11 ms·

Twitter too! When I worked there they jokingly referred to the head of product as the defense against the dark arts teacher, in that every year or so they'd dis

Twitter too! When I worked there they jokingly referred to the head of product as the defense against the dark arts teacher, in that every year or so they'd disappear mysteriously and there'd be a new one. Most of Twitter's successes came from watching what users were actually doing and supporting that (e.g., at mentions, retweets, quote tweets). Many of their failures have been trying to graft on something irrelevant or actively contradictory to user needs. Or just flat out ignoring things users liked, as with them closing down Vine and letting TikTok come in to win as the short, fun video platform. But network effects businesses are really hard to kill. Sure, Musk has set $20-30 billion on fire and Twitter is rapidly decaying. But imagine taking a resilient business like a McDonald's franchise and subjecting it to Musk levels of chaos. It would have been out of business long before, instead of merely shrinking significantly.

TX81Z 3y ago
Vine shutting down may be one of the top ten stupid decisions in business history.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
GolfPopper 3y ago
I think there's a fundamental conflict, in that these network effect businesses are terrible as for-profit businesses. They're of great value to those who use them, and indirectly to society as a whole. Yet there's no good way to monetize them (nor does there need to be monetization), and trying to do so damages the functionality of the network. Both Twitter and Reddit would likely be better off (from the POV of the users and the network as a whole) as something more along the lines of non-profit foundations.
- civilitty 3y ago
  Is Facebook not a network effect business? It’s not only wildly profitable but bigger than those two combined. Twitter and Reddit are just run by incompetents who can’t figure out how to advertise anything relevant.
  - unreal37 3y ago
    Twitter and Reddit are messageboards. Like Hacker News. Every time they do something controversial, someone thinks Usenet needs to be reincarnated. Trying to monetize that at scale is hardddd. Facebook has got groups, yes. But they have instagram. Messenger. Whatsapp. They have my friends and family. They have my photos going back 10 years. Facebook is personal to many people. I don't see Twitter and Facebook being interchangeable.
    - Hary06 3y ago
      Agree.
    - hparadiz 3y ago
      It's not hard. Reddit has every niche community right there. I go to subreddits to find advice on product and there's no reason why reddit can't be selling it.
      - weaksauce 3y ago
        and i don't get why they can't sell ads in the third party apps. just send it down the feed and have a tos that you need to be feeding that to the users. cut the apps in on it if you think the apps won't game that(could tie the cut with something like clickthrough rate to successful conversion by whatever metric that is... might be impossible who knows).
    - mapt 3y ago
      What did Usenet cost to run? What does Reddit's core functionality cost? They have annual revenue of half a billion dollars. Tell me that you can't use that money to run a text distribution infrastructure. I doubt Slashdot in its day cost half a million dollars to run.
      - pjc50 3y ago
        Usenet cost was distributed to ISPs, which eventually sank it as they lost interest. And it never solved the moderator conundrum; at one point, a third of Usenet was spam, and another third was "spam cancels" deleting the spam.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Exactly. I'm headed back to wikipedia, where I found community as a teenager. I think you can draw a direct line from wikimedia's nonprofit status to 22 years of greatness and steady improvement.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Eh, the Foundation has a lot of bloat and solicits donations far above actual operating costs.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Which makes sense in case of a nonprofit that relies on donations and can’t predict whether the next year will be a hard one for people, making their sole income drop.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - pneumonic 3y ago
      True, but luckily they don't intrude on the community or impact the Wikipedia site too much beyond their ever more frequent "We desperately need donations" campaigns. As the Foundation has gotten richer, its desire for more milk from its Wikipedia cash cow has only grown.
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      Sure, they're far from perfect. I don't mind if build a nice big contingency fund or even become personally wealthy -- but I think it makes a difference that greed isn't the central organizing principle.
      - ekianjo 3y ago
        Its closer to its a scam than its far from perfect
- wpietri 3y ago
  Yeah, the way I think of it, the modern dogmas of Increase Shareholder Value and The CEO is Always Right might work for some businesses, but fall down badly when applied to user-generated content. They treat broader stakeholders as both morally and economically irrelevant. We can argue about the "moral" part, but with Reddit it's especially obvious that the users are the heart of the operation, making them economically crucial.
- dasil003 3y ago
