3 ms·
There are different incentives and dynamics at play for a public vs. private company. A privately owned twitter will behave very different from a public one.
by andreilys 4y ago
There are different incentives and dynamics at play for a public vs. private company.
A privately owned twitter will behave very different from a public one.
Great example is that the bot problem contributes to MAU's, which impact Twitter's quarterly earnings. This means that they *can* solve the bot problem, but don't want to solve it right away lest it impact their metrics.
So ultimately the decision to take the company private will help execs stop focusing on short-term earnings and focus on long term values
- aeturnum 4y agoThe public / private angle is a good point! Though I am a little skeptical about magnitude. > the bot problem contributes to MAU's, which impact Twitter's quarterly earnings. For instance - I don't think MAUs "impact" Twitter's quarterly earnings - it is a stat that contextualizes their quarterly earnings for the market. So they have an incentive to not solve the bot problem if not solving it makes the site seem more popular - but that is very different from "being able to solve it." Like, I just think that problems at scale are hard. There are bots that seem, to me, to be hurting Twitter's apparent position as a public company and it seems like, if they could fix those bots, they would.
- kjkjadksj 4y agoI think a lot of people are making the assumption that long term values in this case would somehow mean a less toxic place. Toxicity and rage bait is of course highly profitable, and users who can actually put twitter aside and not let it invade their day are the least profitable users. Private or public the incentives of a business are always to not leave any money on the table.