X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, is facing 2,200 arbitration cases that ex-employees filed after Elon Musk took over the company, slashed headcount, and made other sweeping changes there. The filing fees alone for that volume of cases could amount to $3.5 million.
The arbitration numbers were revealed in a new filing out Monday as part of a lawsuit in a Delaware district court. The case is Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp. and Elon Musk (No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC).
As CNBC has previously reported, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so. This means to speak freely in court, where their speech can become part of a public record, workers would first need to get an exemption from a judge.
I don’t see what else one would call their own algorithms and media delivery systems.
Technology is a means to an end so I like to make the distinction of what the company actually does or make. Apple’s primary business is selling computer hardware (an actual technology product) so it’s a technology company. Microsoft sells software and cloud services (tech tools) so it’s a technology company. Netflix sells access to video, so it’s a media company. Are algorithms involved? Sure, but they’re child’s play compared to the algorithms used by high frequency traders, yet those people still unambiguously work for finance/banking companies. Every large retailer employs data scientists and teams of data analysts, but they’re still retailers rather than tech companies. Amazon is the trickiest to categorize. Amazon.com is a straight up retailer but AWS is clearly a tech “company.” Best to think of that one like a conglomerate.
There is no separating one from the other when it comes to social media. What we see, when and where is dictated by the technology behind it.
Say, by the same logic one might say that Google’s main service is organizing and offering information, but it is still one of the main companies one thinks of when it comes to Technology. Rightfully so, because even putting aside cloud storage and the like, its search engine technology is central to what it offers.
I think because people are tired of seeing articles related to social media, they want to argue that it’s only technology if it is some sort of device, but that is a simplistic way to see the matter. There’s a merit to say that technology is connected to all sort of fields and purposes today, but that doesn’t make it less of technology, or the companies behind them less technology-focused.
Social media is technology, and social media companies are a valid topic of discussion in technology communities.
My contention is that the use of technology is so universal that it’s not meaningful to call a company a technology company just because they use a lot of technology, even if they have to create a lot of it themselves. Pretty much every big company has on-staff software engineers making and implementing custom technology. It takes a lot of technology to make a law firm work but that doesn’t make a law firm a technology company. If we use too-expansive of a definition for what’s a technology company, then it applies to almost every company, making it a useless term.
I do not think social media companies are technology focused. They just use technology to achieve their social media (/advertising) business goals, the same as every bank, every hospital, every trucking company, etc.
Absolutely 💯
Then you don’t think Google is a Tech company?
If you took technology away from banking, hospitals or a law firm, you might still have a business. If you took technology away from social media, you don’t have anything left. It is the focus and the medium.
Technologies also do not exist in a vacuum either, they exist for a purpose. The purpose of social media is socialization, as well as advertising and information dissemination.
Sure, today anyone can host a Mastodon, but I wouldn’t call that any less technologically-focused.
Not particularly, no.
I don’t think the mere fact that you access something solely on a website or app makes it a tech company. That’s merely a means to an end. But there’s no more technology involved in running a social media company than there is a modern bank. The technology is actually a lot simpler.
I’d say that Mastodon as a software project is technology; the various instances, however, are not.
And all of these social media companies really are providing a means for the communication of information within societies. You can do this without “modern day” technology, such as through TV, radio, newspapers, or even word of mouth. Technology in the form of smartphones, the internet, and programs/platforms like Twitter and Mastodon allow us to communicate in ways previously not known to humanity.
So yeah, I agree with you.
Banking has some tech that is more advanced than many consumer electronics so I don’t think that’s a fair measure, not to mention that the tech behind large scale social media is still pretty advanced.
This definition would make it so basically only hardware, OS and some cloud infrastructure service companies could count as tech companies because technology is generally not made for its own sake. It seems needlessly restrictive. Like, is Nintendo not a tech company? It makes entertainment products sure, but it designs and produces its own devices and systems for that. I don’t believe having an end purpose or being also a part of another market disqualifies it from that. You’d have an easier time convincing me there are way more tech companies.
I think at this point we just fundamentally disagree over what a tech company must be. Even if we took search in isolation I’d still count Google as one, as well as advertising, not exclusively. It also tends to be covered as such too.
Yes, that’s pretty much my point (but you also need to add companies selling software itself). The alternative is that every company is a technology company, making the term completely meaningless.
Google is a big company and some of what it does is tech company stuff: Gmail, Chrome, Google Cloud, Pixel. But all of that is tangential their main business, which is just selling ads. I don’t object to the tech parts being covered by tech news. I just don’t think a company’s tech-focused side projects (as a percentage of its business) make it a tech company.
I don’t think search engine or social media tech are side projects for Google and Twitter respectively. As much as Google may offer ads separately, Google wouldn’t be what it is without their search engine, and without their social media, Twitter or Facebook would have nothing to deliver ads with.
If you are counting software, that’s all the more reason to consider social media as tech. By your reasoning, Microsoft Office is not tech, it just uses tech for, well, office tools, Adobe Suite uses tech for art tools. But if software companies are tech, which I also believe, then companies whose core business is developing and maintaining an online platform are tech too.
Ultimately I see that there is a lot of grey area, but if we cut it solely to companies who make and sell tech for it alone, which is itself a very debatable rule, then we’d cut off a lot of companies which I believe to be tech.
My microwave uses an insane amount of technology.
Twitter uses a website an app and advertising.
There’s a huge difference between those two.
You can absolutely separate social media companies from general technology. It’s easy. Mostly because all they do is have a website, app, and advertising.
Why don’t we cover every second of news from microwave companies? One reason would be because they’re so common place, and have been for decades.
Why do we cover every second of news from social media sites? They’re common place and have been around for decades.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc are just websites. That’s all they are.
“Just websites?”
You seriously want to pretend that your microwave has more technology than Facebook does? You think they are just some HTML pages? C’mon…
I see you are trying to downplay their complexity with hyperbole, but that just makes you sound silly.
I really want to believe you’re being sarcastic
No, it’s just you. And disingenuous.
I hope you understand how incredibly dumb your previous comment is. It’s close to being the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen anyone say. I’m not attacking you, I’m seriously hoping that you understand how dumb it is.
Ah yes, 5th grade debating tactics: call people dumb and offer no argument whatsoever. Weird how popular this is becoming. You’d think people have a bit more self-respect than this.