Slashdot Mirror
No One Wants To Buy Twitter (theverge.com)
At one point, it seemed that many were interested in purchasing the micro-blogging social platform (which now calls itself a news service) Twitter, but its fate is quickly drying up. Salesforce (which couldn't buy LinkedIn) showed the most interest in Twitter, but this week its CEO Marc Benioff said his company has "walked away" from making a bid to buy it. The Verge sums up the situation: If you're keeping track, that's now... pretty much everyone who's said they're not interested in buying Twitter. Neither Google nor Disney plan to bid on Twitter, despite reports saying both were interested. Recode says that Apple is likely also out of the picture. And Verizon immediately dismissed speculation that it was considering a bid. Facebook is also said to be uninterested, according to CNBC. And while Microsoft's name has been tossed around, no one seems to think the acquisition would make any sense for an increasingly enterprise-focused company.The situation is so bad that as soon as the news of Salesforce withdrawing its name from the bidding race broke, its stock quickly went up by 6 percent, while Twitter's stock registered a 6 percent drop.
Twitter is my main source of news.
Yeah, me too: they publish really well researched, in-depth and balanced articles.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Why does Twitter need to be bought by anyone? What's with this endless obsession about mergers and acquisitions and consolidation and stock market riches the west has?
Let Twitter do Twitter.
When thousands start to suspect something is up and stop trusting the platform, you do lose a significant number, but indeed its not nearly enough to actually destroy twitter, although may be a good sign that the people in charge of the platform don't actually know what is wrong with it or how to fix it because they're enclosed into this small bubble.
While distributed social media (like Diaspora) has been an idea floating around for a while, something like the 'twittersphere' is where it could be most useful, having multiple interlinked 'twitterverses' where different rules on acceptability apply. The SJW's can have some, and the anti-politically-correct can run their own free-for-all zones, and so on. What is then needed is the distributed indexing and so on. But for a technology which is basically a glorified indexed array of char[140]'s, it has little that isn't easily copied in terms of functionality. Given that most users' number of followers is in the 100s, a simple PHP script spewing out RSS feeds is almost good enough for that task (and already way more complex than it needs to be). An aggregator simply needs to get a few KB of text from a few hundred URIs every few minutes, and then compose it into an aggregated feed. The trouble with modern social media is that they need to overcomplicate it in order to turn it into something they control. Then they need to give it away free, figure out how to make money from it, and so on. We really need an 'opentwitter' system. Twitter has demonstrated the need and power of this sort of communication, but cannot make a profitable business out of it. Just like email isn't owned, we need a twitter that isn't owned. And preferably before Twitter as a company tanks.
More generally, a rethink about internet communications would be welcome: having more fine grained control about who can send what to whom would make a lot of sense (and can essentially be done via things like cryptographic keys) -- then basic data and document types. (For example, a tweet is basically a char[140], most small things could be considered a json object fitting some schema, and for many web documents, the content part least, could make do with a far lighter weight document type than modern HTML: something where a high quality light-weight renderer wouldn't need something as complex as an operating system, as modern web browsers are.)
John_Chalisque
That's cute and everything, but when you buy a company you take on its liabilities[1]. I suspect that's why so companies are looking under the veil and walking away from the altar.
[1] Unless you're this jumped-up barrow boy, apparently.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Twitter touted itself as the "free speech wing of the free speech party" and is now banning people for having opinions that the San Francisco loons disagree with.
However, you're right.
Banning a few people doesn't affect the stock price. But when you ban hundreds of thousands? Then the message gets around that your hard work building an audience can be pissed away by the decision of a blue-haired loon in San Francisco who thinks you used the wrong pronoun.
That's when your audience drops off and no-one wants to us it any more... and that does affect your stock price.
Welcome to the wonder world of Twitter. They committed suicide so that the world could see what pandering to social justice loons means for companies.
Somehow I don't think blocking a few rightwing nutjobs caused Twitter to lose value.
I agree insofar as I doubt that it's caused some kind of massive drop in traffic or ad revenue, but the existence of drama surrounding it might be the reason why some companies don't want to bother with the potential headaches.
For example, given the right crowd your little dismissive "a few right wing loons" is fuel enough for a rollicking debate. Twitter (and Youtube and others) only care about censoring the Christian and secular right wing. They do not censor Islamists, who are part of the extreme right by any reasonable measure. The left (and now more and more also the mainstream) defend them even as they try to silence the conventional secular/Christian right wing in America or western Europe, often silencing them precisely due to their criticism of the Islamic right wing.
Do you have any idea what the tweets look like on the Arab language version of Twitter? Go plug some into Google Translate and find out. While atheist bloggers were being hacked to death in Bangladesh, do you know what was trending on Arabic Twitter? #KillAllAtheists.
The new owners would have to decide whether or not they're going to do something about this stuff. The new owners would have to decide whether or not to re-ban Milo if he tried to create a new account. The new owners would have to decide whether or not to dissociate themselves from Anita Sarkeesian, an irrational, misandrist, anti-free speech lunatic whom Twitter should never have put in a position of power.
I don't think there's some sort of highly damaging boycotting of Twitter going on at this very moment, but that doesn't mean these things are entirely irrelevant.
