Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor: Once censorship occurs, a platform can never be trusted again (Jack Dorseys Biggest Fight Yet, Cover Story, June 5).

Sure, today it may be a political position you agree with, but tomorrow this may change. Users and advertisers must now be looking over their shoulders asking whether this runs afoul of the censors. This becomes an added risk for all users.

Why do people feel the need to protect the public from political language they feel is incorrect or offensive? Is the filter to ban everything that may set off the violence-prone, the mentally ill, or gun owners? Then Catcher in the Rye would be banned by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and his censors.

I do not believe much of anything I see or hear on the news shows, cable, or the internet. Many of President Donald Trumps tweets are nonsensical. Twitters 280-character limit does not allow for explanation and understanding.

This is a platform designed for rants and slogans. If you believe in free speech and the ability of the public to think, you would best steer clear of Twitter.

Don Knife, Rocky River, Ohio

To the Editor:The table showing that Facebook and Twitter had annual revenue of $30 and $20 per user, respectively, was very enlightening. It seems to me that there are enough users of these platforms who are now persuaded that the ad-based model is a failed experiment, and would now be willing to pay $20 or $30 a year to subscribe to equivalent community platforms that are free of ads, clickbait, and disinformation.

Without the overhead of managing the ad environment, an ad-free subscription-funded platform should be able to make a tidy profit while providing useful, curated, fact-checked news.

Dennis Strauss, entura, Calif.

To the Editor:Your article really struck a chord in me (Can Big Business Fix Racial Injustice? It Has to Try. Heres How, June 5).

Im a 62-year-old Latina who was driven to succeed after graduating from Indiana University business school in the class of 1984. I knocked on countless doors, read dozens of job-success books, and dressed and acted the part; yet the best offers I got were for secretary/reception.

I updated and modernized a few office systems and kept being passed up for promotions. Even after proving my financial effectiveness for bosses, request for promotions resulted in recently hired, white temps getting the better jobs.

Decades later, I proved myself as a sought-out Montessori teacher by parents, students, faculty, and staff for effective, compassionate, knowledgeable, dedicated work.

Yet here I sit dreading having to work two unfulfilling jobs (downsizing from three) and unable to have any pleasure in life, as I only live and work to pay off bills.

Jobs and prospective positions (even as a bilingual, certified teacher applying to Title 1 schools with a majority of Latino students) have brushed me aside to make room for white, recent grads.

Thank you for your article, which reminded me that its not me; its the system.

Yolanda Casillas Ochoa, Sarasota, Fla.

To the Editor:Your article Amid U.S-China Tensions, Active Managers Are Buying (June 5) describes the various ways that investors could invest in Chinese stocks if they were to be delisted on U.S. markets. Sure, the growth potential in Chinese stocks seems high, but why would people take the increased risks in buying Chinese stocks?

When Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse performed Dancing in the Dark, it was the epitome of grace and elegance. Dancing in the dark, however, is not a good strategy for financial investing. The Chinese government has forced Chinese companies to put a virtual blackout on meaningful financial disclosure. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has no visibility into Chinese company financial data.

Honestly, would you buy a new car if you went to the makers website and it had a bunch of pretty pictures but no information about the cars performance or safety features?

Arthur M. Shatz, Oakland Gardens, N.Y.

To the Editor:The article Merger Arbs Are Confident Despite Whispers on Tiffany Deal (June 4) states that Taubman Centers shares at [a then] $44 trade at a 15% discount to Simon Property Groups offer of $52.50 a share. While technically correct, that is not how professional merger arbs evaluate a deal; it would be more appropriate to state the percentage increase from the current price to the offer price, which at the prices stated in the article would amount to a 19.32% return.

Edward Taussig, Brooklyn, N.Y.

To the Editor:I think the general feeling was, this jobs report will stink but it didnt stink as badly as we thought it would (Why the Jobs Report Isnt Quite as Good as It Seems, Up & Down Wall Street, June 5). The job numbers wont resemble what we saw at the beginning of the year because businesses have opened at a diminished capacity, unemployment payments are like a raise for many, some companies wont survive, and most will probably tread cautiously until they know what the reopened economy looks like. Career politicians found it easy to close businesses, but few to none have ever opened a business (at least one that didnt fail). So their so-called guidance will probably mess things up for a while to come.

Terrence Milan, On Barrons.com

Send letters to: mail@barrons.com. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writers name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.

Original post:
Letters to the Editor of Barrons - Barron's