Posted on 12/08/2022 3:15:29 PM PST by Jacquerie
The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap. The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account. A public-private partnership.
If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.
The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database. The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.
Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant. Twitter does not and cannot make money. Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.
There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.
What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.
Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.
Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Not sure I agree with the premise. Amazon AWS services has plenty of scale as do many other private companies. Twitter raised almost $13 billion over many private funding rounds from venture capital firms before going public. That amount of money could have provided them plenty of opportunities to scale. They didn’t start with 200 million users on day one. As it grew it became more attractive to investors.
But why would the government buy a lot of data processing services from vendors like IBM and Amazon AWS if they themselves had "free" server capacity?
And why do organizations like Google, Facebook, and Twitter buy and operate vast amounts of servers if as Sundance claims they are actually running their businesses on government owned servers?
In 2020 they included a provision for over 1 billion dollars in income taxes, which generated an on-paper loss for the company compared to prior years.
It is wild conjecture for those who don’t read his posts.
The government doesn't have free server capacity; it has what it rents on others' servers, including overseas. It also rents a portion of satellite bandwidth.
Keep the encrypted spyware on distinct servers; spyware for Amazon on IBM servers and vice versa, and they're good. Allow portals for their Five Eyes cohorts and everyone gets to violate citizens' rights.
Yeah, trust the FBI.
I am an IT guy. I know how this is done, cheaply.
Twitter can, most definitely, do this without breaking the bank.
He has no proof of government servers being used for either the front-end, or back-end work.
Irrelevant. But thanks anyway.
The author has obviously never been to the data center of a Fortune 500 company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.