zlacker

Twitter was already struggling with right wing nutjobs and banana republics before El Muskrat got into the mix. Beyond that, Twitter was absolutely struggling to monetize eyeballs. While it wasn't about to implode in the short-term I don't think anyone expected Twitter to stick around long-term without significant changes. El Muskrat just doused the whole thing in acetone and dropped a big fat blunt on it.

>>inferi+(OP)
> Beyond that, Twitter was absolutely struggling to monetize eyeballs.

It was struggling in the "big tech megaprofit" way, not in the "pay for the servers" way.

>>Dylan1+Y1
Twitter was profitable for, what, a single quarter in 2019? That's not sustainable. But yeah we're talking years before a major cash crunch not weeks. Elno accelerated that timeline pretty dramatically.

>>inferi+(OP)
I agree with this! My point was that Twitter was not destined to fail: it had (has!) hundreds of millions of high-value users who treated (treat!) it as a news and culture feed. They made lots of money off of those users; the fact that they weren't more regularly profitable is an indictment of management rather than the fundamental business model.

This entire thing is an extended farce in two acts: (1) Twitter's leadership's inability to turn a highly addictive social media network into a regular money fountain, and (2) the sale of a potential regular money fountain to the single least qualified person possible.

>>inferi+Y2
Their revenue was growing at a pretty good pace and as of 2021 it only needed a few more percent to meet costs.

>>Dylan1+Mu
If pigs had wings they could fly, but they don't so they can't. Almost profitable is not actually profitable, and Twitter was profitable for a brief moment in time with no indication that it was or would be sustainable.

>>inferi+mI
I don't think "keep that trend for six more months and then everything is good" is pigs flying.