Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Is 'Toast' and the Stock Is Not Even Worth $10, Says Analyst (cnbc.com)
Twitter is "toast" as a company and the stock is not even worth $10, according to a research note published Tuesday, following the departure of another top executive at the social media service. From a report on CNBC: The microblogging platform's chief technology officer, Adam Messinger, tweeted that he would leave the company and "take some time off", while Josh McFarland, vice president of product at Twitter, also said he was exiting the company. Both executives announced their departure on Tuesday. Meanwhile, last month, Adam Bain stepped down as chief operating officer last month to be replaced by chief financial officer Anthony Noto, who has yet to be replaced. Twitter has also lost leaders from business development, media and commerce, media partnerships, human resources, and engineering this year. The departures prompted Trip Chowdhry, the managing director of equity research at Global Equities Research, and a noted "uber-bear" on tech stocks, to issue a note on Tuesday claiming Twitter is "toast" and "not even a $10 stock." "Many investors were foolishly building (an) investment thesis based on complete stupidity," Chowdhry wrote. The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible". Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.
Donald Trump's bully bullhorn might be toast. Donald Trump will be crying because his principle method of intimidation might actually shut down. Waaaaa!
Move on to the next story
Chowdry says idiotic things to try to influence stocks. If you look at some of his "analysis" it is nonsense. If you don't look at it, it is best to treat it as lies.
... rather proves [some] people really are stupid. Fuss over a non news. Again.
Let us return to the times when a stock's value depended on the P/E ratio and not the mythical confidence fairy.
I have to agree with Trip Chowdhry on this. In my experience you don't see that many high level folks leaving a company if all is well.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I am glad
Sure, Twitter is most notable failure. Other social media is not categorically different and stock values are equally divorced from reality.
It's been clear to a number of us that Twitter's primary users are more on the social side of the spectrum, lean more to the left, are engaged more in arts and all that, but all of the news snippets over the past year or so seem to come out after the company articulated publicly that they are more or less an SJW platform, that they're going to selectively ban questionable comments under the guise of anti-racism, etc., etc.
Maybe I'm wrong but the timelines literally suggest that Twitter's failure was its political alignment rather than providing a neutral grounds for socializing.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump, they're losing tons of money because they don't have a good way to make money.
Besides, even if it did shut down, there's always gab.ai
I think the unprofitable nature of the thing is what is not "a viable business," identity politics or no.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Good...the cesspool of political correctness is blowing up in their faces
The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible".
Using "twitter" and "data" and "quality" in the same sentence made me laugh.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I've tried several Twitter alternatives some in beta some not and unfortunately, most of the things I dislike about Twitter I dislike about them as well. You can join a network that has a strong anti censorship stance and this seems like progress but then you end up with almost unending amounts of hate and vitriol in excess even of Twitter. Even on platforms populated by people on my side of the political isle (libertarian republican types)... it is just unpleasant and unhealthy and gets old fast. I don't know how you take a global broadcast like platform and make it into something palatable.
I don't know, but it seems like we are going a little far to stop Trump from tweeting.
Twitter is still useful.
Virtually everyone predicted a big Hillary win and virtually everyone was wrong.
I have a theory about that.
There was a palpable Anti-Trump PC thing happening. Anything that could possibly be interpreted as a Pro-Trump or Anti-Hillary statement could have ended in an online dogpile of people shouting "Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, Islamophobic, Xenophobic" so people kept their thoughts to themselves until they got to the one place where they could express themselves without external pressure, the voting booth.
You can't fault Twitter for misreading the tea leaves just like pretty much everyone else.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
http://invite2share.com/index....
While rampant SJWing certainly didn't help, Twitter sans SJW is still not viable.
Twitter relies on 140 character messages. How are you supposed to monetize the store and forward of 140 character messages?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Maybe I'm wrong but the timelines literally suggest that Twitter's failure was its political alignment rather than providing a neutral grounds for socializing.
Explain how Trump exists so "bigly" on Twitter if it is such a rabid "SJW platform".
