On: Jack Dorsey Is Losing Control of Twitter

[westurner]

- Are these jounalists working for media companies that are competing for time?

- If they are shareholders, they don't seem to be declaring their conflicts of interest.

- For Twitter to respond would require that Twitter be taking editorial positions regarding the activities of competing media conglomerates. ("You're down, you should all just cash out now" [while you have far more daily active customers and revenue per user than a number of TV channels combined].

- Are there competing international interests and biases? Is the market for noiseless citizen media saturated? How much time is there, really?

[joemi → westurner]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but I think you're considering Twitter to be a media company, like a newspaper company? If so, I don't think that comparison is accurate so there'd be no conflict of interest really.

[briandear → joemi]

The conflict of interest is if the journalists owned shares of Twitter.

[westurner → briandear]

The conflict of interest is that one media company is publishing negative articles about another media company amidst acquisition talks.

What is their interest here? How do they intend to affect the perceived value of Twitter? Are there sources cited? Data? Figures?

[joemi → westurner]

I'm still a bit confused. Are you implying that Bloomberg and Twitter are in competition? I'm not so sure they are, really, in any sense.

[westurner → joemi]

Bloomberg is a private corporation which sells ads and exercises editorial discretion in publishing market-moving information and/or editorials.

Twitter is a public corporation which hosts Tweets, sells ads, and selects trending Twitter Moments.

Both companies are media services. Both companies compete for ad revenue. Both companies compete for readers' time.

(Medium allows journalists to publish information and/or editorials for free (or, now, for subscription revenue from membership programs)).