[UPDATE] Twitter to cut hundreds of jobs as early as this week

[Xsilent(X)]

 

 

Twitter is expected to cut hundreds of job as early as this week, amid fears that the company’s growth has dried up and that it has few options available following the failed attempt to entice a buyer earlier this month.

 

The loss-making company could cut as many as 300 members of staff, slimming down its operations by as much as 8pc, according to reports.

 

The reports of job cuts to its 3,860-strong workforce come just days before Twitter is due to announce its third quarter earnings before the market opens on Thursday. Analysts expect the company’s earnings per share to fall 10pc, while its revenue could have risen by around 6pc to $606m (£495m).

 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/25/twitter-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs/

 

UPDATE:

 

Twitter announced it will Cut as many as 350 Jobs maybe 400 Jobs. 13% of their staff.

 

Press release http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-2F526X/3104952603x0x913984/36DC5767-AF54-496B-93D7-8437630D5DFA/TWTR_Q3_16_Earnings_Press_Release.pdf

[suicidalfranco]

bet it was worth it to pander to the snow flakes #freeMilo

[goodtofufriday]

Maybe google can buy them to simply keep their doors open so that it can continue to act as a media provider for the world

[ivan134]

27 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

bet it was worth it to pander to the snow flakes #freeMilo

Riiiight. That's definitely the reason.

[SansVarnic]

IMO (twitter can die).

[Demonking]

54 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

bet it was worth it to pander to the snow flakes #freeMilo

I'm so sick of this Milo shit he violated twitter terms of service by committing libel by retweeting a fake account with slanderous stuff in it Kyle already destroyed his hypocritical ass, he's not a bastion of free speech when in 2012 he argued against the shit he pretends he's for now let alone he supports trump, which he is the PC of the right. Trump sued bill maher  over a joke & the onion, said we should open up the libel laws, & banning certain press outlets that disagrees with him. 

 

[Centurius]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

bet it was worth it to pander to the snow flakes #freeMilo

Yes, because Twitter totally wasn't in financial trouble for years prior to that. One loud-mouth getting his account blocked caused massive financial issues via time travel.

[Notional]

18 hours ago, Centurius said:

Yes, because Twitter totally wasn't in financial trouble for years prior to that. One loud-mouth getting his account blocked caused massive financial issues via time travel.

So hiring an entire army of SJW's to police Twitter would improve that financial situation? Milo or not, Twitter pandered to the morons, and a lot of people became alienated. That only made it worse.

[HarryNyquist]

Twitter's priorities have been fucked for a long while. Instead of making a service people wanted to use, they worried about mean words.

[Monkey Dust]

15 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

Twitter's priorities have been fucked for a long while. Instead of making a service people wanted to use, they worried about mean words.

The trouble is the mean words have affected the companies reputation and buy extension value, and put off potential buyers (I believe Disney pulled out for this reason). It affects their ability to sell advertising, no one want their company's advert next to a rape threat, it's why YouTube demonetised certain videos. 

 

Most of the population, and indeed most twitter users couldn't give a fuck about SJWs or those that troll them it is only a very small chunk of their user base and I bet most would have reacted to Milo getting banned with a 'who?' then a shrug of the shoulders.

[Xsilent(X)]

Updated the article.

[michaelocarroll007]

10 minutes ago, Xsilent(X) said:

Updated the article.

  They Beat expectations and had Positive earnings  Stock is up a little 

[Misanthrope]

On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 4:30 PM, ivan134 said:

Riiiight. That's definitely the reason.

It has more significance than what you're assuming: people probably wouldn't care if they were a huge and evenly enforced ban machine like Facebook is but they've never claimed to be family friendly (you can openly post porn ffs) yet the application of their rules is blatantly one sided: Milo just made himself an example by saying mean things to a movie star when Twitter has been incredibly slow to react to delete or censor Isis accounts, yes that Isis: people who actually embrace, promote and inflict terrorism, beheadings, burning motherfucking people alive. All that it's ok but let's not make a Harambe joke that's totally over the line.

On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 4:56 PM, Demonking said:

I'm so sick of this Milo shit he violated twitter terms of service by committing libel by retweeting a fake account with slanderous stuff in it Kyle already destroyed his hypocritical ass, he's not a bastion of free speech when in 2012 he argued against the shit he pretends he's for now let alone he supports trump, which he is the PC of the right. Trump sued bill maher  over a joke & the onion, said we should open up the libel laws, & banning certain press outlets that disagrees with him. 

Please calm a bit, breathe. Organize your thoughts and try again because I can tell you have some more or less fair points to bring up that I'd love to address but I can't untangle your word salad.