Statistical analysis by unbiased machine learning systems, derived via data on social media platforms including Twitter, that Trump would win. The difference between the correct and wrong predictive systems is that one was just left-wing echo chambers regurgitating Hillary propaganda, the other was a genuine unbiased prediction engine. All these departure protests are is more left-wing bullying to manipulate social media into promoting their bull crap.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28...
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I think the unprofitable nature of the thing is what is not "a viable business," identity politics or no.
Nah, it's the SJWs fault of course. If they allowed arbitrary amounts of harassments, death threats and stalking, it'd magically be profitable for some reason.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I suspect that many twitterers were just repeating what they were hearing on MSM.
Is MSM also toast?
Why should anyone listen to a worthless third world asshole whose people shit in the road and brush their teeth water from a river full of decaying dead bodies?
This is what happens when you arbitrarily ban people because you don't like them.
It spawned gab.ai. Now they hint that they might ban Trump. Which means he would go to gab and take a lot of his 10million folowers with him.
I say this as a non-user, so I acknowledge that I might be ignorant on the subject. But...
I never understood how/why Twitter (or really any messaging platform/app) is a business. I mean, tweeting does actually seem like a useful tool for certain communication needs, but I don't understand why it's handled through a single service. Why isn't the tweet simply a protocol, like email? People would then just build different clients/apps/platforms that utilize that protocol, just like we do with email.
It doesn't strike me as good business to not have a presidential candidate/president-elect on your platform. But most people that are anti-SJW don't really have that kind of pull, so they're less of an issue.
...it's just mouthpiece for celebrities and attention seekers
Explain how Trump exists so "bigly" on Twitter if it is such a rabid "SJW platform".
It's still used by celebrities, record labels, television shows, etc., to broadcast a message to the people that still effectively utilize said platform which, according to Edison Research last year, is 7% of the American population (which is what I assume you mean by 'bigly').
Twitter already allows some individuals to engage in "arbitrary amounts of harassments, death threats and stalking". You should have instead said: "If they allowed everyone arbitrary amounts of harassments, death threats and stalking...".
Yeah, just about as much as AOL's woes was the sound of the Internet bubble popping.
Twitter did give us Bootstrap
And people are just now realizing it.
stupid TFA didn't even mention the VALUATION (who cares about the price of a single share?)...should be around $7.1B at $10/share.
Regardless of your opinions of Trump, it seems pretty ignorant to suggest that Twitter shutting down would completely de-fang him.
It is almost like you're implying that the shutdown of Twitter equates to the shutdown of social media as a concept.
Gab.ai is a twitter replacement that has started up recently and is collecting a lot of interest.
Their product advantage - the thing that differentiates them from the rest of the market - is that they enforce free speech. So long as the speech isn't something that's patently illegal in the US, it's allowed on their site. (Disallowed: illegal pornography, threats and terrorism, doxing/publishing private information.)
Twitter seems to be taking sides with half of it's userbase, and driving the other half away. I've always felt that taking sides in customer arguments (against other customers) was a bad thing, but they're vigorously doing that so I'm sure there's some corporate benefit that I'm missing.
Gab allows each user to filter out anything they don't want to see, either other users or specific words. This seems like it's the right solution, because it allows people to use the system without seeing things they find distasteful, while not infringing on other peoples' free speech. I can only imagine that people will put together recommended word lists in topics such as pornography, or vulgarity, or meanness, that others can download and install.
So if you're concerned about twitter shutting down, check out Gab.ai as an alternate system.
gab.ai expected takeover seems to happen sooner than later.
Analysts will suck up to him and shitcan your stocks just so you fail. I mean, really, what has changed in the business that reduced the ability of twitter to run? Nothing, except Trump is being mocked by twitter's insistence that, yes, rules are for the Trump to obey too. All that changes is the insistence that stock is worth less. Which cause some gullible idiots (and to buy stock nowadays requires gullibility) to sell, which "supports" the claim of failure, hence slightly less gullible idiots sell too.
How the hell else did any of the other stock market crashes happen, except by rumour and idiocy?
Literally nobody used Twitter data to predict the outcome of the election, and nobody's predictions were spoiled by the fact that there are a ton of fake users on Twitter. That claim doesn't even make sense.
It's interesting that you view "not being a horrific racist" as a political alignment.