Why not?!
what is the use of a "micro-blogging social platform" or a "news service" that acts against free speech.
as a private company they are free to ban people for hurting others' feelings (btw nothing worse can happen in that platform), but must deal with consequences.
We really need an 'opentwitter' system. Twitter has demonstrated the need and power of this sort of communication,
No we don't. Twitter is a microcosm of stupid and if it went away overnight there would be zero impact to the lives of most normal people. Millions of idiots would have to find another way to see what the Kardashians are up to today, but regular life would function quite fine without it.
And after having damaged their brand and destroyed billions worth of shareholder value, lo and behold, no one wants to buy them! Gee, turns out that alienating half your user base at the behest of a tiny cadre of radical feminists is a lousy business strategy...
Yeah, except that's not the reality of the situation.
As of Twitter's latest earnings report, its user base grew more than expected, up to 313 million active monthly users. Their problem has been a softening of advertiser demand, which has reduced revenues below expectations.
Indeed, all of the companies interested in buying Twitter have only been interested because of the reduced shareholder value. Twitter isn't a good buy-out candidate when its stock value is worth more than the real value of its assets; it's only when its market value is at or below the value of its assets and expected revenues that it suddenly becomes something everyone could be interested in buying out. As such, the "destroyed billions worth of shareholder value" is actually a good thing for a company looking to buy them out -- you buy low, not high.
So congrats -- you've invented an argument by working backward form a premise, while ignoring basic math and economics. Because if your argument had any real merit, any big company could buy Twitter, fire Ms. Sarkeesian, re-instate five accounts, and suddenly they'd be able to increase the value of the company by billions. But here's a hint -- the advertisers don't care who is visiting Twitter, or what their politics are. The fact that they gained over 3 million monthly visitors in the last reported quarter (to 313 million) is all they are going to care about -- and advertising is virtually all of Twitter's revenue. But advertisers are going elsewhere -- and its certainly not because there are some butt-hurt Conservative Justice Warriors who can't handle people calling them out for being complete douchbags. These companies have looked at Twitter's fundamentals, and it appears they come up wanting. Perhaps after they lose a few hundred million more in value someone will snap them up.
Yaz
Yes and there's a very simple model to make it clearer: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern.
Modern is the start of humanistic values. Pre-modern is old empires enforced with mythic and religious identity and so on. Post-modern is currently half baked, a step towards global but still in its early phase, and hasn't worked out yet.
So for example, post-modern often champions the rights of islamists to not be offended because it wants to avoid western cultural imperialism, even though the islamists are trying to return us to the pre-modern Middle Ages. And of course there was no post-modernity back in the Middle Ages, so post-modernity ends up trying to destroy itself. And taking us all down with it.
Personally I think we all just need to re-study modernity and understand what its core value for is for the world, the stuff it advanced and got right, such as the individual and humanistic values and education and so on. And figure out how the world as a whole can configure to develop towards modernity.
Once most of the world is practicing and working at a modern humanistic level, then a real post-modernity can emerge. The current version of post-modernity is a fuckup.
But it doesn't have to be depressing. Many recoil against modernity because it is godless or lacks rules for living. But Buddha already 2500 years ago said you have to cast off the old myths and figure out for yourself, as an individual, what works, including, what's the answer to happiness and compassion. Depending on how you read it, Buddha was teaching humanistic values thousands of years ago.
Pre modern empire structures, basically weaponise religion to control followers and gain power. But if people just put on humanistic glasses, many of these weird cross cultural issues become very clear.
Whenever I hear the phrase SJW I think here's a stupid person that lacks the ability to form a coherent argument.
I'm sure I'm not the only one...
Don't worry. It's a general label for a very specific group of people it's much easier then saying: They're a group of people who have very pro-authoritarian leanings, anti-free speech, stand against many if not all democratic western traditions, and believe that using physical or psychological intimidation is justified(aka no bad tactics, only bad targets), that the one who can claim to be the most oppressed and virtue signaling the loudest is at the top of the pyramid and actual activism is far too difficult isn't it? Besides, it's their own label. Guess it's too bad for them instead of actually doing something positive, they decided that engaging in negative actions which people associated with it, which is their problem.
I'm sure someone is going to come out with a "good job blahblahblah it's lost all meaning..." or some rot. Never mind that said term has really only been in the general public lexicon for oh maybe a year, two years tops(but then you'd have to admit that things like Gamergate, sad puppies, general anti-authoritarian stances have had a far larger public impact on society then the on-going claim that GG is only 300 people, or sad puppies is full of white males who live in their moms basement). But I'll happily remind the people who are now running for a reply, that you're likely among that same group that has abused English so badly that "sexism, racism, misogyny, etc" has lost all meaning.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'd offer to simplify it even further: the problem is that many progressives haven't made the jump from "oh wow, western civilization has done a bunch of crappy things" to "oh wow, everybody has done a bunch of crappy things."
The ignorance of, denial of and/or rigid prioritization of grievances is the overriding problem among most post-modernist / progressive / SJW crowds. From it flows all of the cancerous bullshit that has caused so many former self-described leftists to distance themselves.
