trends in a niche area of web design is a big chunk of Twitter's value to me and it's very time consuming to do that in their mobile app or regular Twitter.com
- zxcvvcxz 10y agoIt already is, is it not?
- ghaff 10y agoAs a non-profit, it would still need to breakeven. So far, it hasn't demonstrated this ability, so arguing that its problems stem from pressure by investors to make outsized returns seems weak. (And the article even admits that Twitter's problems aren't all about investor pressure.)
- mrtksn 10y agoRight, but in that case could adopt the Wikipedia model. So, donations.
- ghaff 10y agoWhich would require a very different cost structure from the Twitter of today. Not impossible perhaps but certainly a fundamental change. <$100m annual expenses for Wikimedia vs. $2b, so about 25x. Of course, some of those expenses are cost of sales and others could be cut in a more streamlined non-profit but it's a big difference today.
- kharms 10y agoThis would be fantastic. Twitter's utility is in its open (inherently less profitable) nature. As a data source for academic study it's unparalleled.
- paulcole 10y ago>As a data source for academic study it's unparalleled. Does that actually mean it's valuable? Just because something's one of a kind doesn't mean it's worth that much.
- DigitalJack 10y agoThe phrase "x is unparalleled" implies uniqueness by virtue of the value it provides. GP is basically saying twitter has accumulated a vast wealth of social data that is immensely valuable to the research community.
- oldmanjay 10y agoSounds like the academic community should be charged for access to the data, if there is so much value in there.
- bbctol 10y agoFor full access to the twitter archive, they are, though a lot of data can be gleaned from what's publicly posted.
- oldmanjay 10y agoIn retrospect I should have assumed that to be the case
- Tempest1981 10y agoThe media is clearly benefiting, with many stories backed by a Donald Trump tweet. But if the tweets weren't free to begin with, they might not be as newsworthy.
- dfeart3453465uf 10y agoTwitter is the odd one out. While others built walled gardens, twitter kept the gate open. We now have a general catalog of human discourse for the last decade. Record of great tragedy, revolutions, elections past and future. It would be shame if this was bought and locked up by some gardeners.
- JonnieCache 10y ago>general catalog of human discourse I would contest this. Twitter represents a very narrow sector of society.
- JBReefer 10y agoPeople that hold OPs opinion tend to be on twitter, and this blind to the size of the outgroup
- ZanyProgrammer 10y agoA good recent example is the Democratic Primary-Twitter massively magnified Sanders' supporters, and a lot were genuinely surprised that Twitter does not in fact represent the will of the Democratic Primary.
- pessimizer 10y agoThat's not a great example; because Sanders had far greater non-Democratic Party support than the other primary candidate, Twitter was reflecting the opinions of a more general population than the primary would. To say it another way - Democratic primary voters reflect a narrower sector of society than Twitter does.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- adevine 10y agoI'd challenge that interpretation. Lots of Hillary's disproportionate support came from people much less likely to use Twitter (e.g. older black voters), while Sanders' strength with younger voters would be much more likely to show up on Twitter.
- seany 10y agoIt would only be better if they unbanned everyone and stopped trying to bend the messages sent over the platform. At the moment it seems like it might be better for it to just burn down, so something more open can replace it.
- eropple 10y agoDo you think they should unban people who threaten to rape and kill people because they disagree about video games? If so, why?
- intopieces 10y agoAs a for-profit business? No, I do not think they should unban people who threaten to rape and kill people (for any reason). They have a duty to their investors to create a company that is profitable, and those actions rarely result in a profitable enterprise. As a nonprofit organization? Yes, absolutely they should. They should allow users to form groups and better curate their own feed, assisted by algorithms, and essentially let the people who want to say terrible things say terrible things and let the people who don't want to read it block them. This is essentially the same fight about what "The Internet" should be that has been going on since the Usenet heyday. We do have to realize now, though, that there are no benevolent corporations who want what is best for the Internet. We have to advocate for that ourselves.
- CoryG89 10y agoI don't necessarily hold this view, but I can see the merit in it. I tend to lean toward purist as far as free speech goes. Slippery slope arguments and what not. Personally, I like the concept of outsourcing the policing/moderation of a community to the community itself. I think what online forums do by promoting moderators from the long time, trusted user base is a step in the right direction. The upvote/downvote system on HN, where the downvoted stuff gets increasingly more difficult read, is even better.