I have messed around with data mining tweets for sporting events and no matter how I sliced and diced the info it is hard to get anything of value. A high profile event like the SuperBowl will generate tens of thousands of tweets in a 2 hour span. After you filter out all the words like "the", "it", "shit" and "fuck" etc etc etc its just pile of steaming crap. It was fun to fool around with but it was hard to gauge anything from it. Only 1 to 2% of users actually share their geo coordinates. The location field is a mess of "NEW YORK", "NYC", "big apple" and that sort of thing. You could clearly see increased spikes after big plays...but no shit...people are excited so the frequency chart spikes after a touchdown...do tell. I have tried using it to gauge sentiment in my home town on various issues....absolutely worthless.. although some of that might be just me as well.
I do hope so.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Keep whining old guys.
Buying opportunity IMHO
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's been clear to a number of us that Twitter's primary users are more on the social side of the spectrum, lean more to the left, are engaged more in arts and all that, but all of the news snippets over the past year or so seem to come out after the company articulated publicly that they are more or less an SJW platform, that they're going to selectively ban questionable comments under the guise of anti-racism, etc., etc. Maybe I'm wrong but the timelines literally suggest that Twitter's failure was its political alignment rather than providing a neutral grounds for socializing.
Considering that SJW is the new Jewish conspiracy, communist agenda, liberal media, Muslim menace, boogie man, and does not exist as such, I have to believe that your ideas are incorrect.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I think it's 100% due to the fact that they never even developed a solid plan to *one day* have money.
If ads didn't work for Facebook, they could still charge users $3 a year and be solvent. Reddit is scraping by with subscriptions and gifted "gold". Maybe if Twitter tried $.025 a year they'd be able to stay up.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
It's interesting that you view "not being a horrific racist" as a political alignment.
Either you're intellectually dishonest or you're not aware of Twitter's shenanigans over the past year where they'd allowed horrifically racist commentary like "white people must die" or anti-Christian commentary yet banned the accounts of white people who communicated even the lightest of philosophical questions on race or religion.
It's either all racist or it's not. It's either all anti-religious or it's not. Twitter became a selective judge and jury as to what constituted as racist based on the race and/or religion of the source and target.
Maybe they've cleaned up their act since the summer, when you could easily find #BlackLivesMatters quotes that literally cried for the death of white people or from other groups crying for Allah to kill people... but the damage is already done. Twitter's actions stated 'this is who we are, this is who we support, this is who we don't support.'
Explain how Trump exists so "bigly" on Twitter if it is such a rabid "SJW platform".
It's still used by celebrities, record labels, television shows, etc., to broadcast a message to the people that still effectively utilize said platform which, according to Edison Research last year, is 7% of the American population (which is what I assume you mean by 'bigly').
That doesn't answer my question. It was claimed here that Twitter is an "SJW platform" and there is plenty of whining about how Twitter censors and bans people that they do not like, presumably because they offend theses "SJWs". If that is true, how is it that Trump and millions of "deplorables" continue to exist on Twitter?
My counter theory is that this "SJW" angle is BS. Twitter's only allegiance is to their usage statistics. They want as many people actively using it as possible. That sometimes means removing people who drive down usage. This often seem philosophically arbitrary if not outright hypocritical because politics has nothing to do with it. Its just business.
Moreover, and most importantly, Twitter has been going out of business ever since it got into business. No need to read any tea leaves.
These dumb fucks simply want users real names so they can data mine them more accurately. If twitter users wanted that, wouldn't they be on fakebook instead? Wouldn't the existing userbase simply move to another platform?
I'm so ready for Twiiter to die. The whole concept-—reducing all content to 140 character sound bytes suitable for a child's consumption, is insulting and doing real damage to the world and people's ability to communicate. It almost single-handedly allowed the election of a tyrant to the highest office in the world. Its users need to learn how to write in *complete paragraphs*, with spacing, punctuation, and everything else that makes language worth using in the first place.
Social media bubble bursted time long ago...
Remember MySpace, digg, orkut, Google+?
