Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Twitter is reportedly in conversation with a number of tech companies for a potential sale. According to CNBC, the social company is in talks with the likes of Google and cloud computing company...
The suiters [sic] courting Twitter are said to be interested in the data the company generates from its 313 million active users. However, sources say that, while conversations are ongoing and picking up steam, there's no assurance that a deal will be inked. As a result, Twitter's stocks have soared as high as 23 percent based on the news. Meanwhile, TechCrunch reports that the company has just lost two key staffers, including head of TV Andrew Adashek.
Source: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13028616/twitter-sale-talks-google-salesforce
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:34AM
All tech companies merge with Microsoft by 2047. We're right on track for the Tycho Uprising in 2062.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:39AM
When was the last time you saw a buyout do anything to an Internet-based company except send it to the shitheap even quicker than the poor management that made it vulnerable to being bought out in the first place?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:51AM
Basic income will eliminate the need for mergers and businesses and money. Basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income. But don't take away Twitter because I need my Twitter for followers.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:59AM
You exceeded the 140 character limit. Basic income.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:37AM
Off-topic, but I'm responding anyways.
Basic income is only required when there are no jobs. The only reason why there are no jobs in America is because c-suits destined for Hell, have outsourced it all. Automation is set to start taking away some service jobs, but the industry and reasearch jobs can all come right back to us over a few years.
The answer is a LIVING WAGE, which also implies, that you still work for a living. You just work for what you need, instead of dramatically less than what you need. What you want is then negotiable with your employer ABOVE what you NEED.
Furthermore, basic income can be said to be a form of Socialism which many don't like, while Living Wage is simply Capitalism and Progressive at the same time.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:11AM
So brilliant you are, you burn my eyes!
There's no motivation to pay a living wage to workers or a basic income to the jobless because both groups have no bargaining power whatsoever. If a worker drone gets uppity or grows old, you fire the fucker, worker becomes the jobless, and jobless starves to death as an example to the worker drones not to get fucking uppity or grow old. There's no shortage of young naive idiots who want to become worker drones for a tiny pittance.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:56AM
By implementing a living wage, you essentially destroy the only redeeming parts of capitalism: markets and price signals. You have distorted the market by introducing a floor below which no labor will take place, and you have destroyed price signals by not allowing products (in this case labor) to be sold at a loss.
One of the arguments for basic income is that it has the least amount of distortions to markets (the effects are too diffuse across the range of the economy) and price signals (labor is sold at what the market will bear while minimizing the exploitive aspects).
In fact, basic income can reduce overhead as different parts of the economy transitions from outdated industries to hopefully newer ones.
You don't even need a crystal to predict where the changes will occur (much like the Fed does now with interest rates)- it's baked into the system from the start.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday September 26 2016, @08:25PM
Then destroyed they must be.
At no time is it acceptable, wise, or ethical to allow somebody to work for less than a living wage. It is so unacceptable because as a society we are simply incapable of allowing people to die horribly in the street. It bothers us deeply to see homeless people around us, and those deeply suffering and greatly struggling to survive. The consequences of allowing these populations of people around us are numerous and problematic to say the least. Costs of security go up, because we have extremely cunning animals attempting to find food, shelter, and necessities outside of our normal economic processes.
It's purely this: When a person doesn't work for a living wage, they MUST be subsidized, or they MUST suffer horribly. All the "teenager" jobs that adults are trying to feed families on now pay subsidized wages. It is so because teenagers are by and large still supported by their parents, or school loans. Employers take advantage of that, and then complain when we ask them to pay the "teenagers" more stating that we're interfering with their rights to do business. That's all fine and well when it is what they say it is; Teenagers looking to make some extra cash, save for college, whatever. However, it's not what they say it is. More and more, these service worker jobs are now expected to feed families, and that is wholly impossible on a "subsidized" wage without them "sucking on the government teat". Worse, we demean these people and speak badly about their character.
So which is it? One way or the other right now, the poor and the middle class predominately subsidize people making less than a living wage. When the elites don't pay their fair share of the taxes, they've stolen from the workers of America by gaining that production while suffering no losses from the subsequent subsidies that are demanded from the rest of us.
To not pay a Living Wage is to allow c-suites (destined for hell) and psychotically avaricious shareholders to steal from us. Plain and simple. They make their riches off exploiting the rest of us, as if it were moral and correct, and we're left holding the bill.
