• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s important to note that “doing well financially” isn’t just revenue and user count, it’s also expenditures. If Twitter has managed to cut costs by more than whatever its income has dropped by then that could well be a good outcome for it, I’ve heard it wasn’t profitable when Musk took it over.

    It’s kind of ironic how big companies are frequently criticized for fixating on “endless growth” and “line goes up”, and then when a company or organization sheds that it also looks bad.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There’s so much wrong with your understanding here…so I’ll just point out that you’re talking about Twitter as if it’s still a public company, it’s not.

      Also, Twitter was never profitable, and it was likely never going to be profitable. But there’s a big difference between their losses and projections before Musk, and after.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        But there’s a big difference between their losses and projections before Musk, and after.

        Which are?

    • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I thought Twitter’s infrastructure was going to collapse within weeks after Musk made all those cuts and changes. I was obviously wrong because Twitter’s infrastructure didn’t collapse. I’m not speaking to the user experience on Twitter but from a purely infrastructure perspective, Musk was right and I was wrong.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Uh-oh, you said something positive about Musk. I only said “maybe he’s not as bad as it seems” and look where that got me.