Twitter 'business model' - from engineer who works there via Project Veritas

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

I'd imagine the data licensing is an avenue that could be expanded greatly since it only got them $571.8 million last fiscal year. If you've never run a Twitter ad campaign before, the amount of hyper targeting you can do for ads is pretty staggering, so you know they have a ton of data on each individual user. Especially when it comes to the interests of users. You don't tell Twitter what you're interested in anywhere in your settings, it's machine learning based on your Twitter activity, and they probably do a ton of off-site tracking of users so they can learn that way too.

And they've never tapped into the e-commerce game either like Facebook and Instagram have, for example. They could rack up hundreds of millions by charging a commission for people to sell goods and services on there.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

One more rant. If, say in 1998, some message board poster said they were going to sue AOL.com because a post was taken down they would've been laughed off the internet. It's a ridiculous idea because it's frivolous. Somewhere along the line the lines between internet and real life blurred.n So much so that there are even certain people claiming "Twitter is a utility." I have never seen so much respect for a web application than claiming it's so crucial that "it's a utility." Never mind that any human with an IQ over 100 can make their own website, it's that Twitter is popular, so it MUST be THAT website that the government must seize and control.

Ironically, Russia agrees. Their takeover of VK (The Russian Facebook) followed this exact line of thinking.

Because in 1998 that would've been ridiculous, but times change. Today it's necessary.

At the end of 2018 less than 40% of American households had landline phones. That's almost surely dominated by the elderly. So after covid and 4 more years, that number is probably down to about 25%.

How many have a social media account? Facebook boasts 2.93 billion monthly active users.

People use social media to communicate way more than they use a landline phone. A landline phone doesn't listen to your call and cut you off when you say something the phone company doesn't like. Neither should social media.

 

[Bill Cosby]

One more rant. If, say in 1998, some message board poster said they were going to sue AOL.com because a post was taken down they would've been laughed off the internet. It's a ridiculous idea because it's frivolous. Somewhere along the line the lines between internet and real life blurred.n So much so that there are even certain people claiming "Twitter is a utility." I have never seen so much respect for a web application than claiming it's so crucial that "it's a utility." Never mind that any human with an IQ over 100 can make their own website, it's that Twitter is popular, so it MUST be THAT website that the government must seize and control.

Ironically, Russia agrees. Their takeover of VK (The Russian Facebook) followed this exact line of thinking.

Well in 1998 Section 230 had already been passed.

It’s not a free speech issue. Twitter should be free to censor whatever content it likes. However, if it has the ability to censor content it disagrees with, it is tacitly endorsing everything it allows to be posted.

If Twitter is going to ban the president of the United States because it disagrees with his message, Twitter should be held liable for all the insane radical ramblings it allows to be posted, free of censorship. Section 230 came about in a different era, under an assumed reality that no longer exists.

Bottom line, if Twitter continuously censors truthful content it disagrees with, but chooses to allow the platform to be used for violent radical content (it must agree with), all federal liability protections should be removed.

 

[bkingUK]

Because in 1998 that would've been ridiculous, but times change. Today it's necessary.

At the end of 2018 less than 40% of American households had landline phones. That's almost surely dominated by the elderly. So after covid and 4 more years, that number is probably down to about 25%.

How many have a social media account? Facebook boasts 2.93 billion monthly active users.

People use social media to communicate way more than they use a landline phone. A landline phone doesn't listen to your call and cut you off when you say something the phone company doesn't like. Neither should social media.

So, what you're saying is that if an application reaches a certain level of success, then it's justified for the government to regulate and decide what is allowable? Or no?

 

[bkingUK]

Well in 1998 Section 230 had already been passed.

It’s not a free speech issue. Twitter should be free to censor whatever content it likes. However, if it has the ability to censor content it disagrees with, it is tacitly endorsing everything it allows to be posted.

If Twitter is going to ban the president of the United States because it disagrees with his message, Twitter should be held liable for all the insane radical ramblings it allows to be posted, free of censorship. Section 230 came about in a different era, under an assumed reality that no longer exists.

Bottom line, if Twitter continuously censors truthful content it disagrees with, but chooses to allow the platform to be used for violent radical content (it must agree with), all federal liability protections should be removed.

Okay, let me ask a hypothetical.

In your world, Twitter is not allowed to make judgment calls on content. Meanwhile, let's imagine there is a Twitter user on a daily basis advocating for bringing back the Holocaust. Let's assume this user's popularity soars and the ideas become popular.

To be clear, we are saying Twitter can take no action, even if such people put their company at risk?

