3 ms·
There is quite a bit of difference between not making a profit and consistently losing around $100m a year with apparently no path to at least revenue neutralit
by potro 7mo ago
There is quite a bit of difference between not making a profit and consistently losing around $100m a year with apparently no path to at least revenue neutrality.
- rapnie 7mo agoSo it loses pocket change for a multi billionaire? Edit: The consideration being that perhaps billionaire toys need not be profitable per se, but are purchased for different reasons. Twitter is another example here.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- potro 7mo agoA $100m here, a $100m there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.
- cenamus 7mo agoYeah, he could only keep this going for another 2600 years
- bravetraveler 7mo agoY'all are talking about the real Scrooge McDuck.
- ZeroGravitas 7mo agoThat's assuming the pro-billionaire propaganda it produces doesn't make him many hundreds of millions more. In that light an arbitrary but vaguely plausible reason to fire anyone who insists on doing actual journalism and not billionaire propaganda is a useful tool.
- surgical_fire 7mo agoHe could, you know, not have bought the newspaper too. It didn't belong to him originally. It's not like he will make it profitable anyway.