Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates
https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-misses-ad-revenue-user-growth-estimates-revenue-forecast-light-2022-02-10/
443 comments
> my account locked up and said there was "suspicious activity" and if I wanted to continue I needed to supply my phone number.
I have repeatedly heard it said that Twitter does this for every single new account as a matter of course. Twitter wants your phone number, but don’t want you to bounce right at registration.
I have repeatedly heard it said that Twitter does this for every single new account as a matter of course. Twitter wants your phone number, but don’t want you to bounce right at registration.
I would guess it started as a reaction to the many botnets used by companies and countries trying to maximize certain opinions
On top of the phone number, they also go through purges seemingly once a year, getting rid of up to a million accounts a day. That also doesn't fair well with giving the stock market raw numbers
On top of the phone number, they also go through purges seemingly once a year, getting rid of up to a million accounts a day. That also doesn't fair well with giving the stock market raw numbers
> reaction to the many botnets
Makes no sense. If they wanted to require a phone number to keep out bots, they would simply ask for a phone number at registration. Delaying it like this, claiming “suspicious activity” is hard to see any other way than how I described it.
Makes no sense. If they wanted to require a phone number to keep out bots, they would simply ask for a phone number at registration. Delaying it like this, claiming “suspicious activity” is hard to see any other way than how I described it.
bots can get phone numbers cheap, a cost of doing business. Speculation: Twitter wants your phone number so they can correlate you with existing marketing data so they can target you more effectively.
I would agree.
Twitter has massive data on your interests but collects only minimal information about you vs, say, Facebook which has your name, birthday etc etc. I would also argue that Twitter has BETTER interest data than Facebook b/c you are constantly interacting with thousands of tweets a day across multiple dimensions. Facebook tends to be your family and a couple pages you happened to like.
If they get your phone number, they get all of the available "data in the cloud" about you e.g. income, purchasing preferences etc. Cross reference the interests with that cloud data and you have a very precise target profile to sell to advertisers.
Twitter has massive data on your interests but collects only minimal information about you vs, say, Facebook which has your name, birthday etc etc. I would also argue that Twitter has BETTER interest data than Facebook b/c you are constantly interacting with thousands of tweets a day across multiple dimensions. Facebook tends to be your family and a couple pages you happened to like.
If they get your phone number, they get all of the available "data in the cloud" about you e.g. income, purchasing preferences etc. Cross reference the interests with that cloud data and you have a very precise target profile to sell to advertisers.
Twitter doesn't have the purest of intentions in harvesting user phone numbers, that's true. But the flip side of this, especially when I see people getting angry about apps that ask for phone number, is that it's not like 1990's or even 2000's anymore where you wanted to keep your phone number private. It's trivial to get a new phone number now and Signal makes it easy. There's also VOIP services like Google Voice (not sure if Twitter allows the use of VOIP numbers, though).
Because even a phone number is not enough to keep out bots.
Some VoIP providers do a PAYG model, so you can choose from any number of phone numbers, regional, local landlines or from mobile numbers for free and only pay when you make a call or answer their answerphone.
Now obviously Twitter will send text messages so you never incur a cost from the VoIP provider.
So how does a phone number solve bot activity?
Some VoIP providers do a PAYG model, so you can choose from any number of phone numbers, regional, local landlines or from mobile numbers for free and only pay when you make a call or answer their answerphone.
Now obviously Twitter will send text messages so you never incur a cost from the VoIP provider.
So how does a phone number solve bot activity?
its a cat and mouse game. lately I've found many websites show an error when I put in my Google Voice number for sms verification
I don't know how the implementation works, if theres a way to check for virtual vs. real number, but some sms verification service provider seems to have successfully implemented a filter on Google Voice
I don't know how the implementation works, if theres a way to check for virtual vs. real number, but some sms verification service provider seems to have successfully implemented a filter on Google Voice
Don’t you have to seed the PAYG account with a non-zero amount of money to initially get the number? Even a few dollars multiplied out becomes a significant spend if it’s a unique number per bot.
Totally free and that's just one VoIP provider.
https://www.sipgatebasic.co.uk/
If Twitter asked for the phone number at registration, they would have fewer signups due to people opting not to complete their registrations. Delaying the ask for a phone number increases the number of accounts they are able to claim.
The junk calls I ritually get whenever I need to use the app, specifically after about 1 minutes of opening the app while I am reading says otherwise.
Implementing (no opt in) 2FA on sites where that level of security is not really warranted is just a ploy to get data that can be resold in my opinion.
Implementing (no opt in) 2FA on sites where that level of security is not really warranted is just a ploy to get data that can be resold in my opinion.
but don’t want you to bounce right at registration.
Instead, they end up filling their database with countless unused accounts created by those who gave up?
Instead, they end up filling their database with countless unused accounts created by those who gave up?
What are the odds that they still count those unused accounts towards that crucial user growth metric?
Worked for a CEO that used to require his Customer Service to create new accounts whenever a user would request their account be deleted. You can imagine where the company ended up when the CEO's solution to people wanting to delete their accounts is to replace them with fake ones for the vanity metrics.
Space in databases is essentially free.
... and they can say to investors "we have N million accounts".
Microsoft also do this.
I had to make a new MS account to migrate a 2nd minecraft account. The account has only ever been used from the game launcher, and they have the analytics that the account was created for the migration. But apparently there was "suspicious activity" that violates TOS and they auto locked it, and rather than contact the gmail address I used for the account, they demand a phone number.
Tbf, I'm considering just raising this with the authorities, given a lot of relevant authorities, as not everyone migrating an account will be ab adult, and asking for kids phone numbers seems like a GDPR slamdunk.
