32 ms·

Why would Twitter care? They make money from ads, right? APIs and legacy deals are going to be time consuming and boring for them. Stuff like filtering hate spe

Why would Twitter care? They make money from ads, right? APIs and legacy deals are going to be time consuming and boring for them. Stuff like filtering hate speech etc is something which can be done globally and in a way which doesn't require highly paid employees, APIs etc. Hasn't Twitter repeatedly show that third parties aren't really that interesting to them?

stupidcar 8y ago
All companies have suppliers and partners, including Twitter. Getting a reputation for this kind of toxic behaviour harms their ability to build relationships with them, as nobody will feel they can trust them. It could also hamper their ability to make further acquisitions. In future, a startup being linked with a possible Twitter acquisition is going to cause its customers to panic and start moving elsewhere. That'll make startups more reluctant to engage, and may turn some off entirely, if they're not comfortable with the prospect of totally screwing over the customers who've supported them during their early stages.
- superflyguy 8y ago
  A startup's customers panicking? Not sure that's on twitter's radar. I think potential for reputation damage, on an activity they don't do very often, and where they will justify it, will be weighed up against the financial benefit now, and disregarded. I think it's possible to overstate the relevance and importance of people typing furiously on internet forums about things like this. Twitter is what it is - most people aren't using APIs, third party clients etc and will never notice this.
  - pmontra 8y ago
    They can shrug it off, still those companies that had contracts with Smyte are not one person businesses on the other side of the world. Those Twitter people are going to have lunch or dinner with other people and get to talk about this issue for a while. Not very pleasant, even for employees totally unrelated with this case like the one who answered the very first comment in this page (sorry.)
  - stupidcar 8y ago
    I never said Twitter cares about startups' customers panicking, but it cares about being able to make strategically useful acquisitions, like Smyte. And acting like this makes it harder. This isn't about people typing furiously on internet forums. This is about business risk, as weighed up by people whose job it is to care. Acquisitions take time and negotiation. Just because a startup is talking to Twitter, doesn't mean the acquisition will definitely happen. But if customers get wind of it, then they may start looking to move elsewhere, anyway, instead of waking up to find services they rely on have been shutdown without warning. If you're the customer of a startup Twitter is negotiating to acquire, then you're negligent not to reduce your reliance on them. And if you're the CEO of that startup, then you have to consider the risk of customer flight (and your own comfort with the thought of screwing them over) vs. the likelihood of the acquisition happening.
    - PKop 8y ago
      But the very behavior you're talking about... didn't make Smyte not sell. So even they didn't care. Why would anyone else?
    - itronitron 8y ago
      if the Smyte shutdown limits the opportunity of current and future Twitter associated startups, whose business model is to help companies safely navigate the social media landscape, then that sounds like a win-win for Twitter
  - corobo 8y ago
    > A startup's customers panicking? Not sure that's on twitter's radar. Let's not forget that those customers are also likely candidates to advertise on Twitter
ipsum2 8y ago
Twitter sells data through an API. Unsure how profitable it is. See: https://developer.twitter.com/en/enterprise.html https://developer.twitter.com/en/enterprise.html

stupidcar 8y ago

All companies have suppliers and partners, including Twitter. Getting a reputation for this kind of toxic behaviour harms their ability to build relationships with them, as nobody will feel they can trust them. It could also hamper their ability to make further acquisitions. In future, a startup being linked with a possible Twitter acquisition is going to cause its customers to panic and start moving elsewhere. That'll make startups more reluctant to engage, and may turn some off entirely, if they're not comfortable with the prospect of totally screwing over the customers who've supported them during their early stages.

superflyguy 8y ago
A startup's customers panicking? Not sure that's on twitter's radar. I think potential for reputation damage, on an activity they don't do very often, and where they will justify it, will be weighed up against the financial benefit now, and disregarded. I think it's possible to overstate the relevance and importance of people typing furiously on internet forums about things like this. Twitter is what it is - most people aren't using APIs, third party clients etc and will never notice this.
- pmontra 8y ago
  They can shrug it off, still those companies that had contracts with Smyte are not one person businesses on the other side of the world. Those Twitter people are going to have lunch or dinner with other people and get to talk about this issue for a while. Not very pleasant, even for employees totally unrelated with this case like the one who answered the very first comment in this page (sorry.)
- stupidcar 8y ago
  I never said Twitter cares about startups' customers panicking, but it cares about being able to make strategically useful acquisitions, like Smyte. And acting like this makes it harder. This isn't about people typing furiously on internet forums. This is about business risk, as weighed up by people whose job it is to care. Acquisitions take time and negotiation. Just because a startup is talking to Twitter, doesn't mean the acquisition will definitely happen. But if customers get wind of it, then they may start looking to move elsewhere, anyway, instead of waking up to find services they rely on have been shutdown without warning. If you're the customer of a startup Twitter is negotiating to acquire, then you're negligent not to reduce your reliance on them. And if you're the CEO of that startup, then you have to consider the risk of customer flight (and your own comfort with the thought of screwing them over) vs. the likelihood of the acquisition happening.
  - PKop 8y ago
    But the very behavior you're talking about... didn't make Smyte not sell. So even they didn't care. Why would anyone else?
  - itronitron 8y ago
    if the Smyte shutdown limits the opportunity of current and future Twitter associated startups, whose business model is to help companies safely navigate the social media landscape, then that sounds like a win-win for Twitter
- corobo 8y ago
  > A startup's customers panicking? Not sure that's on twitter's radar. Let's not forget that those customers are also likely candidates to advertise on Twitter

ipsum2 8y ago

Twitter sells data through an API. Unsure how profitable it is. See: https://developer.twitter.com/en/enterprise.html https://developer.twitter.com/en/enterprise.html