He actually dismissed Twitter’s management so I am guessing they’re slated to be demoted or fired if he takes over. Should they sell? I mean it’s such a bizarrely undervalued company. It’s like buying a plot of land on fifth avenue that’s owned by a convenience store and the store owner wants to charge for a skyscraper market rate.
Twitter is where people who are or will be powerful, influential, or impactful get their information, form their opinions, and often debate really important topics.
So I’d agree it’s undervalued in terms of utility if it’s not priced an order of magnitude or more higher than Snap.
Whether that value can or should be captured as profit or is a public good, implying Twitter should operate more like a utility or non-profit is another question…
I don’t believe I have ever once seen a “debate on really important topics” on Twitter. And that’s even including the unusually large number of professors I follow.
I can point you toward endless debate by the leaders in my field about topics that are really important in my field, but my field is not itself very important.
Someone else will have to point you to the debate on really important topics.
> Twitter is where people who are or will be powerful, influential, or impactful get their information, form their opinions, and often debate really important topics.
Anecdotal counter point: I'll be powerful and influential one day, and I'm not using Twitter at all.
On a more serious note, I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that powerful people form their opinions from information on Twitter.
Twitter is literally the news breaking platform across the world. How much do you think that’s worth? I think it’s worth more than $100B under competent management.
Around the world? I think you are overestimating Twitter by a large margin. My guess is that in the US Twitter has marketing deals with media outlets which make it a relevant platform to post and consume breaking news in the first place.
In other countries I haven't seen a lot of Twitter logos on TV.
The GP means that the journalists at the TV stations are getting their leads on what to cover from Twitter; not that audiences are watching Twitter in place of breaking news.
They probably have a police scanner running too. Should the public have that running as well to listen to all the latest news? IMO there is place for that and most people don't really need up to the second information on things happening hundreds of miles from anywhere they regularly interact with.
Who said anything about the public? A "breaking news platform" being of relevance to journalists is valuable enough for it to be a large company; whether anyone from "the public" makes direct use of it, they still indirectly depend on its existence.
Nothing to do with TV, Twitter has been established as a news breaking platform since at least the Arab spring. And it is absolutely an international phenomenon.
TV has nothing to do with it. I've never seen a Twitter logo on TV in the US either, except when they're reporting on Twitter as a company. GP wasn't talking about a business relationship between TV networks and Twitter.
who even watches the news? its worth nothing for people < 30, and the people > 30 already watch what they want to watch, so twitter or not doesnt matter.
I have NEVER seen an ad on Snapchat because all I do is send pictures and chat. Twitter has a user base that is a lot more engaged and can easily be captured by ads.