- eropple 10y agoGreat freedoms come with great responsibilities. I tend to think that free speech works only when the consequences of using that free speech...y'know...exist. In a universe of pseudonymity and anonymity, those consequences don't exist. Even when you are literally committing the crime of assault (friendly reminder: assault is the threat of violence, battery is the violence) against somebody because they have the temerity to be a woman who makes video games or a black man who criticizes the police on the Internet. To that end, showing people the door seems eminently reasonable. You aren't going to actually be able to visit upon them the prosecution (again, for literal and extant crimes) that they have earned for themselves, but you can, and IMO should, cut them out of the social universe that you undertake to create and protect.
- M_Grey 10y agoIt would be better for everyone who uses Twitter, better for people who use it for social sciences, but probably not better for Twitter itself as a company.
- uptownhr 10y agoshould adopt a decentralized system. should put them back on top and give another reason people should use it again.
- puppetmaster3 10y agoGood point. Apple is a non-profit: it does not give dividends.
- mcescalante 10y agoApple is not a non-profit, and it has been issuing dividends since 2012 (http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm)
- clintonb 10y agoNon-profit status has nothing to do with dividend payouts. While there are for-profit companies that do not pay dividends, Apple is not one of them: http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm.
- zymhan 10y agoI only heard the jab on air, I didn't realize they were actually being serious "In the second quarter it lost more than $100 million — so perhaps it already is a nonprofit."
- _audakel 10y ago"In the second quarter it lost more than $100 million — so perhaps it already is a nonprofit."
- peatmoss 10y agoIt's worth mentioning that the more principled alternative is GNU Social: https://gnu.io/ https://gnu.io/
- darkengine 10y agoI like the idea of GNU Social, but the Twitter-like frontend, Qvitter, is slow and feels clunky. And last time I checked, it still hadn't solved its "spooling problem": offline nodes won't receive updates and won't catch up when they're back online. A post you delete from your timeline might end up still visible on a node if it was offline when you deleted it. I'm sort of tempted to try writing a UUCP- or NNTP-based GNU Social clone now.
- peatmoss 10y agoI understand that Twitter is an impressive piece of engineering given the scale and instantaneousness at which it operates. On the other hand, it does kind of boggle my mind that microblogging should be as difficult as it is. UUCP or NNTP are really interesting suggestions. They are protocols of the old net that seemed to scale very well and long ago solved many of the kinds of issues I'd expect to see with something like a federated Twitter clone. Maybe I'm overestimating the scale of newsgroups during their heyday?
- dredmorbius 10y agoKeep in mind that the Old Net, particularly in its heyday (pre-1993) was small. A few thousand nodes. A few million users perhaps. Usenet at the time was ~50-500k users according to a guestimate from Gene Spafford. Microsoft conducted measurements in the early 2000s suggesting a few millions of users IIRC. Marc A. Smith and others: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/picturing-usenet-mapping-computer-mediated-collective-action/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/picturi...
- daveid 10y agoYou might enjoy my https://github.com/Gargron/mastodon https://github.com/Gargron/mastodon
- bogomipz 10y agoI am curious what the mechanics of this would be - take thee company private and then apply for classification as a 501(c)(3)? Looking at the guidelines I'm guessing the type would they be a "private operating foundation"? https://www.501c3.org/what-is-a-501c3/ https://www.501c3.org/what-is-a-501c3/ Just as one example 501c's are heavily regulated where politics are concerned. Given that Twitter is utilized heavily by politicians as well as political campaigns, would this even be a viable option for them?
- nowarninglabel 10y agoSure they could still do it as long as the company itself remains non-partisan, but they just couldn't take money from politicians or political campaigns. They would have to find some other sort of donor capital to sustain their operations.
- bogomipz 10y agoI would think that the donor capital would also be needed to purchase all outstanding shares. So I guess with something like the Knight Foundation or the Kroc Foundation or something with a similar sized endowment could conceivably accomplish this.
