One of these two may be true, and if so, the other is false. Since NB provided a link to an article and WKN did not, I would think that WSJ has the truth here that Twitter posted a loss for 8 years of the past decade, and not 8 profitable years in 9. And that was provided as a retort to Luch who said it was not profitable. So Luch appears to have been correct despite the kneejerk reaction.
I'll add to it:
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/
I found this in about 20 seconds with the google. Twitter profitable 2 years out of 10. Using my keen logic abilities, I'd say that means 8 of 10 years unprofitable.
It appears that Luch and NB are correct. But if so, then why would a Billionaire buy it if it were not profitable. Usually, rich guys like that want to make more money, not throw it down an abyss.
mspart