[ivan134]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It has more significance than what you're assuming: people probably wouldn't care if they were a huge and evenly enforced ban machine like Facebook is but they've never claimed to be family friendly (you can openly post porn ffs) yet the application of their rules is blatantly one sided: Milo just made himself an example by saying mean things to a movie star when Twitter has been incredibly slow to react to delete or censor Isis accounts, yes that Isis: people who actually embrace, promote and inflict terrorism, beheadings, burning motherfucking people alive. All that it's ok but let's not make a Harambe joke that's totally over the line.

Please calm a bit, breathe. Organize your thoughts and try again because I can tell you have some more or less fair points to bring up that I'd love to address but I can't untangle your word salad.

Lmao, no it doesn't. You can keep telling yourself that though if it makes you feel better.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Lmao, no it doesn't.

Brilliant response, meanwhile Twitter under it's current BLM supporting C.E.O.

 

Quote

It’s been over a year since Jack Dorsey took the helm at Twitter Inc (NYSE:TWTR), but the results have been far from encouraging. Consider that Twitter stock has lost about half its value.

http://investorplace.com/2016/09/jack-dorsey-twitter-stock-twtr/#.WBJTLY-cHDc

 

At best you can attribute his incompetence to him personal and not his ideological leanings but given his actions and what we've seen I find it hard to separate one from the other.

[ivan134]

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Brilliant response, meanwhile Twitter under it's current BLM supporting C.E.O.

 

http://investorplace.com/2016/09/jack-dorsey-twitter-stock-twtr/#.WBJTLY-cHDc

 

At best you can attribute his incompetence to him personal and not his ideological leanings but given his actions and what we've seen I find it hard to separate one from the other.

I'm still waiting for you to link the 2 things instead of just circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, ivan134 said:

I'm still waiting for you to link the 2 things instead of just circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

The C.E.O. of a company being instrumental in it's ultimate failure is anecdotal? Do you know what a C.E.O. does? What his job entails? What his ultimate responsabilities are?

 

If you actually bothered to read and pay atention to what I said you'd see I already conceded that you can possibly attribute his failure to personal incompetence divorced from his ideological leanings and while I find that notion unlikely I am not denying it's definitively a possibility.

 

Just can't just cry "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that without actually paying atention.

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

The C.E.O. of a company being instrumental in it's ultimate failure is anecdotal? Do you know what a C.E.O. does? What his job entails? What his ultimate responsabilities are?

 

If you actually bothered to read and pay atention to what I said you'd see I already conceded that you can possibly attribute his failure to personal incompetence divorced from his ideological leanings and while I find that notion unlikely I am not denying it's definitively a possibility.

 

Just can't just cry "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that without actually paying atention.

Lmfao, good job contradicting yourself.

[Monkey Dust]

9 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It has more significance than what you're assuming: people probably wouldn't care if they were a huge and evenly enforced ban machine like Facebook is but they've never claimed to be family friendly (you can openly post porn ffs) yet the application of their rules is blatantly one sided: Milo just made himself an example by saying mean things to a movie star when Twitter has been incredibly slow to react to delete or censor Isis accounts, yes that Isis: people who actually embrace, promote and inflict terrorism, beheadings, burning motherfucking people alive. All that it's ok but let's not make a Harambe joke that's totally over the line.

Please calm a bit, breathe. Organize your thoughts and try again because I can tell you have some more or less fair points to bring up that I'd love to address but I can't untangle your word salad.

Their enforcement of their rules is a bit sketchy, especially regards terrorists and Milo, no argument there.

 

Though the Milo situation was more than mean words. He encourage others to harass Leslie Jones, in effect forcing her off twitter, even if she wasn't officially banned. This kind of activity is damaging to the Twitter brand, not good when they are sniffing around for a buyer, which is probably why they jumped on it now.

 

Twitter isn't there as some kind of benevolent free speech platform, they are a business they exist to make money, or at least endeavour to make money. It's their servers, kept switched on by their money, so they get to decide what is allowed on the platform and far they indulge freedom of speech. Leslie Jones, an actress, very advertiser friendly, Milo far less advertiser friendly. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, certainly not to users who cannot not be monetised and damage the brand.

 

You still have freedom of speech, after all you can start your own social media platform if you wish and allow what the hell you like on it, or more likely just post on 4chan.

But Twitter equally within it's rights to say 'not on Twitter'.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Lmfao, good job contradicting yourself.

 

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The C.E.O. of a company being instrumental in it's ultimate failure is anecdotal? Do you know what a C.E.O. does? What his job entails? What his ultimate responsabilities are?

