3 ms·
He's got money and in theory he can float the existence of Twitter in an unprofitable state for a while. The fact that he's borrowing so much for the purchase
by munk-a 5y ago
He's got money and in theory he can float the existence of Twitter in an unprofitable state for a while. The fact that he's borrowing so much for the purchase means it's unlikely that's how it will actually work but Twitter feels much more utility-like than a profitable business. Some rando rich guy stepping in to float the bill for a decade or so seems reasonable to me.
- hackernewds 5y agoIf Twitter were unmotivated my money and functioned more as a utility under the moral compass of Jack, that seems like a better outcome than a rich guy who deeply cares about money and the stock beholden to capitalistic profit driven investors, no?
- munk-a 5y agoI'm not well versed enough on their influences to really comment on their relative moral compasses. I'm more focused on the monetization side of things. My understanding is that the bot-fury we've got going on on Twitter right now is largely a result of a monetization goal being misaligned with a usability goal. Removing the question of monetization and having it sustained purely and openly as a money burning pit seems like a better state. I definitely don't embrace Elon Musk's politics as he is vehemently anti-union, but I don't know how much he'd force Twitter to become an echo chamber for himself.