4 ms·
To extend, the company would not be sustainable without the ads, so not being hostile towards it could literally put them out of business. There's a balance but
by cloverich 5y ago
To extend, the company would not be sustainable without the ads, so not being hostile towards it could literally put them out of business. There's a balance but ultimately they eschew ads at the start to achieve more growth, knowing they can recoup their losses at a later date. It is a bait and switch in that sense, which is in turn a very legitimate thing to be pissed about. But any company hosting content for free can only sustain with ads or some kind of charging (users, businesses). We've seen experiments with more sustainable models (Mastadon? Another thatt charged users directly, forget the name already) but I don't think any winners have emerged yet. I'm optimistic there's a better future but I don't know what it looks like.
- Breza 5y ago> To extend, the company would not be sustainable without the ads This is accurate. And Twitter runs a lucrative data sharing business. In Q1 they made $137 million from data licensing. So there are two reasons they've locked down access.