  Meh, Twitter and Reddit monetize just fine with ads. The problem comes in with VC expectations where everything must 1000x or die. These are not bad businesses, they're just small compared to Facebook or Google. What's needed is mature leadership that recognizes the value comes from the community, and following the private equity playbook of strip-mining the value is short-sighted.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > problem comes in with VC expectations where everything must 1000x or die Is "VC" tech's catch-all for capitalism? Reddit is pining to go public and Twitter just LBO'd. Neither is having its chain yanked by venture capital.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      Reddit took $1.3 billion in investor money. What makes you say they're not having their chain yanked? Going public solves an investor problem, but I don't see it solving anything for Reddit's community.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Reddit took $1.3 billion in investor money. What makes you say they're not having their chain yanked? Took. Past tense. Limited need to take more. Look at Reddit's Board: it's ten people, only one of whom (Mike Seibel) is a VC.
        wpietri 3y ago
        Your implication is that if they don't need more money, they can just ignore all those investor-owned shares? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Reddit's an odd duck given their ownership history and their investors. But I don't think they're that odd. Nobody gives you that kind of money without expecting to be well paid and soon.
        3y ago
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Non-profits still need enough revenue to meet expenses.
- chemmail 3y ago
  There are huge conflicts of interests between profitability and good business. Just listen to the podcasts on how they started Gimlet. The second season they focused on dating sites and the ones that working amazing just did not make money so they had to kill it and just do the generic shit we have now. Saying money is the root of all evil is not too far off from reality.
- firecall 3y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with that, as it's hard to ignore Facebook. Facebook is astoundingly profitable, and is the canonical example of network effects. Almost everyone I've ever known is or was on Facebook. So I don't consider Network Effect Businesses to be terrible as for-profits in and of themselves. The issue perhaps is that there is an expectation that they can become Google or Facebook. Now we have a generation raised on social media that doesn't require your real name, maybe we will see a new platform reach Facebook levels. TikTok and YouTube are obviously huge, but slightly different again to Facebook. As an aside, people talk about how amazing Tik Tok is, but in the end, it's really just the creators uploading content that make it work. Facebook captured Advertising dollars, in part, by investing in Ad infrastructure and building tools that companies could use to create targeted Ads. Every other platform, apart from AdWords, felt unfinished, especially Twitter!
- mapt 3y ago
  These network effect businesses are WILDLY PROFITABLE for a good long while if you keep overhead low, keep the product stable, and don't try to Take Over The Internet by doing something novel, developer-intensive, and (usually) stupid. Unfortunately any platform that draws >10 million daily users will reliably have people calling and offering billions of dollars to adopt that strategy and chase after revenue growth. Eventually the owner breaks down and agrees to take a huge personal payoff in order for the company to adopt a "Double or nothing" policy. Over, and over again. There's too many enormous piles of money out there seeking a return for this to be a sensible self-regulating system with stable provision of goods & services. Holdouts are few and far between, like Craigslist.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  >I think there's a fundamental conflict, in that these network effect businesses are terrible as for-profit businesses. All of the BigTech companies are built on network effects and two sided markets
- bawolff 3y ago
  Its not like wikipedia has a perfect history of making features with good user fit . There are some successes,but also quite a few failures. You could say the same thing that most of the successes were supporting what users were already doing (e.g. flow vs DiscussionTools) I think doing feature development on big socio-technical systems with an entrenched user base, is fundamentally hard.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Depends on the platform. Facebook and Youtube monetize very well. Then there are platforms that lumber on marginally for years like Reddit and Twitter, or where the commercial pressures of advertising are particularly obnoxious. (I think of that band Jefferson Starship which never made up its mind if it wanted to be commercially successful or have artistic integrity.) On the other hand there are sites like Danbooru which seem to thrive without advertising probably because the nature of their content drives advertising away.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  I wish we could somehow get the US government to make an alternative replacement. I know that is a minefield of issues regarding access and moderation and it would make it a frequent election day financial harassment target but it would be nice to have something that is publicly funded, ad free, and not vulnerable to deep pockets stealing the entire system from the people.
nyreed 3y ago
In Vine we trust.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ericd 3y ago
Seems like most companies could use a Defense Against the Dark Patterns teacher :-)
- midasuni 3y ago
  The ones that are always evil or at best doomed to fail
tomcam 3y ago