- meira 10y agoTwitter betrayed all developers that relied on their API, and also helped overthrow legitimate governments and put middle east and ukraine in chaos. Their failure is well deserved and should help other startups to not fuck with everybody while pretending to help (Google and Facebook, are you the next?)
- edraferi 10y agoAs a non-profit, Twitter could focus on being ubiquitous as possible. That could lead to restoring the original API rules.
- wineisfine 10y agoTheir API is still quite generous compared to others. The only thing I blame them is the insane prices for gnip data, which alienates any normal developer outfit that isn't overly funded.
- stale2002 10y agoAllowing people to organize themselves is "helping them overthrow legitimate governments"??? What, do you think twitter should start censoring everything that governments disagree with? An open, non-profit twitter would probably allow people to do even MORE things like "overthrowing governments".
- murkt 10y agoSpeaking as a ukrainian, Twitter had little to do with the war in Ukraine.
- endisukaj 10y agoTwitter had nothing to do with the wars in those countries. It was just a tool used by people to help them organize. By that logic Telephones and smoke signals should fail/be banned.
- sukilot 10y agoTwitter two main sins are: being less accessible than you like, and being more accessible than you like?
- mathattack 10y agoHard to imagine Twitter working as a non-profit when so much compensation is tied to equity.
- nowarninglabel 10y agoExactly. Most people who work for non-profits do so out of passion for the company and mission because the salaries often are going to be about 80% of market rate. With no equity to compensate with either, you are left mostly with the believers (or the less optimal workers). I'm not sure I see Twitter's mission being strong enough to attract the developers it needs if it were to become a non-profit. Further, while there are large media grants out there, I don't really see a huge pool of capital willing to cover Twitter's operational costs with donations.
- losteverything 10y ago<see Twitter's mission I was going to ask What is it's Mission but then the more important question is Why Is it used? A straw into someone's brain not knowing if they drew acid, water, colored water or truth serum first into the straw before discharging and reading.
- Scarblac 10y agoWhat if it were a part of an organisation like, say, Mozilla?
- spikels 10y agoVery little compensation has been delivered via equity since the IPO. The stock price is down 20% and the outlook is not good.
- mathattack 10y agoThis 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.
- laurencei 10y agoI'm not going to pretend you can run Twitter on an DigitalOcean box for $40pm with one guy. But when I see things like $100m in losses - I can't help but feel there is a real opportunity for Twitter to streamline its engineering and operational costs? Is there a breakdown available of where/how they spend their money?
- onewaystreet 10y agoThey have 3,860 employees.
- rublev 10y agoDoing what? Holy shit.
- riprowan 10y agoDid you like this? [Yes / No]
- bluedino 10y agoSales, user engagement, quality control...
- wott 10y ago> quality control Weren't we talking about Twitter?
- _nedR 10y agoFwiw, this article was posted was just the other day on hn : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12626314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12626314
- ghaff 10y agoYep. And, frankly, even within large or large-ish profitable companies, it's not uncommon to hear people making complaints along the lines of "What on earth do all the people in $XYZ_GROUP even do?" Now, I have no doubt that there are indeed inefficiencies within many companies and those inefficiencies tend to increase with scale. But there probably aren't 4x the number of people in finance, for example, that there need to be.
- meerita 10y agoTwitter needs to be acquired by Google.
- imh 10y agoIt seems weird to say that twitter discussion was so significant in furthering different causes. From the outside (I don't use it), I've still heard plenty about those events. From the inside, I'd bet it seems like they were the original source for the events, or at least the cause of it getting so big. On reddit/imgur/9gag/4chan/etc, there seems to be an idea that whichever one you are on is the source of whichever meme is getting popular. I think it's the same kind of thing. Maybe the discussion grows "organically" and that causes it to grow on each of these platforms, instead of the platform causing the growth.
- pessimizer 10y ago4chan and reddit have undoubtedly been the source of an enormous number of ideas and trends, though.
- vkou 10y agoWhich are largely storms in a teapot, with little effect on the world. They are, at their best, slacktivism.
- mavdi 10y agoPerhaps not Twitter's fault per se, but I don't mind seeing it die a lonely death for the only reason that it gave voice to the truly despicably racist, homophobic and planet hating assholes all around the world.
