nuff said

  • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just want to point out the idea that these companies not being profitable is bullshit. It just means they’ve moved money that would be profit into some other place and now they can call it something other than profit.

    Got $100k extra profit? Pay it all out as bonuses to your executives, now that $100k is an expense instead of profit.

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      on the surface level, makes sense, yeah. but twitter hosts video, that stuff isn’t cheap – hell, even images aren’t cheap and twitter has piss poor ad integration and a meaningless subscription that they made pretty much as uncool to buy as possible. hosting a platform that size is hella expensive.

    • traveler01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Twitter was not even close. It had a lot of dead weight, wasted a big fat billion on wages every month alone. He fired 85% of the work force and Twitter managed to release more features this year alone than in the past 3 years. They have so many people working there that didn’t do anything at all.

      I mean everyone remembers those tiktokers that worked at Twitter. They spent more time on useless meeting, drinking and eating at the company expense and toying around than working.