How is Twitter rapidly decaying? I am a daily, but very light user so I may not be observing the trends as well as you.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Traffic is down modestly, revenue is down dramatically, outages are up, bugs are up, abuse is up, many users have departed, and the value of the company has fallen by something between half and two thirds. One of its core assets, the blue checkmark for verified notable accounts, has been permanently destroyed. I no longer use it, but word from my friends who still do is that is has become grimmer, less fun. Musk has stopped releasing statistics, but I expect that new users signups and net promoter scores are well down as well. Musk keeps picking fights with vendors; the latest feud with Google means they may soon lose significant trust and safety tooling. Twitter keeps losing staff, Ella Irwin being the latest, and word is that they're running skeleton crews for core functionality, with a lot of the current staff being people who are trapped in the jobs by visas and the like. That suggests we'll be seeing more messes like the failure of DeSantis's campaign launch. And that's all off the top of my head. If you want to read more, I'd suggest Casey Newton's articles on it; he's been covering it pretty well.
  - behnamoh 3y ago
    I don't notice any of the things you mentioned. As a user, I haven't felt much difference before and after Musk's takeover. If anything, I think Twitter is a little bit better and more vibrant now, because the censorship is not like before. Yes, lot's of people tried Mastodon as an alternative, but I still see almost all my followees on Twitter.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      Your comments reminds me of the metaphor of boiling a frog. Twitters users, the advertisers, have noticed. Thus the revenue decrease. Twitter's product, sets of eyeballs, are still around (despite being compositionally a different population, mostly).
    - 3y ago
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> Most of Twitter's successes came from watching what users were actually doing and supporting that (e.g., at mentions, retweets, quote tweets). Yeah, maybe if what users are actually doing is bully each other you shouldn't support that.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Quote tweets could be used for a lot of things. I mainly used it to add positive commentary or useful context to something I wanted to share with my followers. Could quote tweets be used by ringleaders of mob abuse? Sure. But the solution to that isn't to remove the feature. There are many other ways to deal with that, including banning the people who enjoy fomenting mob abuse campaigns.
tiedieconderoga 3y ago
>But imagine taking a resilient business like a McDonald's franchise and subjecting it to Musk levels of chaos. I dunno, look at private equity buyouts, which Twitter kind of resembles—Musk somehow convinced banks and Twitter itself to foot most of the bill for his purchase. The whole point is to avoid putting money into the prey company by saddling it with debt, while you squeeze every last cent of value out of its living corpse. It can take a long time for companies to die when this happens: Sears is a solid case study from recent times. https://ivyexec.com/career-advice/2018/sears-case-business-failure/ https://ivyexec.com/career-advice/2018/sears-case-business-f... Considering how little of his own money Musk spent on the deal, I wouldn't be surprised if he was just having fun lighting a huge pile of other peoples' money on fire. He's obviously gotten bored with his car and spaceship toys.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Musk put over $20 billion of his own money into Twitter. If I put 10% of my net worth in a project, I care how it turns out.
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    > If I put 10% of my net worth in a project, I care how it turns out. Good for you and Musk! So proud of people who can put money into something and lord over it because of capitalism.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      I should point out most people have things they put 10% of their net worth into. Cars. Maybe a house if you're doing very well.
      - skinnymuch 3y ago
        We are talking about being capitalists. Not getting a car or a personal house…no less those people likely aren’t capitalists. It is okay if nuances of economics aren’t understood by normal people but my comment being downvoted while posts lacking foundational political knowledge are fine. Of course it makes sense. Liberals lack self awareness. TBC: you thought the throughline was money when it was nothing. You were talking about investing money that can be used to exploit workers and turn a higher profit by paying workers less than they benefit the stakeholders. Exploiting people is an obvious immoral action.
hyperthesis 3y ago
myspace managed to be killed
nebula8804 3y ago
Wait a second, I could be totally wrong on this but I thought Twitter nearing bankruptcy was the real reason they sunset Vine?
- wpietri 3y ago
  Twitter wasn't doing great at the time, but from the way Dorsey now talks about it, I don't think it was Vine or Bankruptcy: https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-biggest-regret-killing-off-vine-2022-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-biggest-regret-k...
mlcrypto 3y ago
Musk is actually very successful with Twitter. All time high users. Musk has never failed any business. Ignore the white knights
wyclif 3y ago
Eh, Twitter is not "rapidly decaying." It's faster and more fun than ever, especially if you're using it from outside the USA where they are adding capacity. Way better than back in the pre-Musk era when they were trying to cancel wrongthink and most of the hiring was focused on managing DEI instead of engineering.