- curious_fella1 10y agoYep, gave a voice to them and only them.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 10y agoAnd next, we could get rid of the internet, telephones, and mail. Then, finally, the people we don't like will have been silenced.
- spikels 10y agoI have the exact opposite problem with Twitter. They need to get out of the business of trying to police speech. As you point out they completely failed to do it effectively but I think it is an impossible task for a global communications network in a still highly heterogeneous world.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoNot to mention all the worst speech-policing neo-Puritans that San Francisco has to offer.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago"Nonprofits", especially when they have associated revenue streams beyond pure donations (eg government contracts), have really odd organizational incentives. In the context of something like Twitter where selective censorship / megaphone promotion is becoming a core part of their operations, it looks like reorganizing as a nonprofit is just a tax-advantaged way for the board to act how they want without being even theoretically obliged to operate for the benefit of the people that supplied them with the capital to build up their service. They've been extremely aggressive in purging high-value users on extremely flimsy pretences in what cannot possibly be a revenue-optimal way (unless somehow you think celebrities fighting amongst themselves is bad for user engagement), but if they have a purported goal of something vague like "improving communication" that becomes a non-issue.
- zitterbewegung 10y agoI think a better question is could you make a nonprofit serve the purpose of twitter and GNU social has been successful in this regard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social
- lifeisstillgood 10y agoI think we are seeing a (vastly accelerated) version of turn of the century industrial politics. The ultimate (good) destiny if Google, Facebook and Twitter is as public utilities. This valuable data open to all and their connective abilities as useful and common to all as the road network. Should it be a non-profit. No it should be a utility
- Scarblac 10y agoI'm confused, do you mean the Dot-com bubble turn of the century or something that happened around the turn of the 19th/20th century?
- lifeisstillgood 10y agoOh yeah, we have had another. Fin-de-siecle 19/20th century. Basically oil barons went bat shit crazy and owned everything and everyone, railways, oil etc. Whilst less pronounced in the US, most "modern" nations brought energy supply into strongly regulated industries, often price controlled I hope / assume / fear that the (personally identifying) data industry will go the same way
- dredmorbius 10y agoWhat specific examples of nationally-controlled or regulated oil industries do you have in mind? As of 1900, the major oil extractors were the United States, Russia, Romania, Austria-Hungary (Bóbrka field), the Dutch East Indies, and Peru. Canada had some operations. Not on that list: Persia (1908), Venezuela (1914), Mexico (1901), Iraq (1927), Saudi Arabia (1938), Brazil (1930), Kuwait (1938). Unless you're talking about subsequent development of national oil companies, largely in the 1950s: Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, etc. See generally Yergin's The Prize.
- dominotw 10y agoThis seems like the only way to end censorship on twitter.
- Zigurd 10y agoNo, because you would not build it that way. You could say the same about Facebook. Diaspora already exists, as well as some other distributed social networks. If any of these alternatives prospers it may be because the idea of Twitter should be implemented as something other than an investor-owned venture.
- sverige 10y agoI've never been able to understand Twitter's popularity. To me, it's like a website's comment section without the attached content. And most of the stuff I've seen on Twitter is only slightly better than YouTube comments, and often worse. I know there are lots of Twitter users here -- seriously, I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic, I just don't get the appeal. What am I missing?
- monk_e_boy 10y agoI totally agree. And the 140 character limit that they are terrified of changing?! It makes no sense.
- Klibarchu 10y agoIt's the world's Great Peanut Gallery. Everyone can chirp it up, tweet like crazy, or just go nuts.
- SolaceQuantum 10y agoTwitter gives you the ability to curate yourself a feed from comments of people you deem interesting enough to follow and keep up-to-date with, as far as I know. I mostly use it for my literary pursuits, and being able to follow editors, agents, and authors at the same time with minimal hassle has made twitter very useful to the fiction scene. Alternatively, in the tech world, it gives you live updates on various developers that people look up to. technologies you want to keep up with, and updates on exciting open source software.
- sverige 10y agoThank you and the others who replied. I may have to revisit Twitter.
- inopinatus 10y agoA word of warning. You think you're curating it yourself, but the discovery mechanisms are algorithmically biased towards finding you an opinion you already agree with. This is why a) social media is often characterised as a narcissistic echo chamber, and b) why it becomes so rapidly toxic when two naturally opposed communities coincide on a topic. A wonderful petri dish for anthropologists, but not a medium we'll be proud of fifty years from now.
