4 ms·
While I agree with the article's intent, we're missing the forest for the trees. The reason a billionaire has to do this is because it can't be done with tradit
by kordless 10y ago
While I agree with the article's intent, we're missing the forest for the trees. The reason a billionaire has to do this is because it can't be done with traditional business models.
Twitter is infrastructure. Rapid bursts of semi-trustworthy data for us to consume and consider, at our own peril. That Twitter has to change its core behavior providing that service in order to make revenue is the problem. The value it provides is intangible in current financial models.
When I talk about this stuff, I think the value or commodity of a thing Twitter is such that current financial models cannot describe it properly. It feels as if we need a different type of business model to deal with keeping the business side of these houses in business.
Call it a suffering coin, if you will.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dingo_bat 10y agoTwitter is not infrastructure. An LTE network is infrastructure. An optical fiber cable is part of infrastructure. Amazon AWS is perhaps infrastructure. I don't get these weird redefinitions of common words that don't convey the original meaning at all.
- kluck 10y agoYep, same with the word "hacker": Some people like to call themselves a hacker when they simply made a meal or put some clothes into a bag nicely ... Then again, isn't language always changing and words are constantly redefined, reused, ommitted and invented etc. Although we should strive for common definitions of words, we should also allow for change. Twitter is not infrastructure though.
- talmand 10y ago>> Then again, isn't language always changing and words are constantly redefined, reused, ommitted and invented etc. There's a difference between a language evolving in a natural, organic way versus someone using a word incorrectly while insisting it is correct and that everyone must change to suit them.