TX81Z 3y ago

Vine shutting down may be one of the top ten stupid decisions in business history.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

GolfPopper 3y ago

I think there's a fundamental conflict, in that these network effect businesses are terrible as for-profit businesses. They're of great value to those who use them, and indirectly to society as a whole. Yet there's no good way to monetize them (nor does there need to be monetization), and trying to do so damages the functionality of the network. Both Twitter and Reddit would likely be better off (from the POV of the users and the network as a whole) as something more along the lines of non-profit foundations.

civilitty 3y ago
Is Facebook not a network effect business? It’s not only wildly profitable but bigger than those two combined. Twitter and Reddit are just run by incompetents who can’t figure out how to advertise anything relevant.
- unreal37 3y ago
  Twitter and Reddit are messageboards. Like Hacker News. Every time they do something controversial, someone thinks Usenet needs to be reincarnated. Trying to monetize that at scale is hardddd. Facebook has got groups, yes. But they have instagram. Messenger. Whatsapp. They have my friends and family. They have my photos going back 10 years. Facebook is personal to many people. I don't see Twitter and Facebook being interchangeable.
  - Hary06 3y ago
    Agree.
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    It's not hard. Reddit has every niche community right there. I go to subreddits to find advice on product and there's no reason why reddit can't be selling it.
    - weaksauce 3y ago
      and i don't get why they can't sell ads in the third party apps. just send it down the feed and have a tos that you need to be feeding that to the users. cut the apps in on it if you think the apps won't game that(could tie the cut with something like clickthrough rate to successful conversion by whatever metric that is... might be impossible who knows).
  - mapt 3y ago
    What did Usenet cost to run? What does Reddit's core functionality cost? They have annual revenue of half a billion dollars. Tell me that you can't use that money to run a text distribution infrastructure. I doubt Slashdot in its day cost half a million dollars to run.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      Usenet cost was distributed to ISPs, which eventually sank it as they lost interest. And it never solved the moderator conundrum; at one point, a third of Usenet was spam, and another third was "spam cancels" deleting the spam.
foobarbecue 3y ago
Exactly. I'm headed back to wikipedia, where I found community as a teenager. I think you can draw a direct line from wikimedia's nonprofit status to 22 years of greatness and steady improvement.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Eh, the Foundation has a lot of bloat and solicits donations far above actual operating costs.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Which makes sense in case of a nonprofit that relies on donations and can’t predict whether the next year will be a hard one for people, making their sole income drop.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - pneumonic 3y ago
    True, but luckily they don't intrude on the community or impact the Wikipedia site too much beyond their ever more frequent "We desperately need donations" campaigns. As the Foundation has gotten richer, its desire for more milk from its Wikipedia cash cow has only grown.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    Sure, they're far from perfect. I don't mind if build a nice big contingency fund or even become personally wealthy -- but I think it makes a difference that greed isn't the central organizing principle.
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      Its closer to its a scam than its far from perfect
wpietri 3y ago
Yeah, the way I think of it, the modern dogmas of Increase Shareholder Value and The CEO is Always Right might work for some businesses, but fall down badly when applied to user-generated content. They treat broader stakeholders as both morally and economically irrelevant. We can argue about the "moral" part, but with Reddit it's especially obvious that the users are the heart of the operation, making them economically crucial.
dasil003 3y ago
Meh, Twitter and Reddit monetize just fine with ads. The problem comes in with VC expectations where everything must 1000x or die. These are not bad businesses, they're just small compared to Facebook or Google. What's needed is mature leadership that recognizes the value comes from the community, and following the private equity playbook of strip-mining the value is short-sighted.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > problem comes in with VC expectations where everything must 1000x or die Is "VC" tech's catch-all for capitalism? Reddit is pining to go public and Twitter just LBO'd. Neither is having its chain yanked by venture capital.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    Reddit took $1.3 billion in investor money. What makes you say they're not having their chain yanked? Going public solves an investor problem, but I don't see it solving anything for Reddit's community.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Reddit took $1.3 billion in investor money. What makes you say they're not having their chain yanked? Took. Past tense. Limited need to take more. Look at Reddit's Board: it's ten people, only one of whom (Mike Seibel) is a VC.
