I really appreciate the venture capitalists (VCs) in Silicon Valley subsidizing my soapbox at Twitter. Seriously, it is an absolutely awesome platform for getting a message out to the masses. But at some point I worry that the gravy train will come to an end and that users will have to start picking up part of the tab. After all, will those VCs continue to subsidize Twitter if it never turns a profit? According to the Wikipedia entry about Twitter:
In total, Twitter has raised over US$57 million from venture capitalists. The exact amounts of funding have not been publicly released. Twitter's first round of funding was for an undisclosed amount that is rumored to have been between $1 million and $5 million. Its B round of funding in 2008 was for $22 million and its C round of funding in 2009 was for $35 million from Institutional Venture Partners and Benchmark Capital along with an undisclosed amount from other investors including Union Square Ventures and Spark Capital. Twitter is backed by Union Square Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital, and Bezos Expeditions.
Twitter has always been reluctant to commit to serving advertisements as a revenue model - the way most web start-ups today stay afloat. In the past, the website has expressed more interest in developing add-on tools and services for companies and professionals. Yet [Twitter cofounder Biz Stone] ... has never ruled out the possibility.Modine reports that Twitter recently changed its Terms of Service in such a way that makes this more likely. Here is what the new Terms of Service say:
The Services may include advertisements, which may be targeted to the Content or information on the Services, queries made through the Services, or other information. The types and extent of advertising by Twitter on the Services are subject to change. In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.As Tony Bradley of PC World argues:
Why not? Advertising is the grease that keeps the Internet revenue engine running smoothly. Its tried and true. Internet entities like Google have grown from the embryo stage to technology behemoth primarily by feasting on a steady diet of ad revenue.Absolutely correct. Of course, that probably won't stop some people -- especially the privacy zealots -- from whining about commercial exploitation, mind manipulation, and so on -- especially if Twitter really does make their ads highly targeted. But that's the natural evolution of things for Twitter and similar sites, and it's very pro-consumer because it supports the continued provision of service at no charge to the vast majority of users. That's especially important for a communications platform like Twitter, which carries a massive amount of non-commercial speech, as Berin Szoka and I pointed out in our papers, "Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate," and "Targeted Online Advertising: What's the Harm & Where Are We Heading? It's essential that policymakers not interfere with the evolution of business models that could support speech-enhancing platforms like Twitter going forward. This is why we always point out the relationship between economic regulation and speech regulation. Burdensome regulation could stifle the "technologies of freedom" like Twitter and diminish our speech opportunities in the process.