 

If you actually bothered to read and pay atention to what I said you'd see I already conceded that you can possibly attribute his failure to personal incompetence divorced from his ideological leanings and while I find that notion unlikely I am not denying it's definitively a possibility.

 

Just can't just cry "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that without actually paying atention.

 

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Brilliant response, meanwhile Twitter under it's current BLM supporting C.E.O.

 

http://investorplace.com/2016/09/jack-dorsey-twitter-stock-twtr/#.WBJTLY-cHDc

 

At best you can attribute his incompetence to him personal and not his ideological leanings but given his actions and what we've seen I find it hard to separate one from the other.

 

[ivan134]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Their enforcement of their rules is a bit sketchy, especially regards terrorists and Milo, no argument there.

 

Though the Milo situation was more than mean words. He encourage others to harass Leslie Jones, in effect forcing her off twitter, even if she wasn't officially banned. This kind of activity is damaging to the Twitter brand, not good when they are sniffing around for a buyer, which is probably why they jumped on it now.

 

Twitter isn't there as some kind of benevolent free speech platform, they are a business they exist to make money, or at least endeavour to make money. It's their servers, kept switched on by their money, so they get to decide what is allowed on the platform and far they indulge freedom of speech. Leslie Jones, an actress, very advertiser friendly, Milo far less advertiser friendly. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, certainly not to users who cannot not be monetised and damage the brand.

 

You still have freedom of speech, after all you can start your own social media platform if you wish and allow what the hell you like on it, or more likely just post on 4chan.

But Twitter equally within it's rights to say 'not on Twitter'.

Get out of here with your facts and logic. We all know Twitter is funded by my tax dollars and is therefore beholden to me and isn't allowed to make any rules they want.

[Misanthrope]

14 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Their enforcement of their rules is a bit sketchy, especially regards terrorists and Milo, no argument there.

 

Though the Milo situation was more than mean words. He encourage others to harass Leslie Jones, in effect forcing her off twitter, even if she wasn't officially banned. This kind of activity is damaging to the Twitter brand, not good when they are sniffing around for a buyer, which is probably why they jumped on it now.

Not saying he didn't (Although he maintains he didn't and merely jumped on the bandwagon, his massive following brought attention to it no argument there as you said) But in this regard I feel that Twitter has also been equally inconsistent when the shoe was on the other side and SJWs had calls to actions, doxed people, tried to get people fired from jobs, etc.

 

So yes he went over the line and it wouldn't be nearly as much of a scandal if it was not very clearly unevenly enforced with clear political bias.

 

Quote

Twitter isn't there as some kind of benevolent free speech platform, they are a business they exist to make money, or at least endeavour to make money. It's their servers, kept switched on by their money, so they get to decide what is allowed on the platform and far they indulge freedom of speech. Leslie Jones, an actress, very advertiser friendly, Milo far less advertiser friendly. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, certainly not to users who cannot not be monetised and damage the brand.

 

You still have freedom of speech, after all you can start your own social media platform if you wish and allow what the hell you like on it, or more likely just post on 4chan.

But Twitter equally within it's rights to say 'not on Twitter'.

 

I have never argued that this is a "free speech" issue. Free speech involves governments, not private entities. At best I have said (and still maintain honestly) that once platforms as big as Twitter get well, so big, their hegemony means that we should be more careful about what they do and do not allow for the same reasons we heavily regulate private businesses on other sectors like manufacturing and such to ensure consumer safety, acceptable pollution levels, etc. One could make the argument that Twitter and Facebook are so big any kind of competition on the free market is almost defacto unfeasible.

 

As for Milo vs Leslie being advertiser friendly I kinda disagree. She's a B grade actress that was involved in a terribly unpopular movie while Milo and his employer Breitbart are spearheading the Trump campaign. Advertisers might not want to be associated with Trump's pussy grabbing, kill-terrorists-families antics sure, but there's certainly more money there if you ask me.

 

[Monkey Dust]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not saying he didn't (Although he maintains he didn't and merely jumped on the bandwagon, his massive following brought attention to it no argument there as you said) But in this regard I feel that Twitter has also been equally inconsistent when the shoe was on the other side and SJWs had calls to actions, doxed people, tried to get people fired from jobs, etc.

 

So yes he went over the line and it wouldn't be nearly as much of a scandal if it was not very clearly unevenly enforced with clear political bias.