He has it backwards. The pollsters did not use Twitter data to predict that Hillary would win. They predicted that Hillary would win and then used Twitter data to make it look like it was something other than just wishful thinking on their part. Anybody who predicted that Hillary would win by a wide margin (and many people did) were basing it on wishful thinking. All of the REAL data before the election indicated a close election. Even the Electoral College blowout which Trump got was the result of small leads in many states he was expected to lose.
All of the prognosticators whose predictions were close to the actual results predicted a Trump victory, but made it clear that they had a bias in that direction and pointed out where their assumptions might be wrong because of that bias.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible". Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.
Twitter has had issues with monetization, but the idea that the platform is somehow flawed because some idiot used it as a source polling is nuts. You can't determine an election from reading tweets.
Twitter differentiated itself from other social sites by embracing simplicity and mobile. The simplicity of twitter has also hurt it, because it keeps failing at expanding the platform beyond tweets making it a poor growth stock since its user growth has stagnated.
orkut and Google+ were both nonstarters. Anyone who knows anything knows that.
But I guess I can turn on bold face to make myself look insightful!!!
Twitter already allows some individuals to engage in "arbitrary amounts of harassments, death threats and stalking". You should have instead said: "If they allowed everyone arbitrary amounts of harassments, death threats and stalking...".
Whining about how the existence of "SJWs" who disagree with you is ruining your life is a form of harassment!
Because they've ALWAYS had the 140char service. So what's changed? 120 char limit now?
orkut and Google+ were both nonstarters. Anyone who knows anything knows that.
But I guess I can turn on bold face to make myself look insightful!!!
Wrong. Orkut should have been picked by Google to start its social platform. It got to get some 600M users in places like Brazil and India. Google+ never showed such numbers.
Racism prevented Americans from joining. It could have been huge.
All those tech companies with their famously large cash hoards should have massive investor lawsuits over dividends -- but they don't. Why?
Because it's more tax-efficient and potentially higher return for companies to reinvest their profits into new development or acquisition. Google's purchase of (and further investment in) Android provided much better use of cash than if they had paid out a $50M dividend, which the recipient would then owe tax on. Instead the shares became more valuable due to the cash generating machine getting bigger.
When tech companies start paying out a dividend, it's a sign or surrender: "hey, we don't know how to invest this.... you can have it." See Cisco, Oracle, Apple, etc.
Yeah, racism... Ok.
[rolling of eyes]
Look, this time around, the pollsters were using their platforms to influence the election. They didn't use any data that would have cast any doubts on Queen Hellary. After the election they were crying, but before, they were campaigning.
It doesn't strike me as good business to not have a presidential candidate/president-elect on your platform.
Twitter isn't a good business. QED. So what do they care?
LOL, well, someone over there is trying, just not very successfully.
Twitter has been dying for years though; Trump ironically brought them back into the limelite, but they still could not profit from it.
The Unicorns will be next though, not Facebook.
The previous poster, "hipp5", may not be a Twitter user, but it sounds to me like he understands it better than most regular Twitter users do!
From the first day the service was announced, a lot of us "long timers" in computers and I.T. were left scratching our heads, wondering what the point was in the entire thing? I mean, Twitter was essentially nothing more than yet *another* IM client of sorts, except with arbitrarily short limits on the length of messages. I grant that there's a certain amount of value, in at least the artistic sense, in forcing people to communicate in very brief statements. It forces people to think before they write, and distill things down to the most succinct possible way to get a message across. But building a commercial platform on that and expecting huge profits would somehow follow? Not so much ....
As you can predict, people struggled to find more validity for Twitter as time went on. I saw everything from realtors shooting out updates about the latest properties to go on the market for sale to a laundromat that had Twitter enabled washing machines and dryers, so you could get an immediate notification when a machine was finished or available. But none of this really constituted a "killer app" for Twitter. Rather, it felt like "trying too hard" to prove it had value.
Now it's expanded to try to be more of a Facebook clone, where you can share links, video, audio .... whatever you like. But again, nothing that makes Twitter stand out as a unique tool, accomplishing something I can't already do elsewhere.
With 140 character ads!
The carrier jobs was possible because Mike Pence (the VP-Elect) is currently the Governor of Indiana, where those jobs are.
As fuck fucking up relations with China, the fact that they are building military installations off the Philippine coast suggests that ship sail long ago.