      - wpietri 3y ago
        Your implication is that if they don't need more money, they can just ignore all those investor-owned shares? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Reddit's an odd duck given their ownership history and their investors. But I don't think they're that odd. Nobody gives you that kind of money without expecting to be well paid and soon.
        3y ago
WalterBright 3y ago
Non-profits still need enough revenue to meet expenses.
chemmail 3y ago
There are huge conflicts of interests between profitability and good business. Just listen to the podcasts on how they started Gimlet. The second season they focused on dating sites and the ones that working amazing just did not make money so they had to kill it and just do the generic shit we have now. Saying money is the root of all evil is not too far off from reality.
firecall 3y ago
I'm not sure I agree with that, as it's hard to ignore Facebook. Facebook is astoundingly profitable, and is the canonical example of network effects. Almost everyone I've ever known is or was on Facebook. So I don't consider Network Effect Businesses to be terrible as for-profits in and of themselves. The issue perhaps is that there is an expectation that they can become Google or Facebook. Now we have a generation raised on social media that doesn't require your real name, maybe we will see a new platform reach Facebook levels. TikTok and YouTube are obviously huge, but slightly different again to Facebook. As an aside, people talk about how amazing Tik Tok is, but in the end, it's really just the creators uploading content that make it work. Facebook captured Advertising dollars, in part, by investing in Ad infrastructure and building tools that companies could use to create targeted Ads. Every other platform, apart from AdWords, felt unfinished, especially Twitter!
mapt 3y ago
These network effect businesses are WILDLY PROFITABLE for a good long while if you keep overhead low, keep the product stable, and don't try to Take Over The Internet by doing something novel, developer-intensive, and (usually) stupid. Unfortunately any platform that draws >10 million daily users will reliably have people calling and offering billions of dollars to adopt that strategy and chase after revenue growth. Eventually the owner breaks down and agrees to take a huge personal payoff in order for the company to adopt a "Double or nothing" policy. Over, and over again. There's too many enormous piles of money out there seeking a return for this to be a sensible self-regulating system with stable provision of goods & services. Holdouts are few and far between, like Craigslist.
scarface_74 3y ago
>I think there's a fundamental conflict, in that these network effect businesses are terrible as for-profit businesses. All of the BigTech companies are built on network effects and two sided markets
bawolff 3y ago
Its not like wikipedia has a perfect history of making features with good user fit . There are some successes,but also quite a few failures. You could say the same thing that most of the successes were supporting what users were already doing (e.g. flow vs DiscussionTools) I think doing feature development on big socio-technical systems with an entrenched user base, is fundamentally hard.
PaulHoule 3y ago
Depends on the platform. Facebook and Youtube monetize very well. Then there are platforms that lumber on marginally for years like Reddit and Twitter, or where the commercial pressures of advertising are particularly obnoxious. (I think of that band Jefferson Starship which never made up its mind if it wanted to be commercially successful or have artistic integrity.) On the other hand there are sites like Danbooru which seem to thrive without advertising probably because the nature of their content drives advertising away.
BizarroLand 3y ago
I wish we could somehow get the US government to make an alternative replacement. I know that is a minefield of issues regarding access and moderation and it would make it a frequent election day financial harassment target but it would be nice to have something that is publicly funded, ad free, and not vulnerable to deep pockets stealing the entire system from the people.

nyreed 3y ago

In Vine we trust.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ericd 3y ago

Seems like most companies could use a Defense Against the Dark Patterns teacher :-)

midasuni 3y ago
The ones that are always evil or at best doomed to fail

tomcam 3y ago

How is Twitter rapidly decaying? I am a daily, but very light user so I may not be observing the trends as well as you.

