Yeah from people that work there: it's hard to keep ad companies happy. Ad services want more personal info, tracking systems, they want geo, they want the user signed in, etc. Ad companies can get ALL that on facebook. This is completely against what twitter users (the vocal ones anyway) want.

If your goal is personal monetary profit, maybe. Is it the case of Jack? Why want more when you already have too much

Because at a certain point money becomes an addiction.

Not sure what your point is. Even gambling addicts like to donate or give away money to the hostesses and waitresses at the bar.

The addiction is earning money. Accumulating wealth. Donating it, if anything, adds to that addiction, since it lets you play god for a bit.

  Not saying Jack is all of those things, and donating money is objectively a good thing, but the greedy race for money can't be solved by promoting charity.

It’s not about money - it’s power, and shaping the future.

It’s not a matter of getting some amount of money…it’s choosing when you step back from the game and cede the future to your rivals.

Its not about "personal" profits or money, although money is certainly an indicator. It is about impact. I question Twitter's growth and future impact, good or bad.

Not only that, but it's a much simpler proposition: "Our mission is to sell payment processing". With Twitter it sounds like there was a constant battle between employees, some championing free speech, others wanting twitter to curb abuse, others angry Trump got banned, a different group angry similar Trump adjacent folks are still on Twitter...

What a headache. I'm not trying to dismiss these issues, but I can certainly see why it's a lot easier to spend your time worrying about how to make everyone happy at the company when it's Square than Twitter.