Actually, no. When Carrier first announced that relocation, Pence did contact them and ask if there was anything he could do to keep them there. They told him that it was a result of federal taxes and regulations that made them make this decision.
The difference after the Trump election is that he had his people look at them, and saw that Carrier's parent company United Technologies had millions or billions in government contracts. He used that, as well as other things as bargaining chips. While Pence, as governor, did provide tax breaks in this case, there was no way United was going to let Carrier sink their business, so they worked out a deal.
Pence did make an effort both before he was even the VP nominee, and after the election. The difference is that the first time, the only cards he had was the IN government. The second time, he had the future US government, and his boss knows how to cut a deal, which was a combination of carrots and sticks. The sticks threatened to be particularly painful, but the carrots were okay, and was IN tax $$$ being used to save a thousand IN jobs. Which is not an inappropriate usage of tax money
in relation to 'fake users' and 'data quality': ... not like twitter has the market cornered on 'fake users' or data issues. The real issue is what people expect is that the data is mine-able to provide any degree of quality output ...
"Garbage in, garbage out"
Why? Because of the input.
> Maybe Donald isn't as stupid as people think he is.
Given how many people have suffered humiliating losses to him, you'd think they'd figure out that though this be madness, yet there be method in it.
Of course it's easier on their pride if they keep quiet about that. But then they keep taking the bait, never seeing how they've been played for suckers.
The mods' sarcasm detectors appear to be faulty today.
Every time Twitter comes up on Slashdot someone goes on a rant about how its decline is all the fault of SJWs, safe-spaces or some other perceived PCness.
The fact that Twitter has never had a viable business model is apparently of no importance.
Paul Leader
Either you're intellectually dishonest or you're not aware of Twitter's shenanigans over the past year where they'd allowed horrifically racist commentary like "white people must die" or anti-Christian commentary yet banned the accounts of white people who communicated even the lightest of philosophical questions on race or religion.
Citing well-known "facts" that are actually disputable as if they aren't. The truthiness is strong with this one.
It's either all racist or it's not. It's either all anti-religious or it's not. Twitter became a selective judge and jury as to what constituted as racist based on the race and/or religion of the source and target.
Or there are shades of gray on both sides and there's no unquestionably clear line that everyone agrees on constituting violation of terms for the service. But your worldview is certainly simpler and easier to provoke and maintain outrage with. I'll give you that.
Maybe they've cleaned up their act since the summer, when you could easily find #BlackLivesMatters quotes that literally cried for the death of white people or from other groups crying for Allah to kill people... but the damage is already done. Twitter's actions stated 'this is who we are, this is who we support, this is who we don't support.'
Oh good, more truthiness. Maybe it was the thousands of Muslims in New Jersey that danced and cheered when the twin towers fell must have been the ones tweeting for Allah to kill people. We really should try to find those guys...
Every time Twitter comes up on Slashdot someone goes on a rant about how its decline is all the fault of SJWs, safe-spaces or some other perceived PCness.
The fact that Twitter has never had a viable business model. . .
Yeah because SJWs!
Didn't you know? Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out.
I think it's 100% due to the fact that they never even developed a solid plan to *one day* have money.
If ads didn't work for Facebook, they could still charge users $3 a year and be solvent. Reddit is scraping by with subscriptions and gifted "gold". Maybe if Twitter tried $.025 a year they'd be able to stay up.
Twitter could easily charge a monthly or yearly subscription fee, say USD2.99 per month or USD29.99 per year and change the character length to 256 characters not including spaces (multiple side-by-side spaces automatically collapse to a single space at time of submission) or better yet no count URLs as characters but limit of one URL per tweet plus 140 or 256 characters no including spaces.
I think it's impolite to suggest that Amimojo or Serviscope_minor don't exist.
they gather tons of personal information, do people really think that's not a viable business?
Many of the rules which result in suspensions and bans aren't uniformly enforced, all data coming out of the platform is going to skew left. Trends are regularly manipulated.
I can't imagine that data would be valuable.
The plan was to make money selling data. After all, its all they would have been able to do in the beginning, to amass data. The problem is, they amassed data. And it was mostly useless as they had no other data points to draw to. Now... they use tracking and shit like Farcebook and others, but its still useless since Farcebook and Google both are selling the exact same data with their own data added-in that Twitter cannot get to. So... no monetization there.