wpietri 3y ago
Traffic is down modestly, revenue is down dramatically, outages are up, bugs are up, abuse is up, many users have departed, and the value of the company has fallen by something between half and two thirds. One of its core assets, the blue checkmark for verified notable accounts, has been permanently destroyed. I no longer use it, but word from my friends who still do is that is has become grimmer, less fun. Musk has stopped releasing statistics, but I expect that new users signups and net promoter scores are well down as well. Musk keeps picking fights with vendors; the latest feud with Google means they may soon lose significant trust and safety tooling. Twitter keeps losing staff, Ella Irwin being the latest, and word is that they're running skeleton crews for core functionality, with a lot of the current staff being people who are trapped in the jobs by visas and the like. That suggests we'll be seeing more messes like the failure of DeSantis's campaign launch. And that's all off the top of my head. If you want to read more, I'd suggest Casey Newton's articles on it; he's been covering it pretty well.
- behnamoh 3y ago
  I don't notice any of the things you mentioned. As a user, I haven't felt much difference before and after Musk's takeover. If anything, I think Twitter is a little bit better and more vibrant now, because the censorship is not like before. Yes, lot's of people tried Mastodon as an alternative, but I still see almost all my followees on Twitter.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Your comments reminds me of the metaphor of boiling a frog. Twitters users, the advertisers, have noticed. Thus the revenue decrease. Twitter's product, sets of eyeballs, are still around (despite being compositionally a different population, mostly).
  - 3y ago

amadeuspagel 3y ago

> Most of Twitter's successes came from watching what users were actually doing and supporting that (e.g., at mentions, retweets, quote tweets). Yeah, maybe if what users are actually doing is bully each other you shouldn't support that.

wpietri 3y ago
Quote tweets could be used for a lot of things. I mainly used it to add positive commentary or useful context to something I wanted to share with my followers. Could quote tweets be used by ringleaders of mob abuse? Sure. But the solution to that isn't to remove the feature. There are many other ways to deal with that, including banning the people who enjoy fomenting mob abuse campaigns.

tiedieconderoga 3y ago

>But imagine taking a resilient business like a McDonald's franchise and subjecting it to Musk levels of chaos. I dunno, look at private equity buyouts, which Twitter kind of resembles—Musk somehow convinced banks and Twitter itself to foot most of the bill for his purchase. The whole point is to avoid putting money into the prey company by saddling it with debt, while you squeeze every last cent of value out of its living corpse. It can take a long time for companies to die when this happens: Sears is a solid case study from recent times. https://ivyexec.com/career-advice/2018/sears-case-business-failure/ https://ivyexec.com/career-advice/2018/sears-case-business-f... Considering how little of his own money Musk spent on the deal, I wouldn't be surprised if he was just having fun lighting a huge pile of other peoples' money on fire. He's obviously gotten bored with his car and spaceship toys.

HWR_14 3y ago
Musk put over $20 billion of his own money into Twitter. If I put 10% of my net worth in a project, I care how it turns out.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  > If I put 10% of my net worth in a project, I care how it turns out. Good for you and Musk! So proud of people who can put money into something and lord over it because of capitalism.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    I should point out most people have things they put 10% of their net worth into. Cars. Maybe a house if you're doing very well.
    - skinnymuch 3y ago
      We are talking about being capitalists. Not getting a car or a personal house…no less those people likely aren’t capitalists. It is okay if nuances of economics aren’t understood by normal people but my comment being downvoted while posts lacking foundational political knowledge are fine. Of course it makes sense. Liberals lack self awareness. TBC: you thought the throughline was money when it was nothing. You were talking about investing money that can be used to exploit workers and turn a higher profit by paying workers less than they benefit the stakeholders. Exploiting people is an obvious immoral action.

hyperthesis 3y ago

myspace managed to be killed

nebula8804 3y ago

Wait a second, I could be totally wrong on this but I thought Twitter nearing bankruptcy was the real reason they sunset Vine?

wpietri 3y ago
Twitter wasn't doing great at the time, but from the way Dorsey now talks about it, I don't think it was Vine or Bankruptcy: https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-biggest-regret-killing-off-vine-2022-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-biggest-regret-k...

mlcrypto 3y ago

Musk is actually very successful with Twitter. All time high users. Musk has never failed any business. Ignore the white knights

wyclif 3y ago

Eh, Twitter is not "rapidly decaying." It's faster and more fun than ever, especially if you're using it from outside the USA where they are adding capacity. Way better than back in the pre-Musk era when they were trying to cancel wrongthink and most of the hiring was focused on managing DEI instead of engineering.