Twitter and the Tina Brown Math

Readability

Twitter and the Tina Brown Math

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker report­edly lost $42 mil­lion in three years (199597) under Ms. Brown’s edi­tor­ship. Talk lost an impres­sive $80 mil­lion dur­ing its two-​year exis­tence. What­ever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s unde­ni­ably bril­liant at con­vinc­ing investors to lose money on her projects.

Robert Stacy McCain The Weekly News­beast? Nov 11 2010

10th Doc­tor After a while every­thing is just stuff. That’s the prob­lem you make all of space and time your back yard and what do you have? A back yard!

Doc­tor Who Pre­quel Vam­pires of Venice 2010

When I first heard about Glenn Reynolds vol­un­tar­ily leav­ing twit­ter my mind said this is a bad thing for twit­ter. Pro­fes­sor Reynolds is called the blog­fa­ther for a rea­son as he spawned lit­er­ally thou­sands of imi­ta­tors and can cause a book, a fundraisser or a prod­uct on ama­zon to get a big bump in sales almost at once and the domain it spawned PJ media where it now resides is in the top 10,000 world­wide and top 2000 in the US.

So if your goal/​business model is to sell ad space to peo­ple you don’t want to reach a point where some­one like him says:

I’ve never liked Twit­ter even though I’ve used it. I was a late adopter, and with good rea­son. It’s the crys­tal meth of social media — addic­tive and destruc­tive, yet simul­ta­ne­ously unsat­is­fy­ing. When I’m off it I’m hap­pier than when I’m on it. That it’s also being run by crappy SJW types who break their promises, to users, share­hold­ers, and the gov­ern­ment, of free speech is just the final rea­son. Why should I pro­vide free con­tent to peo­ple I don’t like, who hate me? I’m cur­rently work­ing on a book on social media, and I keep com­ing back to the point that Twit­ter is far and away the most socially destruc­tive of the var­i­ous plat­forms. So I decided to sus­pend them, as they are sus­pend­ing oth­ers. At least I’m giv­ing my rea­sons, which is more than they’ve done usually.

and if run­ning a suc­cess­ful busi­ness is the goal that would be the wake up call.

But them I remem­bered some­thing a rather rich friend who has many other rich, very rich and very very rich friends told me that for most rich peo­ple it’s not about the money any­more because they have more than they’ll every have and can get any­THING they want (empha­sis on THING in that word) and I remem­bered my older brother telling me a story about a trip with some incred­i­bly rich friends who seemed to get a real kick out of watch­ing him in their world for a weekend.

That’s the real point here. Eco­nom­ics isn’t what’s dri­ving this ide­ol­ogy and sta­tus is. Jack and the big investors who back him don’t care about the money, they’re never going to be hurt­ing or need­ing. It’s all about the stuff money can’t buy and by lean­ing on con­ser­v­a­tives you remain accept­able to the “right” people.

Seri­ously did you think Tina Brown got all those peo­ple to lose all that money over the years because they thought she was bril­liant or was putting out to get it? Nobody’s that bril­liant and there are plenty of woman who would put out for less. It was all about get­ting the bona fides and entrée to the right par­ties, and the right peo­ple and believe me those “right” peo­ple who hate our guts will use that for the fullest effect.

Jack and twit­ter aren’t going to change because of eco­nomic pres­sure or any­thing else. He’s virtue sig­nal­ing and that sig­nal is being seen by the peo­ple that he wants to see it.

And if the hoi pol­loi of the left cheer him for it, well that’s just a bonus extra.

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Robert Stacy McCain The Weekly Newsbeast? Nov 11 2010

10th Doctor After a while everything is just stuff. That’s the problem you make all of space and time your back yard and what do you have? A back yard!

Doctor Who Prequel Vampires of Venice 2010

When I first heard about Glenn Reynolds voluntarily leaving twitter my mind said this is a bad thing for twitter. Professor Reynolds is called the blogfather for a reason as he spawned literally thousands of imitators and can cause a book, a fundraisser or a product on amazon to get a big bump in sales almost at once and the domain it spawned PJ media where it now resides is in the top 10,000 worldwide and top 2000 in the US.

So if your goal/business model is to sell ad space to people you don’t want to reach a point where someone like him says:

I’ve never liked Twitter even though I’ve used it. I was a late adopter, and with good reason. It’s the crystal meth of social media — addictive and destructive, yet simultaneously unsatisfying. When I’m off it I’m happier than when I’m on it. That it’s also being run by crappy SJW types who break their promises, to users, shareholders, and the government, of free speech is just the final reason. Why should I provide free content to people I don’t like, who hate me? I’m currently working on a book on social media, and I keep coming back to the point that Twitter is far and away the most socially destructive of the various platforms. So I decided to suspend them, as they are suspending others. At least I’m giving my reasons, which is more than they’ve done usually.

and if running a successful business is the goal that would be the wake up call.

But them I remembered something a rather rich friend who has many other rich, very rich and very very rich friends told me that for most rich people it’s not about the money anymore because they have more than they’ll every have and can get anyTHING they want (emphasis on THING in that word) and I remembered my older brother telling me a story about a trip with some incredibly rich friends who seemed to get a real kick out of watching him in their world for a weekend.

That’s the real point here. Economics isn’t what’s driving this ideology and status is. Jack and the big investors who back him don’t care about the money, they’re never going to be hurting or needing. It’s all about the stuff money can’t buy and by leaning on conservatives you remain acceptable to the “right” people.

Seriously did you think Tina Brown got all those people to lose all that money over the years because they thought she was brilliant or was putting out to get it? Nobody’s that brilliant and there are plenty of woman who would put out for less. It was all about getting the bona fides and entree to the right parties, and the right people and believe me those “right” people who hate our guts will use that for the fullest effect.

Jack and twitter aren’t going to change because of economic pressure or anything else. He’s virtue signaling and that signal is being seen by the people that he wants to see it.

And if the hoi polloi of the left cheer him for it, well that’s just a bonus extra.