They have a platform with so many users. So, monetization should be easy. But its not. The base users do not want to pay for the service and will flock to another platform if they were told they'd have to pay... even though a free tier of 100 or even 1,000 tweets a month would likely cover around 70% of the remaining user base, most are there to read tweets, not make them. So you then charge based on followers. You monetize your whales and don't worry about the minnows. Businesses will pay, celebrities will pay. They have to, its too useful a tool now, too entrenched.
Under X number of followers - tweets are free, send all you like.
Above X number of followers - first XX number of tweets per month are free, then payment for batches of YY additional tweets.
or pay per tweet viewed
or pay premium tier pricing for unlimited tweets
Why this has NOT been done yet, I've no idea. Its literally the first thing that makes any kind of sense once you decide not to use advertising cause you fuckin realized your platform is actually a brand of advertising itself. Seriously... Twitter IS an ad company. Why do they not understand this?!?!?!? Its an ad network that... and this is the important part...
THE CUSTOMERS SIGN UP TO RECEIVE ADS DIRECTLY FROM!!!!!!!
If PT Barnum were alive today (and understood the Internet) he'd die laughing cause in this case the sucker born in this particular minute is the one who came up with Twitter. He'd admire that someone managed to create an ad network and then convinced the public to voluntarily sign up to be abused by it, then he'd die laughing cause they failed to make money from it when its so obvious how to do so.
It's been clear to a number of us that Twitter's primary users are more on the social side of the spectrum, lean more to the left, are engaged more in arts and all that, but all of the news snippets over the past year or so seem to come out after the company articulated publicly that they are more or less an SJW platform, that they're going to selectively ban questionable comments under the guise of anti-racism, etc., etc.
Maybe I'm wrong but the timelines literally suggest that Twitter's failure was its political alignment rather than providing a neutral grounds for socializing.
So what do you do when a popular user starts sending their followers to harass other users and driving people away from the service?
Complete neutrality isn't an option, if you don't enforce rules then the community will be overtaken by its most hostile members, and then Twitter really will be in trouble.
I stole this Sig
Youtube used to be famous for how much money it lost, now Google just fills it up with ads and it's crazily profitable.
And the thing with youtube is it doesn't really have a community, it's just a place for people to post videos they generally share elsewhere, and there's no good reason for people to keep sticking with youtube and all its ads other than the fact they're used to it and are willing to tolerate the ads.
I don't see why Twitter can't just start spamming ads until they're profitable, if their user base is like every other user base of a major service they'll grumble and stick around.
I stole this Sig
How can the official information channel of the POTUS be worthless?
Those are all valid things, except the boogie man.
Complete neutrality isn't an option, if you don't enforce rules then the community will be overtaken by its most hostile members, and then Twitter really will be in trouble.
Twitter is already in real trouble. The community is already overtaken by its most hostile members. They did not enforce the rules equally.
Twitter allowing a virtual and very public lynching when someone said #allLivesMatter in aid of a charity very clearly displays that Twitter considers a minority ideology more important than the maintaining a mass of users.
Twitter allowed itself to be steered by a vocal minority and is likely going to get punished for it by the silent majority. Same as recent US election.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
"pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. "
*SMACKS HEAD* No it shows the ANALYSIS of the data is wrong, but the Analysts reading the data want to keep their jobs and how many of them have managed large online community background?
Anyone that's ever managed a forum and watched noobs fall to trolling click bait would have told you Trump would win based on Twitter's data. Every "new Thread" of thought (or Hashtag) was about Trump. Everyone enjoyed hating him so much it was like the Media wanted this to be Darth Sidious vs Jar Jar Drumph rather than DAPL or other present issues. The Media has become click bait lazy feeding false controversy for viewership rather than hold officials and companies to task. It's all about advertiser friendly narrative their producers want to push to meet revenue, it's not about giving the American people quality leadership. No single person in the media feels any sense of responsibility for that outside of CSPAN and where is the ratings in that?
