Why has Twitter failed to find an effective monetization strategy?

>>61182755
honestly social media should just be nationalized
like it or not, it performs a valid public service for the majority of the population, yet cannot be monetized or has to rely on extremely dodgy means of profiteering
the US government should just seize facebook and twitter, make them .gov sites, cease all advertising and traffic, and establish stringent free speech protocols

>>61182774
tracking*
not traffic

>>61182774
what will non-burgers do

>>61182755
They did find an effective monetization strategy

They accept bribes and in return censor people or allow botnets to spam

Of course, they can't put these bribes on the record

>>61182774
I would actually be OK with this, so long as individuals aren't forced to have a Twitter or Facebook account, and can opt out by choice.

>>61182774
>>61182789
Venezuela, don't you have a civil war to prepare for?

>>61182802
No, just a non-social-site using burger who'd be OK going from privately owned companies selling user information to the government holding the data (as they would anyways via NSA tracking).

At least with government ownership, your data isn't getting sold to the lowest bidder.

>>61182774
>honestly social media should just be nationalized
>like it or not, it performs a valid public service for the majority of the population, yet cannot be monetized or has to rely on extremely dodgy means of profiteering
>the US government should just seize facebook and twitter, make them .gov sites, cease all advertising and traffic, and establish stringent free speech protocols

Interesting idea but free speech is more complex than you make it sound

With companies deciding what should and shouldn't be acceptable at least we know that the government isn't intentionally censoring some viewpoint

The very fact that it was government operated would make many people not want to use it, both citizen and foreign

>>61182859
>At least the government isn't intentionally censoring some viewpoint
You're right, it's much better to have faceless and unelected corporations censoring viewpoints with no accountability.

>>61182896
>You're right, it's much better to have faceless and unelected corporations censoring viewpoints with no accountability.

Well they aren't just removing shit they don't like now. So obviously someone or something is holding them accountable.

>>61182859
>The very fact that it was government operated would make many people not want to use it, both citizen and foreign

This is a good thing. It would teach social networking addicted cucks to grow up and start actually making real conversations with real people, not this bullshit liking status or retweeting a sub 200 character post.

>>61182840
>At least with government ownership, your data isn't getting sold to the lowest bidder.

Don't you have a Bernie rally to attend to? Also, no with government your data doesn't get sold, it just gets leaked, also some states have public information policies where any data they hold to is literally public, meaning anyone can access it. Only things that should be nationalised are areas of strategic sovereign interest, like roads, electrical grid and the postal service.