Moreover, I think you're wrong about the signaling and distortion. The Living Wage is set from receipts, or provable transactions, on a discrete basis (county or city level). That floor you think will cause problems actually creates economic equality instead. Skillset differentiation and compensation create wages above Living Wage. The workers have what they need again to the extent that government subsidies are almost eliminated. Only those left that are truly struggling to the extent that they may qualify as mentally challenged, physically challenged, will still need help from the rest of us in the form of subsidies. Those are good subsidies because we don't want to engage in Eugenics and make life hell for the disabled. See the documentary "The Power Of The Weak" and learn the story of Jorgito.
Markets and price signaling still work as normal. The difference is that a floor was introduced where everything must occur above it. I'm not seeing the problem, and once everything is above the floor, the strain on our social programs will largely disappear. People want to work and the ridiculous ad hominem attacks against workers are simply false. Americans are very hard workers.
I also think you're vastly underestimating the benefits of economic equality when the average American can now afford their lives. At this point it is either subsidized by the government directly, or it is subsidized by credit lines which are already tapped (it may well be the next huge bubble about to pop). We can move to a world where it isn't subsidized at all, but provided as a correct consequence of performing daily labor.
The very idea of working for less than what you need, so that another person may make more than their entitled, is abhorrent and we can't have a functioning society survive under those conditions.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:14AM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:24AM
Instagram is still alive, and Skype hasn't sunk yet, but you're correct that msot acquisitions end up either as failures or temporary add-ons in other products.
Sometimes that's also the goal.
But since "journalists" are totally enamored with absurd and abusive twitter man-on-the-street quoting, Google might see some Apple-life benefits to keeping the service alive.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:46AM
The funny thing is, that Twitter is doing just fine for a company. There are no real alternatives for what Twitter is, people and businesses have embraced it for PR purposes, but it no longer has "growth".
That's the actual problem in the avaricious shortsighted c-suite world; A company without strong growth is weak, and stable is a weakness.
Unless a company is constantly growing, and c-suite salaries constantly being raised, it is seen to be failing. I abhor Twitter and Facebook, but I would find it hard to say that Twitter is a failing company when its use in the media is quite ubiquitous. Many articles I read directly reference Tweets as if a Tweet itself can serve as a quote from somebody.
You're correct nonetheless, not because of Twitter's state, but because these are signals that the c-suites in Twitter are hungry and greedy, and some pigs need to get fed. Usually, that does not bode well for the company because that's the point in which it starts to fail because c-suites are no longer convinced the unsustainable gravy train will continue and deliberately killing a corporation can be quite profitable.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:54AM
Actually, no, they're currently being sued for refactoring how they counted users and not disclosing it so they wouldn't have to show a loss to shareholders.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:17AM
I hadn't heard that :)
Thanks for telling me.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:17PM
I don't have the impression that Twitter is "doing fine". They have a lot of users, but they haven't figured out how to make money. Despite attempts to diguise their finances, it seems pretty clear that they are losing money hand-over-fist.
Add to that the overuse of the ban-hammer. You don't have to follow someone you don't like, so why do they care if Instapundit or Milo post comments that offend some people? As a result, lots of people on the conservative and alt-right side of things are moving to other services, such as Gab [gab.ai].
In case anyone missed it, Instapundit was banned for the tweet "run them over" in response to rioters blocking the highway. He was blunt, and entirely right: if your vehicle is surrounded by rioters, you do not stop, or the rioters will break your windows and drag you out of the vehicle [infowars.com].
Twitter banning an account for telling an unpalatable truth? The platform has lost its credibility. It's losing money. The shareholders probably want someone, anyone to bail them out before Twitter burns through whatever remains of its capital.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday September 24 2016, @10:06PM
You're both terribly wrong. I'm not going to Breitbart to read any of that bullshit. It's title says it all. Where you're both disconnected from reality, and your bias to violence shows, is in the statement "run them over".
If you're in that situation there is an incredible difference between "don't stop moving forward" and "run them over". It's intent. One is intending to escape, and the causing of injuries being secondary towards your right to survive and defend yourself. One is the intention to end lives. Running people over rarely results in them being alive to argue with you later, but horrible maiming and death.
Placed in that situation you don't need to instantly resort to killing. What about backwards?
I'm just as iffy as you about the ban hammer, even in this case, but that isn't a rational justification for running people over.