What we have here is naked confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Leading to an availability cascade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade
Forums have a majority of low quality activity in flame war threads about off topic discussions. Those aren't the signals community managers listen to. Nor are they the issues driving voting. In fact you typically ban a troll rather than give him a microphone, otherwise he'll PWON you with his fans.
Community is built around shared interest and the subtle fabric of tribal beliefs and home economics (Clay Shirky "Here comes Everybody" is all about that). Twitter is like a public radio for people now and that has benefit that certainly could be monetized better. But this election isn't Twitter's fault. It's not about Fake News or Bad Data. Everyone is looking for blame and not looking in the mirror.
The signals were misread with staggering self-righteous hubris and that's the media's ego for being wrong.
Analysis error is not a data problem.
I associate Twitter and its investors with "Providing a platform for Islamic State", "Active persecution and harassment of certain ethnicities and political stances", "Condoning and allowing witch hunts", "Refusal to remove child pornography until the demand was trending nationally", and "Condoning doxxing".
I knew this was the future of Twitter when they started showing how liberal they were. Why would I want to support them? Google's obvious support of Clinton made it so they are no longer my "go to" search platform for the same reason.
This!
Contrary to the jewish conspiracy, the SJW do exist and they are even more dangerous than most could possibly imagine.
I saw it firsthand during gamergate where the simple call for more journalistic integrity (really, just not sleeping with the people you report on would have been enough) was answered by the SJW with a torrent of abuse, slurs, doxxing and death threats.
And of course while we do now finally have at least some integrity in gaming journalism, the SJW also succeeded in tainting this peacful rebellion to make everyone believe that it was about hating women who play/develop videogames, when this had nothing to do with it.
The evil male mysoginist gamers even donated so much money to a feminist foundation that they got to name a mascot after them, Vivian James.
Its funny to read the wikipedia article on it and to check the sources: most point to Gawker and its many subsites for "evidence" of women hating, when it was them who were in the center of the debate for more journalistic integrity. Thats like citing "Mein Kampf" as a source for an article on worldwide jewery.
Twitter is a neutral ground for socializing?
Folks getting doxxed, women told they are bitches and SJW just for participating and contributing to tech
Who are these left-leaning "primary users" you speak of. They restored the account of the white nationalist leader, Richard Spencer FFS.
Every time Twitter comes up on Slashdot someone goes on a rant about how its decline is all the fault of SJWs
True, but I'm pretty sure that's because any time any subject comes up on Slashdot someone goes into a rant about how something is all the fault of SJWs. It's the new "BSD is dying".
The only way Twitter is going to be in trouble is if people read stories like this and believe it. Then, investors freak out and pull out. Then they will go bankrupt and guess who saves the day? Facebook. -_-. Agents are trying to get Twitter into trouble because they revoked the government's API keys for tracking software that they used. Facebook, the almighty private life spy God, steps in to "save the day," just like they did with Whatsapp after being accused as a platform for ISIS communication. Twitter was also asked to help keep a log of Muslim users and they refused. They also refuse on many occasions to take down users because of free speech, hateful or not; it's all relative anyway. That's all this is and won't be anything more if people had half an ounce of intelligence to it buy into this crap.
No, what is toast is the 13th century economic operating system that we continue trying to upgrade without examining why a 21st century digital economy can't run on it any longer...
Douglas Rushkoff, "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBrRvkPvvJg
Published on May 31, 2016
"The digital economy has gone wrong. Everybody knows it, but no one knows quite how to fix it, or even how to explain the problem. Workers lose to automation, investors lose to algorithms, musicians lose to power law dynamics, drivers lose to Uber, neighborhoods lose to Airbnb, and even tech developers lose their visions to the demands of the startup economy.
Douglas Rushkoff argues that it doesn't have to be this way. This isn't the fault of digital technology at all, but the way we are deploying it: instead of building the distributed digital economy these new networks could foster, we are doubling down on the industrial age mandate for growth above all. As Rushkoff will show, this is more the legacy of early corporatism and central currency than a feature of digital technology. In his words, "we are running a 21st century digital economy on a 13th Century printing-press era operating system."
Here's how we went wrong, why we did it, and how we can reprogram the digital economy and our businesses from the inside out to promote sustainable prosperity for pretty much everyone."