3 ms·
> no wonder it was hemorraging money I love how history has been rewritten such that a company that was profitable was "hemorraging money". Now that they are
by blitzar 3y ago
> no wonder it was hemorraging money
I love how history has been rewritten such that a company that was profitable was "hemorraging money".
Now that they are actually hemorraging money under new management it is somehow a case study in profitability.
If everyone clicks their heels three times and says it - of course it will be true.
- theblobawakens 3y agoIf, instead of selling a product, when one gets regular huge investments from second/third world regimes, which are in reality to pay for salaries 19K+ regional language moderators and censors, 500 programmers for censorship and related algos, but only 500 people to run the actual "freemium" product is not exactly "profitable" either...
- blitzar 3y agoThe definition is clear and well defined, making up new definitions to justify a lie is deliberately obtuse. profitable /ˈprɒfɪtəbl/ adjective adjective: profitable 1. (of a business or activity) yielding profit or financial gain.
- mschuster91 3y ago> I love how history has been rewritten such that a company that was profitable was "hemorraging money". It was only profitable for 2 out of 8 years post IPO, and had 7500+ in headcount [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter,_Inc.#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter,_Inc.#Finances
- chucksmash 3y agoIt went public in 2013 but seems like it only managed to turn an annual profit in 2018 and 2019, with 2020 and 2021 both back in the red before first half 2022 in the black. So, after going public, it lost money in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2021.