7 ms·

"media"

binarymax 4y ago
Twitter is a media company. EDIT: lots of discussion around this. Twitter is literally a social media company. You can split hairs on whether the “media” part of “social media” agrees with your bias here.
- throwaway202303 4y ago
  With section 230 protection because they are not an editorial news organization under the defined meaning
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  Media outlets: NY Times, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR. Tech companies: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter. Some companies are even both. But in the main, Twitter is the thing that employs developers and writes code and not the thing that employs reporters and writes stories.
  - point_blank 4y ago
    Google, Facebook, and Twitter have always been whatever they can aggressively monetize, as their primary piece of software hasn't financially scaled to where they need to be at quarter-after-quarter. These days, I'd say they're advertisement companies!
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > Tech companies: Here we go again...under this view, every company is a "tech" company. Does GE or John Deere write software for their hardware? Absolutely. Are they colloquially considered "tech" companies? No. Twitter is a media company (they distribute media). Tech is their operating model to deliver media. As is Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. etc.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      > Does GE or John Deere write software for their hardware? Absolutely. Are they colloquially considered "tech" companies? No. Because tech is not their primary line of business. > Twitter is a media company (they distribute media). A media company is the thing that produces media, not the thing that distributes it. Cogent is not a media company.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Tech isn't twitter's primary line of business, either. The company's value derives from the users and the content they generate. Their tech isn't unique or impressive, and nobody's there for the tech, they're there for the content. Meanwhile, some Deere buyers are there for the tech.
        AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        > The company's value derives from the users and the content they generate. So you're conceding that Twitter isn't the entity generating the content. > Meanwhile, some Deere buyers are there for the tech. By your analogy, John Deere is a food company, because people aren't there for the tractors, they're there for the harvested crops. But that doesn't work because John Deere and Conagra are not the same kind of operation.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        > By your analogy, John Deere is a food company, because people aren't there for the tractors, they're there for the harvested crops. But that doesn't work because John Deere and Conagra are not the same kind of operation. Deere's customers are there for the tech. They're handing over money for it. Twitter's customers are there for the audience. The audience is there for... the rest of the audience. Their tech is entirely incidental to their value. Calling twitter a tech company is like calling Deere a factory company—one uses tech and one uses factories, but that's not what they are. [EDIT] To be clear, I'm not saying we should call John Deere a tech company—I don't think it's the best label, even as a very broad one, for what they do—but I do think Twitter is so not one that it'd make more sense to call Deere a tech company than Twitter.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Various companies in China are on US embargo lists because they are state-affiliated. Parsing out "media" companies is just hyper-targeting of ire. All companies that post tweets are effectively media. So why only highlight "news media" on a publication app such as Twitter?
- fortuna86 4y ago
  China controls their state media, NPR/BBC etc. have state funding but remain editorially independent.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Yes, I know. Just pointing out that media isn't the only industry that's state funded to the person who's comment was just "media".
  - chapium 4y ago
    That seems like a contradiction.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      This is why you can't stop at "who funded it" as an indicator of bias and editorial control, but have to look at what is actually produced as well. Clair Cameron Patterson famously took money from the leaded gasoline industry to help fund his research demonstrating the harms of leaded gasoline.
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      If you build editorial independent into a legal charter, and have a government that isn't authoritarian and protects the rule of law, why is it a contradiction?
  - splistud 4y ago
    [dead]
  - 4y ago

"media"

Twitter is a media company. EDIT: lots of discussion around this. Twitter is literally a social media company. You can split hairs on whether the “media” part of “social media” agrees with your bias here.

throwaway202303 4y ago
With section 230 protection because they are not an editorial news organization under the defined meaning
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
Media outlets: NY Times, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR. Tech companies: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter. Some companies are even both. But in the main, Twitter is the thing that employs developers and writes code and not the thing that employs reporters and writes stories.
- point_blank 4y ago
  Google, Facebook, and Twitter have always been whatever they can aggressively monetize, as their primary piece of software hasn't financially scaled to where they need to be at quarter-after-quarter. These days, I'd say they're advertisement companies!
- mbesto 4y ago
  > Tech companies: Here we go again...under this view, every company is a "tech" company. Does GE or John Deere write software for their hardware? Absolutely. Are they colloquially considered "tech" companies? No. Twitter is a media company (they distribute media). Tech is their operating model to deliver media. As is Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > Does GE or John Deere write software for their hardware? Absolutely. Are they colloquially considered "tech" companies? No. Because tech is not their primary line of business. > Twitter is a media company (they distribute media). A media company is the thing that produces media, not the thing that distributes it. Cogent is not a media company.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Tech isn't twitter's primary line of business, either. The company's value derives from the users and the content they generate. Their tech isn't unique or impressive, and nobody's there for the tech, they're there for the content. Meanwhile, some Deere buyers are there for the tech.
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        > The company's value derives from the users and the content they generate. So you're conceding that Twitter isn't the entity generating the content. > Meanwhile, some Deere buyers are there for the tech. By your analogy, John Deere is a food company, because people aren't there for the tractors, they're there for the harvested crops. But that doesn't work because John Deere and Conagra are not the same kind of operation.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        > By your analogy, John Deere is a food company, because people aren't there for the tractors, they're there for the harvested crops. But that doesn't work because John Deere and Conagra are not the same kind of operation. Deere's customers are there for the tech. They're handing over money for it. Twitter's customers are there for the audience. The audience is there for... the rest of the audience. Their tech is entirely incidental to their value. Calling twitter a tech company is like calling Deere a factory company—one uses tech and one uses factories, but that's not what they are. [EDIT] To be clear, I'm not saying we should call John Deere a tech company—I don't think it's the best label, even as a very broad one, for what they do—but I do think Twitter is so not one that it'd make more sense to call Deere a tech company than Twitter.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

Various companies in China are on US embargo lists because they are state-affiliated. Parsing out "media" companies is just hyper-targeting of ire. All companies that post tweets are effectively media. So why only highlight "news media" on a publication app such as Twitter?

fortuna86 4y ago
China controls their state media, NPR/BBC etc. have state funding but remain editorially independent.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Yes, I know. Just pointing out that media isn't the only industry that's state funded to the person who's comment was just "media".
- chapium 4y ago
  That seems like a contradiction.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    This is why you can't stop at "who funded it" as an indicator of bias and editorial control, but have to look at what is actually produced as well. Clair Cameron Patterson famously took money from the leaded gasoline industry to help fund his research demonstrating the harms of leaded gasoline.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    If you build editorial independent into a legal charter, and have a government that isn't authoritarian and protects the rule of law, why is it a contradiction?
- splistud 4y ago
  [dead]
- 4y ago