 

[Bill Cosby]

Okay, let me ask a hypothetical.

In your world, Twitter is not allowed to make judgment calls on content. Meanwhile, let's imagine there is a Twitter user on a daily basis advocating for bringing back the Holocaust. Let's assume this user's popularity soars and the ideas become popular.

To be clear, we are saying Twitter can take no action, even if such people put their company at risk?

No, you misunderstood. Twitter could ban that person from their platform. In fact Twitter should ban that person or face liability for any damage caused by the violent content it posts on its platform.

 

[bkingUK]

No, you misunderstood. Twitter could ban that person from their platform. In fact Twitter should ban that person or face liability for any damage caused by the violent content it posts on its platform.

How could Twitter make such decisions if they aren't allowed to judge the content of posts is my point? Let's say they aren't advocating killing of jews, but promoting a new age KKK. Is that allowed?

 

[Bill Cosby]

How could Twitter make such decisions if they aren't allowed to judge the content of posts is my point? Let's say they aren't advocating killing of jews, but promoting a new age KKK. Is that allowed?

It’s not about allowing them to do anything. They are either a platform that cannot (cannot in the sense that it’s impossible for them to do, not barred by law) regulate content, and allow anything to be posted uncensored, or they do have the ability (as they’ve shown) to regulate content they disagree with and should be liable for anything that’s posted they do not censor.

If Twitter can judge content, whether new KKK or otherwise, and allows that to be posted while censoring ideas it disagrees with (as it has by banning the president of the United States while allowing Hezbollah and other organizations it agrees with to freely post) it should be legally liable for damage caused by the content it posts.

 

[bkingUK]

It’s not about allowing them to do anything. They are either a platform that cannot (cannot in the sense that it’s impossible for them to do, not barred by law) regulate content, and allow anything to be posted uncensored, or they do have the ability (as they’ve shown) to regulate content they disagree with and should be liable for anything that’s posted they do not censor.

If Twitter can judge content, whether new KKK or otherwise, and allows that to be posted while censoring ideas it disagrees with (as it has by banning the president of the United States while allowing Hezbollah and other organizations it agrees with to freely post) it should be legally liable for damage caused by the content it posts.

Typically, this is where this conversation goes, suggesting that Twitter can't enforce their policies as they fit because they are a platform. Except they can and they do.

But do you not see the contradiction in your claim? Obviously Twitter must make subjective judgment calls.

There is also difference between the KKK and Hezbollah. I am not claiming Hezbollah is a great organization, but that's not a binary choice.

And that's the point. Regulation of subjective enforcement of policy is a FAR WORSE alternative than letting corporations decide on their own. It's literally impossible to enforce policy with out subjective determination.

 

[JDHoss]

1. Just like Rivals.com, Twitter allows speech with in boundaries dictated by company policy. If that policy is unconstitutional, sue them. Except you'll lose. Why? Because they aren't your servers and you have no constitutional right to use their servers. Free speech does not exist in the vacuum of Twitter.

I used to moderate a high school sports message board back in the late 90's - early 2000's. It was amazing how many people didn't understand what free speech is, and how they also didn't understand the "Terms of Service" agreement that they clicked 'Agree" on to be able to post. Of course, most of them never read the first word of it, and even if they had, they wouldn't have understood it, or at least didn't think the rules applied to them, much like people today. The messages/emails I got from half-wits threatening to sue were hilarious.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Typically, this is where this conversation goes, suggesting that Twitter can't enforce their policies as they fit because they are a platform. Except they can and they do.

But do you not see the contradiction in your claim? Obviously Twitter must make subjective judgment calls.

There is also difference between the KKK and Hezbollah. I am not claiming Hezbollah is a great organization, but that's not a binary choice.

And that's the point. Regulation of subjective enforcement of policy is a FAR WORSE alternative than letting corporations decide on their own. It's literally impossible to enforce policy with out subjective determination.

You are misunderstanding.

The argument is to remove current federal regulation and protection. The federal government should not be involved.

If you agree with Hezbollah, and disagree with the KKK, fine, ban KKk content from your platform, but if you allow Hezbollah to post (or any violent domestic organizations) you should be liable for damage caused by that content.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Basically, I want Twitter tied up in lawsuits until it goes bankrupt which will prevent any other social media company like it from ever existing again. The societal damage far outweighs any benefit. Worse than big tobacco, asbestos, etc.

 

[IdaCat]

 

[SDC8888]

 

[P19978]

You liberals don't seem to understand the difference between "content provider" and "publisher".