- slackoverflower 10y agoTwitter'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 start by shutting down Periscope and have a new tab in the app for Live.
- sambobeckingham 10y ago50 people to maintain a site the size of Twitter?
- sputknick 10y agoSerious question (because I've never worked on a site that large) does the size of the site mean anything as to how many engineers are needed to maintain it? I would think it would be more a function of complexity?
- luhn 10y agoI don't have any experience with large-scale sites either, but here's my view: It is a function of complexity, but complexity is often necessitated by scale. More users means more problems with scale, which leads to increased complexity to address the problems, which leads to a larger team needed to maintain the software. That being said, 50 engineers seems enough to me for maintenance.
- adventured 10y agoThere is a loose correlation, yes. Security, abuse / harassment, fraud, community interaction, developer relations, 24/7 maintenance & ops, APIs, marketing & PR, legal, advertising, physical security / cleaning etc (whether outsourced or not it's a cost), secretarial, accounting, human resources & recruiting, sales, engineering, various management and so on. The notion that you could run a $2.5 to $3 billion sales business with 100 people is a very bad joke. To deliver on that kind of sales level, you need more than a hundred people working in your sales organization alone. There are only a few types of businesses that can operate that thin at that size of sales, most of which are in the financial world. Twitter doesn't need to cut down to 100 people to become nicely profitable, they need to cut down to 1,000 - 1,500 (while reducing infrastructure costs). Facebook delivers $1.5 million in sales per employee. Twitter's overall business is less complex and easier to operate than Facebook, they could deliver a higher ratio.
- luhn 10y agoThe article sites Mozilla as a "precedent in tech for a nonprofit spin out," but that's really not relevant at all. The Mozilla Foundation took over the Navigator codebase that Netscape open-sourced, the Mozilla Foundation having been created for that sole purpose. What happens with Twitter's software is moot because Twitter's value comes from its community.
- shmerl 10y agoDiaspora* is surely better off that way.
- spikels 10y agoTwitter should be replaced with a protocol like email or TCP/IP.
- ilaksh 10y agoSee the #1 HN article today about returning the web (or the internet) to its decentralized origins. The existence of Twitter and many other technolpolies that dominate with what could basically be a shared protocol is what's holding back decentralization. Actually I think all of the giants will eventually fall hard because of (re)-decentralization. That includes Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, the United States, etc.
- idlemind 10y agoAs a useful public resource, it could be. Along the lines of ICANN?
- dredmorbius 10y agoPoe's law? Don't mention this to Karl Auerbach....
- Scuds 10y agoAt the very least twitter should have never gone public. The stresses of a public company don't jive with the needs of a platform like Twitter. Thousands of employees looking to monetize our tweets aren't what Twitter needs, in any case.
- malloreon 10y agosame with facebook please
- intended 10y agoYes, Reddit too. These websites are more like gardens than amusement parks. A collective shared space, which is hard to monetize.
- notyourwork 10y agoAnd when they die a new one comes to fruition and the herd moves along. Its a repeat problem.
- jv22222 10y agoYup. I suggested this in 2012. http://justinvincent.com/page/1972/its-time-for-an-open-twitter http://justinvincent.com/page/1972/its-time-for-an-open-twit...
- andy_ppp 10y agoNo. Twitter would be better off using machine learning to segment their users (the way Hello is trying to do manually). For example they should know I love Nike trainers, Arsenal football club, I'm a developer, I'm thinking about buying a house etc. and surface this information when I'm writing a tweet such that it knows if I'm talking about Arsenal or my trip around Japan and gives a richer UI based on this. Making my stream more interesting i.e. when a game is on and I'm writing about it there should be way to message only Arsenal people... All of this should be automatically added/tagged up and while you can remove the metadata it'll be right most of the time. The advertising potential is incredible.
- egypturnash 10y ago"The advertising potential is incredible." Maybe some things don't need to have advertising crammed into every possible corner. Maybe some things don't need to be monetized to the maximum extent possible.
- Iv 10y agoI 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.
- tofupup 10y agoneat