|
|
|
|
|
|
by mschuster91
807 days ago
|
|
|
> This sounds disanalogous to me. When you post on twitter, you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following. As someone who co-runs a >>70k account: Yes, that is possible, but it's very very rare for those creating a following primarily via Twitter to actually make money with it. Maybe if you got an 0nlyfans account. Meanwhile, the content you create lures in other people and with them, eyeballs that Twitter can make money with by selling advertising time to these people. > Meanwhile, twitter has the costs of paying for servers and infrastructure and salaries of those required to support the site The legitimate costs required to run something like Twitter or Whatsapp can be pretty darn small. Whatsapp ran with 50 employees up until 1 billion (!) users [1]. The point is to not unfocus too much - for all the bad Musk did to Twitter, he did show that there indeed was a lot of dead weight hanging around the place, no wonder it was hemorraging money. [1] https://blog.quastor.org/p/whatsapp-scaled-1-billion-users-5... |
|
|
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.