Are you that convinced they would pull you out to kill you? If they're protesting, and you were afraid, the easiest way out is to stop the car. You then get out and yell, "is the the protest?!!". Then say you have that lane blocked off, and you're walking back to organize friends that are coming. Get the fuck out there.
These aren't terribly bad people. They're protestors. I don't think you need to default to killing them, but that might require quite a bit of yielding to their temporary insistence to occupy that exact piece of land. You need to get through so bad you would kill them? You let things cool down a bit and perhaps nobody needs to die.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by harmless on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:53PM
Well, your definition of "doing fine" seems to significantly differ from mine:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/twtr/financials [marketwatch.com]
They lost over half a million dollar each year for three years now. They never made money; only burned through it.
The problem with Twitter is, there is no obvious method to make enough money from it. If you inject too many ads, the service gets worthless and people leave. If you start charging for the service (which IMHO would be a reasonable approach) people will leave and use another VC-backed service instead.
I don't think there is a solution to this problem until VCs stopp throwing money at ventures whose only opportunity for revenue lies in ads.
And I can't see that happening any time soon.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:47AM
Hey, Salesforce wants to by them out, and they can't even do record-locking. [legitimate source - had to use Salesforce.com on the job ] The blind leading the blind.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:10AM
but it's getting harder and harder as this company is well on its way to owning the entire internet...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:28AM
I don't see Google on this list of Tier 1 Networks [wikipedia.org].
Hint: the World Wide Web is not the Internet.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:39AM
Because AT&T is so much better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:51AM
Back in the day you could get free stuff from AT&T with a little trick involving the number 2600. There are other tricks you can do to AT&T today since everything went digital. Haven't you filled your bag of tricks yet? I snicker in your general direction.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:51AM
Twitter is crap from the get-go, and Salesforce is a good idea mitigated by crap programmers who still haven't figured out 19th century computer science. It's a match made in India.
No, Twitter and Salesforce don't "own" anything. They're merely portals for those who think that Dilbert isn't funny to gain an understanding why Dilbert is funny to those who've worked in the 'biz.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:56AM
Wonder if Dice has a few billion lying around... I mean, it couldn't happen to a nicer company.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:15AM
They're still having knife and Cock fights in Barrio logan. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:57AM
This is the reason why I've been posting thus far: Corporate-paid Salesforce encourages their members to make profiles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:39AM
The headline was "60% of the people don't know what twitter is".
My reply? I know what twitter is, I don't know why twitter is.
I still don't know why twitter is. Bunch of brain dead assholes trying to look important to another bunch of brain dead assholes is my best guess.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:30AM
Journalists, is the answer you're looking for. A pack of semi-literate twitch monkeys who like the 140 character limit because writing full articles is hard, man. Also, it's, like, instant. You're there at the sweet party, hobnobbing with the 1%, and you get some chick's digits and BAM! you tweet it out to all your bros so they can instantly envy you.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Saturday September 24 2016, @04:12AM
Twitter is actually one of the things on the Internet that works well - if you have half the sense needed to use it effectively.
It's managed to avoid becoming the massive craphole that is Facebook, and has resisted the urge to try and add a thousand and one "features" that add nothing to the actual utility of the service.
It's one of very few things on the Internet - Soylent being another - that I actually use and enjoy.
Given Google's ongoing campaign to either ruin or just shut down anything they touch, this could be a sad day.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by julian on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:06AM
I agree, and many people here who don't like it seem to be carrying around a caricature of Twitter in their minds instead of the possibility is actually represents.
The main problem with Twitter is that it's a business, a private website, a corporation, and a closed system. The web needs something *like* Twitter, but it does not Need Twitter the corporation, Twitter the business, Twitter the advertising company. What we need is a *protocol* like Twitter that no one has central control over. Imagine if e-mail was entirely controlled by one company that updated the protocol at their whim, adding and removing features as they needed, and always were under the pressure of making money. It wouldn't be something you'd want to use.
Twitter has resisted becoming something I don't want to use, but only because it hasn't been able to make money. If Twitter ever starts turning a profit it will achieve this through becoming a service I'll hate.
Unfortunately, network effects ruin any attempts to reinvent Twitter as an open protocol. Twitter is useful because lots of people are there and lots of people are there because lots of other people are there. It's intractable.
So therefore I like Twitter but I hope it dies. I hope it dies and something non-profit, decentralized, federated, and open like E-mail or Newsgroups replaces it. But I doubt this will happen.