Pinterest is a website where people can find and save pictures of things they like. They also want to make money by helping people buy those things. But it's not easy because there are other big websites that also want to make money from ads. So, Pinterest is trying new ways to work with Google and Amazon to help them make more money and be more popular. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Pinterest is somehow dependent on Google's help or that its partnership with Amazon is similar to Amazon's own business model. Neither of these claims are supported by the article or by reality. Pinterest is a successful company that has its own unique strategy and value proposition, and it does not need to imitate others to succeed.
- The article constantly compares Pinterest to Big Tech, as if they were in the same category or facing the same challenges. This is a false equivalence and ignores the fact that Pinterest operates in a different segment of the online advertising market, with a more niche and personalized audience that is less affected by ad blockers and privacy regulations. Big Tech may be benefiting from the ad rebound, but they are also facing increased scrutiny and antitrust pressure, which could hurt their future growth prospects.
- The article repeatedly uses negative or vague terms to describe Pinterest's performance and outlook, such as "trimmed its workforce", "came below analyst estimates", "scraps for others", "needs to lift its revenue", etc. These words convey a sense of pessimism and doubt, while downplaying the positive aspects of Pinterest's results, such as the increase in monthly active users and the guidance for Q1 revenue. The article also fails to mention any of the potential advantages or opportunities that Pinterest has, such as its growing international presence, its innovative visual search feature, or its partnership with Shopify.
- The article ends with a disclaimer that is both unnecessary and contradictory. It states that the content is for informational purposes only and not intended as investing advice, but then it also mentions Benzinga's reporting and ratings, which are presumably meant to influence the readers' decisions. The disclaimer also claims that the article does not represent Benzinga's opinion or editing, but then it uses Benzinga's name and logo throughout the text. This creates confusion and inconsistency, and undermines the credibility of the article and the author.