6 ms·

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” par

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 3y ago
With section 230 protection because they are not an editorial news organization under the defined meaning
AnthonyMouse 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > 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. John Deere designs their own tractors. Their customers want tractors. They could outsource the manufacturing and still sell to the same customers. Foxconn is a factory company. The thing people want from them is manufacturing. Their customers are the likes of Dell and Apple. If they had no factories they would have no business. Twitter operates servers and writes code. That's who they employ and how their business operates. Their users want to talk to each other, in the same way as John Deere's customers want harvested crops. But the way Twitter provides that service is through computers and software. Notably, the way they provide that service is not through employing reporters to write stories.

throwaway202303 3y ago

With section 230 protection because they are not an editorial news organization under the defined meaning

AnthonyMouse 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > 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. John Deere designs their own tractors. Their customers want tractors. They could outsource the manufacturing and still sell to the same customers. Foxconn is a factory company. The thing people want from them is manufacturing. Their customers are the likes of Dell and Apple. If they had no factories they would have no business. Twitter operates servers and writes code. That's who they employ and how their business operates. Their users want to talk to each other, in the same way as John Deere's customers want harvested crops. But the way Twitter provides that service is through computers and software. Notably, the way they provide that service is not through employing reporters to write stories.