nuff said

  • elskertesla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No, a lot of this debt is debt that Twitter already had.

    Edit: Factual corrections.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Moderates Tesla Investors and username is Norwegian for “loves Tesla”.

      Guys, this one is definitely objective and unbiased!

      • elskertesla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So facts doesn’t really matter because I’m interested in Tesla? That’s your argument? Twitter had about $7.1 billion in debt before Elon Musk bought it. When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he took on an additional $13 billion in debt to finance the acquisition.

        Edit: The simple fact that people are downvoting me for telling the truth honestly says a lot about the state of Lemmy and some of those who migrated here. I had higher hopes for this place, but Im afraid it has become an echo chamber-circle jerk for bitter, non-factual conversations, where people downvote and attack instead of engaging in honest conversation. As for why I moderate that sub, it’s primarily because I’m trying my best to recreate the Reddit experience here on Lemmy, in order to assist with the migration. When I joined, that sub didn’t exist on Lemmy, so I had to create it myself - hence, why I’m a moderator. I appreciated the content that sub provided on Reddit, so I aim to offer that experience to those who migrate. I also post on other subs where the topics are relevant. This witch hunt is absolutely ridiculous and detrimental to making Lemmy a more welcoming and improved place compared to Reddit.

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      probably both. twitter was never profitable afaik, the whole idea was to have either some rich moron or (more likely) a megacorp buy it and everyone who contributed would get a fat final paycheck. but the way musk handled things definitely didn’t help either.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just want to point out the idea that these companies not being profitable is bullshit. It just means they’ve moved money that would be profit into some other place and now they can call it something other than profit.

        Got $100k extra profit? Pay it all out as bonuses to your executives, now that $100k is an expense instead of profit.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          on the surface level, makes sense, yeah. but twitter hosts video, that stuff isn’t cheap – hell, even images aren’t cheap and twitter has piss poor ad integration and a meaningless subscription that they made pretty much as uncool to buy as possible. hosting a platform that size is hella expensive.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Twitter reported its first-ever profitable quarter Thursday after more than four years of trading on the public market. The company announced $91 million in profit for the fourth quarter of 2017. Profitability was the #goal, CEO Jack Dorsey told investors in February 2017, and Twitter nailed it. The stock was up by more than 14 percent in after-hours trading.

        https://mashable.com/article/twitter-profitable-earnings-2017-first-time

        it was profitable at least at some point