 

[hmt5000]

So Twitter is a dark web boogeyman for you. Got it. Also, I'm not justifying the Biden is a pedo obsession some of you have. That's some far right wing Political Thread BS and it's beyond bizarre. Back in the day, people would just say they hate the current POTUS. Now, we've gotta write articles about them being pedophiles too. Someone's sick, and it ain't the old dude that beat your old dude.


Point taken I guess, but the "calling a girl ugly" scenario is oddly specific and a very third grade troll scenario. Why would anyone call a girl ugly on social media? Again, oddly specific scenario there. Speaking of that, I'm not sure I buy someone getting banned for calling a girl (we talking teenage girl?) ugly either. Matt Jones posts some of the stuff he gets, from people wishing cancer on him to attacking his faith, and in every case, the person who sent the tweet ends up deleting it or their entire account themselves.

So have you ever touched an 8yo girls nipple area that you just met? Not sure if you haven't seen the video or you're denying that there are videos out there of him touching children in creepy ways. Just seems weird to bring up when Project Veritas was raided by the FBI for having Joes daughter's diary. In that diary she described showers with her dad in her teens where he touched her inappropriately. The FBI raid said it was stolen from the daughter so they verified it was her words.





I get playing "its just politics" but everyone should be able to call out this creepy crap. It says more about you that you can turn a blind eye because it's not "Your Guy".

 

[IdaCat]

They were never the "party of kindness". They just don't even pretend they are anymore.

The entire leftist movement is propped up by social media bots and divisive MSM propaganda pushing liars. Take that away and the whole thing would collapse leaving only a minority of far left nutf**ks.

 

[TortElvisII]

You liberals don't seem to understand the difference between "content provider" and "publisher".

Nor male and female.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Will be interesting to see what happens with this deal since it seems pretty unlikely to get through due diligence at least in it's current iteration. Only two things can happen: either the deal is modified or called off.

If it's called off, then there could be litigation to either enforce it or avoid it. I would be surprised if Twitter sues. They might talk tough but they certainly dont want discovery and dont really want to sell to musk anyway.

 

[IdaCat]

 

[Pickle_Rick]

O'Keefe- the last bastion of truth. lmfao

Yeah, because having videotape of the malefactors confessing to the crimes and abuses that they perpetrate is strictly white supremecy.

 

[TortElvisII]

Yeah, because having videotape of the malefactors confessing to the crimes and abuses that they perpetrate is strictly white supremecy.

Truth is bad. James still thinks Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation.

 

[BMoore2]

Not a fan of Twitter or Facebook and hope both platforms fade away.

 

[bkingUK]

You liberals don't seem to understand the difference between "content provider" and "publisher".

Please explain.

 

[jameslee32]

Yeah, because having videotape of the malefactors confessing to the crimes and abuses that they perpetrate is strictly white supremecy.

Couldn't care less about his edited video. He's got one heck of a resume though. lmfao

 

[hmt5000]

Please explain.

the phone co can't censor my phone calls because they disagree with my speech. The newspaper can be sued because of a story they publish if they know it to false or defamatory.

If twitter was boosting and shadow banning and selectively enforcing rules then they are acting as a publisher instead of a platform.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

I think these videos are more nothing burger from pv. Everyone knew they didn't believe in free speech. Noone really cares about how much an it guy works or doesn't.

The real story is the obviously and intentionally misrepresented number of users. That's where the focus should be and musk and his team of lawyers can get to the bottom of it; or at least in pretty deep.

 

[bkingUK]

the phone co can't censor my phone calls because they disagree with my speech. The newspaper can be sued because of a story they publish if they know it to false or defamatory.

If twitter was boosting and shadow banning and selectively enforcing rules then they are acting as a publisher instead of a platform.

Twitter is not the phone lines. Your ISP is the phone lines. Twitter is a 24 hour phone chat line in your scenario.

And again, I see people making these claims, but then if this is the law, I see no victorious cases against Twitter. That’s because the people getting banned typically are breaking terms of service. So, they have no case.

 

[bkingUK]

I think these videos are more nothing burger from pv. Everyone knew they didn't believe in free speech. Noone really cares about how much an it guy works or doesn't.

The real story is the obviously and intentionally misrepresented number of users. That's where the focus should be and musk and his team of lawyers can get to the bottom of it; or at least in pretty deep.

There were similar numbers on that years ago. Shouldn’t surprise anyone.

 

[Nightwish84]

So have you ever touched an 8yo girls nipple area that you just met? Not sure if you haven't seen the video or you're denying that there are videos out there of him touching children in creepy ways. Just seems weird to bring up when Project Veritas was raided by the FBI for having Joes daughter's diary. In that diary she described showers with her dad in her teens where he touched her inappropriately. The FBI raid said it was stolen from the daughter so they verified it was her words.





