Without those controversial tweets, Twitter would rarely be in much of the public's mind, and the company would have continued its slow slide into irrelevance. As it is, barely a day goes by without "Twitter" being mentioned in national news.
That's the issue for SM sites like Twitter et al: going from early adopters to mass appeal. As much as some people hate Trump, his tweets likely got a lot of the 300 million non-SF, LA, NYC users involved.
I might be off on user uptake, but the mainstreaming of Twitter is vital for their ad-based model, so anything that appeals beyond the liberal elites is going to be solid for their bottom line.
Exactly. So it has mass appeal :)
That's the sad reality. The Kardasians aren't popular because of people with a brain. Mass appeal matters.
They probably suspend a lot of people every single day, but we don’t notice it.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
I'm not bothered about big Silicon Valley companies, but it can't be easy to satisfy both sides and keep making more money.
Twitter suspends or shadowbans quite a few people, at least if what a fair few people online are saying is true. Not sure their logic behind who exactly they suspend though. Conservatives say they get accounts suspended more, liberals say it's them etc.
https://www.rt.com/news/407919-twitter-multi-million-offer-r...
They claim that in return for $1.5m upfront spend during the elections, Twitter would promote Russia Today's tweets and provide them with an inhouse team to curate content and provide strategy. For $500K extra, Twitter would promote RT's moments to 60 Million users. There was an offer for a $3.3m total ad spend.
But it should be pointed out that would not feed into this quarter's revenues, as it was for late 2016. And the story all depends on whether you believe the slide deck from RT is genuine or not.
(There's a separate HN discussion about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15566663 )
He's run both companies for awhile now, Twitter has basically been stagnant. Doesn't he supposedly work like 80 hours a week anyway? It's already a full time job. Examples from 2011 and 2016:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/13/technology/dorsey_techonomy/...
http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-explains-his-18-h...
Here is he 5 years apart, marketing himself. So if he's actually working 80 hours a week, where are the results? What has Twitter done over the last seven years? He wants to have his cake and eat it, too, yeah?
And here I am, trying to find just one job in tech that's only 40 hours a week.
a handler is somebody who makes the blue check feel comfortable on the platform, e.g. banning people who disagree with them
http://www.businessinsider.com/realdonaldtrump-data-suggests...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10...
Edit:
- For the uninformed: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...
- Archives: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tay_Tweets/top/?sort=top&t=all
Seb Gorka
>Mr Gorka denied any anti-Semitism in his family.
>He said his father had protected Jewish boys wearing yellow stars on the way to school as a child. When Communists took power, he supplied information to MI6 before being arrested, tortured and imprisoned (possibly betrayed by Kim Philby). He arrived in the UK after escaping during the 1956 uprising.
How exactly is that "self-proclaimed" when he is denying it.
Or he wore it to reflect his family history and as an anti-communist symbol....
Since nowaday, nazi ideology has several sides, xenophobic, antisemitic, racist ant anti-feminist (i might forgot some), he might agree on at least one, and if you're dead set on defending him you can say he is only xenophobic or something, and the other part of neonazism, he doesn't support, but are you really believing that he wore this to say "i'm anti-communist"? If he did, he must have been seriously misinformed (and anyone this out of touch, honestly, deserve to be kicked of of any job that require you to understand history).
Please do not go tribal on Hn.
Genocidal doesn't necessarily mean he's committed genocide; it means that he's prone to (and to some extent, fascinated by) mass acts of killing. The tweets about promising fire and fury on an entire nation of people (North Korea), telling Fox that we need to kill the terrorist families as well, etc. He gets off feeling like he's the most powerful man in the world.
He's a strongman, whose solutions often involve labeling entire categories of people as bad/evil (Muslims, Mexicans, the media). If you haven't noticed this you're either not paying attention or willfully ignorant.
Generally, threatening war (and generally even going to war) is not considered genocide.
>and to some extent, fascinated by
We don't call people murderers just because they like watching CSI Miami.
In fact, the person Trump was threatening with his "fire and fury" remarks legitimately IS genocidal and has ACTIVE CONCENTRATION CAMPS in his country. Yet you think it's more important to criticize Trump for entering into a war of words, rather than the dictator himself?
Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve the deaths of many innocent North Koreans, since North Korean artillery is spread widely throughout the southern part of the country. That is tragic, and no small part of why we've allowed this madness to go on for so long. But at some point a people must protect their security, and do what must be done.
Too bad there is not a true democracy in the US.
> Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve the deaths of many innocent North Koreans,
How about we concentrate on their leadership, instead of 'spraying and praying'?
If you're curious, I am on the left.
And yet, if I had to choose between a million North Koreans, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, and tens of thousands of American soldiers, dying in a pre-emptive war - versus all that plus a few million more Americans and North Koreans dying in a nuclear exchange... Well, it's an obvious choice.
North Korea is approaching the point of being able to achieve mutually assured destruction. They could build a cobalt bomb, or spend a decade building ICBMS, but relatively soon the problem will be intractable and we will play nuclear chicken with an unstable murderous dictatorial regime.
Similarly we say someone is "suicidal" but that doesn't mean they have committed suicide.
Having or displaying an attitude or a policy that could kill lots of people(presumably the OP is referring to North Korea" can be correctly labeled genocidal.
What?
It is no surprise that Trump won when his name can't be mentioned without an absolutely asinine, incorrect comment following it. Addressing dishonesty with hyperbole is not helping anyone.
Again, trying to justify your strong feelings about Trump by fabricating these insane narratives does nothing but hurt you and your political causes.
This is the first time we've ever interacted and you're projecting my feelings? Great, we're off to a good start here.
From there, I'm "fabricating a narrative" because I implied that casually threatening to kill millions of people on twitter might be what someone else was referring to as "genocidal"?
You know what is WAY more disingenuous than calling killing millions of people "genocide"? Implying that a first strike which would kill millions of people has nothing to do with killing millions of people. Now THAT would be disingenuous.
And, just to throw a cherry on the top of those other weird behaviors, you tell me I'm doing nothing but hurting my political causes, when you don't know what they are.
Couldn't you at least have the self awareness to realize that just because you get cranky when someone calls threatening to kill millions of people "genocide" does not actually mean that all points that person makes somehow lose credibility with all other human beings on earth...because you said so...?
You responded to my questioning by trying to qualify the argument with his Twitter antics. Since you're supporting the argument (or at least trying to justify the sentiment of labeling something that wouldn't be a genocide a genocide), I think we can reasonably assume that you're not a fan of Trump's idea of a first strike. The tone of your writing heavily implies that, so if you're actually in support of (or not directly opposed to) a first strike, but simultaneously argue that people could reasonably mistake a first strike for a deliberate, focused genocide, a small disclaimer that you're arguing in support of two dissonant ideas really helps people understand what you're trying to say. Similarly, unless your political alignment and actual viewpoints on the subject are highly dissonant, your politics are pretty easy to extrapolate.
To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), there is no indication that Trump has any intention to eradicate the North Korean people. To argue that Trump's intention with a first strike would be to eradicate the North Korean people would require you to fabricate reasoning behind such an action. To argue that someone is justified in the genocide argument is to admit that they're fabricating that reasoning or narrative.
Not even once did I try to minimize the casualties a first strike would have.
I never said that the original argument was necessarily wrong. I did say that the general populace will make arguments to logic, and making individual points that are blatantly wrong except in the most liberal interpretation of the wording just enables the general populace to do so.
a) Not do that.
b) Ask them what their views are if you're actually curious.
Cheers.
> Trump's interest in a first strike has nothing to do with eradicating the North Korean people.
How was it again?
> Addressing dishonesty with hyperbole is not helping anyone.
Oh. Right.
I think both of you are failing to convince anyone.
So just like every other news outlet out there? If it bleeds it leads and all that.
You realize that even if he was Hitler himself, we have multiple branches of government to counteract his power.
What are you talking about? Before Trump was a thing, Twitter was routinely mentioned in the news. It was the lazy source of react quotes: "Today, X tragedy happened in town Y. 'UnrelatedPerson' on twitter said 'what a tragedy'".
The name is more prominent now, sure, but it already was routinely reported in the news.
It's now "Today, Trump said X about Y on Twitter".
But Twitter derives business value from recommending people follow Trump on their platform, so they'll keep doing that. Strikes me as selling out - would've preferred they not recommend any political leaders.
A user compiled an absolute SUPER LIST of the best people to follow, and now my feed is full of really interesting information, diverse viewpoints, and stuff I wouldn't find anywhere else.
This one account was kind of the tipping point for me, finding GOOD TWITTER
Another great one from that list is @FermatsLibrary
If I hit 60 it's one in one out and I have to think about which one to drop, that way I keep a feed that updates relatively slowly, is useful and full of content I actually am interested in.
If you follow too many you loose far too much wheat in the chaff.