 

 

I have never argued that this is a "free speech" issue. Free speech involves governments, not private entities. At best I have said (and still maintain honestly) that once platforms as big as Twitter get well, so big, their hegemony means that we should be more careful about what they do and do not allow for the same reasons we heavily regulate private businesses on other sectors like manufacturing and such to ensure consumer safety, acceptable pollution levels, etc. One could make the argument that Twitter and Facebook are so big any kind of competition on the free market is almost defacto unfeasible.

 

As for Milo vs Leslie being advertiser friendly I kinda disagree. She's a B grade actress that was involved in a terribly unpopular movie while Milo and his employer Breitbart are spearheading the Trump campaign. Advertisers might not want to be associated with Trump's pussy grabbing, kill-terrorists-families antics sure, but there's certainly more money there if you ask me.

 

True they are not very consistent yet, they have only just started to really take a look at what they been hosting it's bound to be bumpy, and Milo was a high profile target. A temp ban might well have been more appropriate.

 

Regulation would be tricky as they cross international boundaries, they register head offices in countries to avoid tax, they could move to avoid regulation. The speed with which social media platforms evolve makes them challenging to legislate for. Governments have a hard enough legislating print media, social media not a chance.

 

I still think Leslie Jones is still more advertiser friendly, at least on a broadly agnostic platform like twitter. Yes Milo and Breitbart might be popular amongst a large chunk of the population, and it will likely drive advertising revenue on Breitbart as if you're advertising on there you know what audience you're pitching at, and broadly what kind of content your ad will appear next too, don't like it you can opt out of advertising on their site. Whereas on Twitter advertisers may not be very happy at their content displayed along side the musings of Milo and his ilk, but will likely find Ms Jones far less controversial. Similar kind of deal to YouTube demonetising non-advertiser friendly videos. Then there is the spending power to Trump supporters vs Hillary supporters, Trump supporters tend to be less affluent than Hillary ones (not sure where the don't knows/cares and other parties supporters are in relation) so they are less valuable to advertisers. Though neither are likely to be advertiser gold.

 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

11 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

True they are not very consistent yet, they have only just started to really take a look at what they been hosting it's bound to be bumpy, and Milo was a high profile target. A temp ban might well have been more appropriate.

 

Regulation would be tricky as they cross international boundaries, they register head offices in countries to avoid tax, they could move to avoid regulation. The speed with which social media platforms evolve makes them challenging to legislate for. Governments have a hard enough legislating print media, social media not a chance.

 

I still think Leslie Jones is still more advertiser friendly, at least on a broadly agnostic platform like twitter. Yes Milo and Breitbart might be popular amongst a large chunk of the population, and it will likely drive advertising revenue on Breitbart as if you're advertising on there you know what audience you're pitching at, and broadly what kind of content your ad will appear next too, don't like it you can opt out of advertising on their site. Whereas on Twitter advertisers may not be very happy at their content displayed along side the musings of Milo and his ilk, but will likely find Ms Jones far less controversial. Similar kind of deal to YouTube demonetising non-advertiser friendly videos. Then there is the spending power to Trump supporters vs Hillary supporters, Trump supporters tend to be less affluent than Hillary ones (not sure where the don't knows/cares and other parties supporters are in relation) so they are less valuable to advertisers. Though neither are likely to be advertiser gold.

That assumes no overlap: there is no reason why an advertiser that works with Breitbart wouldn't also work with Twitter given how until recently, Milo had much of the same audience watching twitter to the tune of millions of mentions. In my opinion this is also the same mistake youtube walked into recently with the Flaggots campaign: We will decide what's advertiser friendly. They're both big enough that if a "PC friendly" advertiser wants to walk away from a massive platform it would literally be their loss and not Twitter's or Youtube's.

 

If we're gonna be cold and calculating, there's nothing inherently wrong with advertising to right leaning people as money has no ideology behind it, it's just money doesnt matters who buys your product it only matters that they buy them. So I think that from a strictly business standpoint, demanding censorship and controversy to disappear it's quite stupid. At best places like Twitter and Youtube should give the advertiser the option to say "Keep me the fuck away from the dangerous faggot" when it comes to their ads.

 

But what happens behind closed doors is that SJWs working for major companies push their PC agenda on them forcing them to demand these stuff knowing that much of the IT field is controlled by their like minded SJW friends like Jack@Twitter so it's a win win...except when you actually look at the stock.

 

But yeah just some food for thought.

 

[Monkey Dust]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 At best places like Twitter and Youtube should give the advertiser the option to say "Keep me the fuck away from the dangerous faggot" when it comes to their adds.

 

They may well be working on such a system, Youtube probably is, would make a lot of sense. Not sure how it could work on Twitter though? Maybe if they only placed advertising against verified users tweets? Assessing every tweet for advertiser unfriendly content is probably unworkable.