I get playing "its just politics" but everyone should be able to call out this creepy crap. It says more about you that you can turn a blind eye because it's not "Your Guy".

Holy **** part II my man, I'm not going to delve into 8 year old nipple conversation with you and the like who are seriously obsessed with pedophilia. Disney, Biden, Hollywood, the Clinton's...is there anyone who isn't a pedophile to you at this point? You guys weren't this upset when the Catholic Church was raping children for generations. Priorities, get them and put them in proper order before you create a YouTube series called "Pedos N You".

 

[hmt5000]

Holy **** part II my man, I'm not going to delve into 8 year old nipple conversation with you and the like who are seriously obsessed with pedophilia. Disney, Biden, Hollywood, the Clinton's...is there anyone who isn't a pedophile to you at this point? You guys weren't this upset when the Catholic Church was raping children for generations. Priorities, get them and put them in proper order before you create a YouTube series called "Pedos N You".

LOL. OK. head in the sand so it doesn't exist. Sleep well my man.

 

[phunterd]

- Hey, that dude is groping a child. Might want to do something about that
- Woah, woah, woah Mr, Pedophile Obsessed.
- Uh, that dude is groping a child?
- Yeah, ok, I’m done talking about child groping with you.

 

[jameslee32]

Holy **** part II my man, I'm not going to delve into 8 year old nipple conversation with you and the like who are seriously obsessed with pedophilia. Disney, Biden, Hollywood, the Clinton's...is there anyone who isn't a pedophile to you at this point? You guys weren't this upset when the Catholic Church was raping children for generations. Priorities, get them and put them in proper order before you create a YouTube series called "Pedos N You".

I know this is The Paddock but I had no idea that guy was THAT into the Deep State Qook stuff until today.

 

[hmt5000]

I know this is The Paddock but I had no idea that guy was THAT into the Deep State Qook stuff until today.

Litter Ali posted a video of it. You could watch it but you'd probably crank one out to it.

 

[Pickle_Rick]

Twitter is not the phone lines. Your ISP is the phone lines. Twitter is a 24 hour phone chat line in your scenario.

And again, I see people making these claims, but then if this is the law, I see no victorious cases against Twitter. That’s because the people getting banned typically are breaking terms of service. So, they have no case.

this is absolutely correct. You're stupid for suing them. You're even more stupid for being on the platform. However, whenever a freespeech site does open up, they are shut down by the lib's in a matter of weeks because they cannot bare the thought of anyone being off their plantation.

 

[Pickle_Rick]

I know this is The Paddock but I had no idea that guy was THAT into the Deep State Qook stuff until today.

If there was no Deep State pedophile cabal, how come the only person to spend time in jail for consorting with Jeffery Epstein is Ghislaine Maxwell?

Next, you're gonna tell us that Libs of Tik Tok hacked all those "private" vines of teachers bragging about how they ***** up their kids and classrooms.

 

[Pickle_Rick]

Couldn't care less about his edited video. He's got one heck of a resume though. lmfao

OH NOES!!! He edits out the mishagosh!!! Sorta like what PlannedParenthood cried about when he caught them pricing baby parts... it got so tiresome he released the entire video... and he just edited the nonsense stuff out... lulls in the conversation, conversation about their cat puking on the rug... that sort of thing. Not like CNN, or MSNBC or any liberal outlet that edits and splices just for hot takes and missing context. Sorta like your lies about Trump talking about Charlotteville riots. Read the whole transcript... he didn't say the KKK had some nice people, but every liberal idiot will swear he did. As you will if you repy, bcause you dare not go against your woke friends because if THEY foundout, you would next in the barrel.

 

[jameslee32]

O'Keefe's contemporaries are back! Wait for it...

 

[MegaBlue05]

Not a fan of Twitter or Facebook and hope both platforms fade away.

I agree.

It’s given every idiot a platform and fostered the fallacy that all opinions are equally valid.

Doesn’t matter the side of the aisle, but there’s so much misinformation, disinformation and outright ******** floating around that neither “side” is rooted in reality. One promotes ideology through emotional appeals (bleeding hearts), the other uses fear (something is being taken from us).

Reading the news of the day has been replaced with scrolling through memes and believing they’re all factual.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Probably the best thing you could do for your health.. is to avoid social media. Don't sign up for the next big thing. Let it consume everyone else. It's damn near poison, and I bet it does the same amount of damage (albeit, in a different medium) than smoking cigs does.