I want to smack each and every one of them upside the head with pool noodle and explain that everyone everywhere has done a mountain of shitty things. Yes, people as a whole suck... but there are specific bits and pieces worth saving and these value need to be recognized and saved and promoted without regard to the owner of the brain or mouth from which they come tumbling out. Simply badmouthing America or the West or imperialism or neo-imperialism solves nothing, nothing at all, and their bleating often betrays a profound ignorance of the past and current crimes of China, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran or whomever else they deem exempt from criticism due to the fact that a few of our past politicians made a dick move or three.
99% of Twitter users have never heard of these people, and if they had they'd probably sympathize with a company enforcing its ToS against users who, for example, are posting screenshots of forged tweets in an attempt to increase harassment of perceived "enemies".
Twitter growth has slowed (and on occasion gone into reverse) lately. The real reason it probably that the platform has changed fairly radically in the last 3-4 years, with changes that completely undermine the "read lots of quick, short, messages" selling point.
Some of the changes that have broken Twitter include:
1. Making messages take up about 1/5 of the screen, because of attached images, movies (WTF?), link summaries, etc.
2. Adding ads in a way that means the user has already read them by the time they realize they're in an ad, making them 10x as obnoxious (and, funnily enough, actually creating negative value for advertisers. Nobody trusts a Twitter advertiser, because you feel tricked when you've read their ad.)
3. Messing with the timelines. Even with their "optimized" version turned off, they frequently make the third "tweet" a pages long summary of tweets you've already read, entitled "In case you missed it", and there's no way to turn this off.
These have made Twitter change from being a nice way to keep up with your friends and the news to being an absolute chore to read.
The idea that these have had no effect on subscribers, while the banning of a self-admitted Troll and some others who have no self control, somehow has is ridiculous. Sure, a handful of people who wanted a network that made it easier to send a rape threat to a black actress or female CEO might feel that a crackdown on harassment or the banning of people who forge Tweets would turn them off, but they're not really the kinds of people who a social network wants, and they are the kinds of people who drive away more people than they attract.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I tend to agree that the 'real' money, or rather the 'real' profit, is made by capitalising on tiny fluctuations in the share price over periods of less than a second. Tiny amounts of profit, times lots and lots of transactions, on a continuous basis = huge profits.
However, it doesn't add liquidity in any meaningful fashion, and it doesn't provide any benefit to the corporation whose shares are being traded or to a wider society. It is, purely and simply, economic parasitism.
The simple solution is a miniscule transaction tax on every share, either purchased or sold (your pick, my preference would be those sold, with the exception of the share offerings made by the company selling its shares for the first time - resales / reissues, after share buy backs would incur the tax).
With this system, since the purchaser doesn't face increased costs there's no practical reason for any reduction in available liquidity, and it effectively destroys the system that allows the parasites to exist, by adding proportionally significant costs to their existance, while adding, proportionally, no significant increase in cost to long term share investors.
The only remaining question in my mind would be whether to make the tax a flat, albeit very small, rate, which would affect the sales of lower value stocks slightly more than higher value ones (if only because of investor perception based primarily on lifetime percentage growth figures), or a variable rate tax based on the price of the shares in question, which, while removing this perceptual disparity, would slightly limit the effectiveness and removing all the parasites from the system.
I'd be happy to leave wiser minds than mine that decision though... if only governments (or even the exchanges themselves) had the courage to implement the system in the first place.
What you describe sounds like some conservatives, yourself included. The ones who want to silence criticism (like the Eich debacle) and inflict their dogma on others (like so called "religious freedom" and "bathroom bills").
Uses "you're a conservative" yep. There's that "everyone who isn't like me is a conservative" bit, would have been better if you'd used the usual right-wing, at least you'd have been consistent like your previous claims. Sorry, who was the group that threatened and pushed Eich out and jumped all over him for his own private viewpoint that had zero to do with his job? Which group was it that threatened the head of a advertising agency for having an opinion against the current orthodoxy? FYI it wasn't those "scary conservatives."
Want to name the universities in the western world that are so conservative that they're shutting down debates because the students will be "triggered by people who aren't left-wing" are discussing issues that they don't want discussed. Was it those "conservatives" at the University of Toronto that attacked a reporter? Nope in both cases. The last time I remember a religious conservative in the news, it was an anti-abortion protest, and it was again left-wing students who attacked, and assaulted the person. FYI since you're in the UK, how many times have groups like "antifa" violently attacked people in the last 10 years for not having the right opinion.
By the way, which dogma is it that's mine, the one that doesn't exist or the one that doesn't exist?
Om, nomnomnom...
As a platform, the main distinguishing feature of Twitter compared to other platforms is that its 140 character limit makes any kind of discussion impossible, and that it strongly favors social signaling and self-righteous indignation as the primary modes of communication.
I doubt advertisers want to see their products seen in such a divisive, biased, and angry environment as Twitter, and it isn't even useful for market research because its user population is so unrepresentative.
Facebook makes about ONE BILLION dollars in profit every quarter. They have virtually no debt. You may not like social media but it's a profitable business for Facebook.
Twitter is something else.
lucm, indeed.