Twitter stock

[desura]

So I've never used twitter before because Facebook always seemed better.

I tried using it recently, and compared to Facebook it seems a lot more intense. It probably is best for political discussions it looks like which is why journalists use it so much, but a) they don't have much money and b) the fast nature of tweets means ads are worth much less than Facebook. Facebook has a slower pace to it so ads are actually pretty effective there.

So is the stock headed upwards or downwards? Twitter seems indispensable to political journalists, but for entertainment and arts not as much.

 

[KeithTalent]

They don't seem to be all that good at making money, which seems problematic at this point considering the size of their user base. It also appears that some of the larger companies that could acquire them are scared off by their troll problem and just general reputation. Not a company I would be jumping into bed with, that's for sure.

This guy is good at ripping Twitter a new one pretty often: https://stratechery.com/

KT

 

[louis redfoot]

it's a very useful and powerful platform but i don't think it's going anywhere soon as a business (unless it sells to google then you'll make something with the stock).

meanwhile i've been playing with snapchat all weekend and i think it's a winner

 

[Exterous]

Seems to be a lot of fascination with tech companies that don't really know how to make money in line with their valuations. I wasn't old enough to pay much attention to the tech bubble in the early 2000s but I wonder a bit if this is what it was like. Personally I like picking up companies with a better revenue track record that hit minor bumps in the road as those seem less risky. Last year I bought 5 stocks: apple at $93.76, Lowes at $64.59, Netflix at $93, Alaska $73 and Gilead at $84.

 

[louis redfoot]

Seems to be a lot of fascination with tech companies that don't really know how to make money in line with their valuations. I wasn't old enough to pay much attention to the tech bubble in the early 2000s but I wonder a bit if this is what it was like. Personally I like picking up companies with a better revenue track record that hit minor bumps in the road as those seem less risky. Last year I bought 5 stocks: apple at $93.76, Lowes at $64.59, Netflix at $93, Alaska $73 and Gilead at $84.

that will always be around (fakes and me-toos) as long as the market is large enough (which it is). don't forget, while there was a bubble, the internet as a platform has proven itself and a lot of tech firms did make it. which means there's one huge out available to any player: the buyout.

 

[Exterous]

that will always be around (fakes and me-toos) as long as the market is large enough (which it is). don't forget, while there was a bubble, the internet as a platform has proven itself and a lot of tech firms did make it. which means there's one huge out available to any player: the buyout.

Banking on a buyout because a company has minimal revenue seems like a more risky play than necessary. Besides - I prefer to buy the survivors in the aftermath of a bubble than guessing which ones might make it especially given that that has worked out very well for me in the past

 

[desura]

They don't seem to be all that good at making money, which seems problematic at this point considering the size of their user base. It also appears that some of the larger companies that could acquire them are scared off by their troll problem and just general reputation. Not a company I would be jumping into bed with, that's for sure.

This guy is good at ripping Twitter a new one pretty often: https://stratechery.com/

KT

That is one of the best websites I've run into In a while. Thanks.

Twitter seems just really negative overall. every time it makes the news it is someone tweeting something stupid or racist but there are never stories of positivity happening with twitter like couples meeting or whatever. Facebook has lots of positivity in it, and instagram especially.

I can definitely see the appeal of advertising on google or Facebook, but twitter not at all.

 

[Staples]

Twitter is good for link propagation but it is terrible for meaningful discussions with their 140 char limit. Sure you can combine multiple reply tweets but it just gets to be a mess. Also, many people just post lots of crap for every tweet that means anything. I don't understand why some people think it is so great for everything.

I say, don't buy. They have been trying to sell for a while and no one wants to touch them.

 

[FIVR]

that stock is cancer like GPRO


source: Owner of lots of GPRO

 

[desura]

Twitter is good for link propagation but it is terrible for meaningful discussions with their 140 char limit. Sure you can combine multiple reply tweets but it just gets to be a mess. Also, many people just post lots of crap for every tweet that means anything. I don't understand why some people think it is so great for everything.

I say, don't buy. They have been trying to sell for a while and no one wants to touch them.

i seriously wonder how Twitter has affected journalism. It seems like journalists are always on it, and their work product has declined in quality I think over the past five years. A lot of journalism I see on Vox.com is just so vapid and badly thought out.

 

[louis redfoot]

i seriously wonder how Twitter has affected journalism. It seems like journalists are always on it, and their work product has declined in quality I think over the past five years. A lot of journalism I see on Vox.com is just so vapid and badly thought out.

could have been the edge that helped trump win

 

[Carson Dyle]

Twitter never really struck me as a place for discussion. More of "here's what I think" thing or a "look at me" thing. Way too much "here's what I ate for breakfast" and "my day has been crappy".

I follow sports media, local news, a little national news. I'll occasionally comment on a tweet, but I seldom see conversations that go back and forth more than a reply or two. One of the biggest problems is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to actually follow much. I might check it a few times a day, and there will be more than 100 tweets posted in the last hour. So I guess I completely missed several hundred tweets in the hours prior to that? Who has the time, or the inclination to read thousands and thousands or message of "my flight is 35 minutes late" or "Miller looks like a promising guard"?

 

[tynopik]

I might check it a few times a day, and there will be more than 100 tweets posted in the last hour. So I guess I completely missed several hundred tweets in the hours prior to that? Who has the time, or the inclination to read thousands and thousands or message of "my flight is 35 minutes late" or "Miller looks like a promising guard"?

You need to better curate who you follow

 

[Carson Dyle]

You need to better curate who you follow

I've given the chop to people who tweet a lot of BS, but it doesn't help much. One of the problems is that people I'm interested in following for their opinions and news scoops (in my case, mostly sports related) are often the biggest offenders when it comes to tweeting trivial crap.

I've thought of keeping separate accounts for sports, local news, other stuff. Maybe that would help, but I'm not sure how practical it is.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Obligatory anti-stock-picking rant:

Most people should ignore individual stocks and buy and hold stock index mutual funds and ETFs.

An S&P 500 fund has shares in the 500 largest US companies and is much less risky to hold than twitter or snap or AMD or any other single company. The risk of losing money over time is much much lower, the chance of gaining money is much much higher.

Full-time professional stock pickers with access to more information about companies than you'll ever have usually do worse than the S&P 500 over time.

 

[Mai72]

Twitter was really hot like 5 years ago. Now? It's having a lot of difficulty maintaining traction. I've noticed many people have left Twitter and have moved to Instagram, Snapchat, YT, and of course Facebook.

I follow Gary Vaynerchuk. If you don't know who he is he's a very popular and very successful entrepreneur. He runs VaynerMedia which is a $100m plus social multimedia company. He got his start on Twitter 10 years ago but even reizes that it's having a ton of issues.

IMO, don't get too romantic with any of these platforms. Use them up while they are popular and let it be. Remember Meerakat? Periscope was hot 2 years ago. That has since fallen off. The net is always evolving and always changing. It's still so young. Only 20 years. It hasn't even hit its peak yet. Much of what we are seeing is in its infancy.