I had to make a new MS account to migrate a 2nd minecraft account. The account has only ever been used from the game launcher, and they have the analytics that the account was created for the migration. But apparently there was "suspicious activity" that violates TOS and they auto locked it, and rather than contact the gmail address I used for the account, they demand a phone number.
Tbf, I'm considering just raising this with the authorities, given a lot of relevant authorities, as not everyone migrating an account will be ab adult, and asking for kids phone numbers seems like a GDPR slamdunk.
Wrangling MS accounts for Minecraft is weirdly hellish. I don't know if they're trying to get people to stop using the Java edition, or what. It feels like they don't want your money.
They already have my money, twice, and the second account was after release so "full price".
Its weird because they have to know that hurting Java edition is just stabbing the most evangelical members of the community. The ones that built it up and developed so much of the word of mouth marketing.
Its weird because they have to know that hurting Java edition is just stabbing the most evangelical members of the community. The ones that built it up and developed so much of the word of mouth marketing.
I hear you. I'd have already bought two more if buying the first (post-Microsoft-acquisition—family has two from before that already) copy hadn't been been such a pain in the ass.
My alternative isn't switching to the non-Java edition—it's finally getting around to looking into open source clones. I'm riiiiight on the edge of pushing my kids into one of those instead.
My alternative isn't switching to the non-Java edition—it's finally getting around to looking into open source clones. I'm riiiiight on the edge of pushing my kids into one of those instead.
Do it.
> I have never encountered a more hostile website
I think Instagram and/or Pintrest often require you to log in before letting you see even the first picture you click on.
I think Instagram and/or Pintrest often require you to log in before letting you see even the first picture you click on.
The Reddit mobile website might be the worst. Every aspect of it is geared to making it as annoying as possible to use so that you are forced to download their app (or go find a better 3rd party one).
old.reddit.com still works, and the day they disable it is the last day I am a Reddit user (which I have been since the YC days, as an original disaffected digg user)
On mobile i.reddit.com is probably a better fit.
Not for me, it repeats the same top ~20 posts over and over when I use i.reddit.com
And it's functional like a WAP site in 2001 was functional. It's incredibly barebones to the point of being useless. I reckon Reddit forgot it exists at all.
And it's functional like a WAP site in 2001 was functional. It's incredibly barebones to the point of being useless. I reckon Reddit forgot it exists at all.
ditto, I always goto old.reddit.com, I think its tough to adapt to a new UX.
wait till they IPO. They will need to show growth and will erode away old reddit features, with more nags and modals to switch to the “new experience” — so they can boost ad revenue
The push to open web links in a mobile app has already become a PITA
The push to open web links in a mobile app has already become a PITA
they already do it in other ways like having certain features unsupported on the old reddit app. old reddit also shows a cookie modal that if you click it takes you to new reddit because it doesn't exist on old reddit
They're all as bad as each other, let's not waste time ranking them. They're all shit and shouldn't be tolerated.
And it is SLOW as ass ! I keep thinking I need to upgrade my phone (Xiaomi 8 core - Android) but I just can't do it from a principal point of view !
For my part, Teddit.net completely replaced the official website when it come to browse on mobile.
Quora as well.
I don't believe Quora does this any more. They used to blur the entire page without a login but they relaxed that a couple of years ago now. I do notice that sometimes extended threads still seem to be behind a login wall but it's seems somewhat sporadic and inconsistent.
No it still does force you to login upon loading the page, can't proceed past. I know because it just happened to me.
Quora even manages to break Archive Today, which is pretty good with most other sites' stupidity.
I ended up just making a Twitter account so I don't have to deal with it. Plus I can follow whoever as well.
I did the exact same thing for Instagram. I never post or like anything.
I did the exact same thing for Instagram. I never post or like anything.
I really can recommend Nitter[0], which also creates RSS feeds so you can just add them to your RSS reader of choice.
[0] https://nitter.net/
[0] https://nitter.net/
Is there something similar for TikTok, that would simplify the interface, give you notifications for a few channels (if that's the right word), with privacy in mind, and all without the need to register there?
This is the solution I’ve been looking for, thanks for sharing it!
There's also https://fraidyc.at/ which provides a browser extension. It's an easy way to do exactly what the OP was doing and for more than just twitter.
It's almost impossible to sign up for an account with Twitter, Google, or Facebook without divulging your phone number with them and then confirming it. They're at the stage where their growth is scrutinized by investors and partners, and they're desperate to prove that their users have real eyeballs that can see ads. Before that, they had no problem with new accounts maybe being bots because it's good for growth numbers. Now advertisers want to know if real people are seeing their ads, or if just bots are.
>I have never encountered a more hostile website, or company for that matter, towards innocuous behavior.
Pinterest images in Google image search results would like to have a word with you.
Pinterest images in Google image search results would like to have a word with you.
Fuck. How much I hate Pinterest for basically being a huge spammer on image search...
Worst part is that when Pinterest launched I even used it for a short while, it was useful for some things (e.g. collecting examples of furniture I'd be eyeing, tattoo motifs inspiration) and over time it just became a huge cluttered unusable mess. And then the spam on image search came and I simply despise Pinterest, ranting about them convinced at least 2 close friends to abandon it as well.
Worst part is that when Pinterest launched I even used it for a short while, it was useful for some things (e.g. collecting examples of furniture I'd be eyeing, tattoo motifs inspiration) and over time it just became a huge cluttered unusable mess. And then the spam on image search came and I simply despise Pinterest, ranting about them convinced at least 2 close friends to abandon it as well.
giphy and a couple similar sites are the ones I hate. It's so goddamn hard to get ahold of a gif that's actually a gif, these days. Why does gif search take me to a site that makes it nearly impossible to see a gif? And then doesn't include "duplicates" from other sites that would actually give me a gif.
> The juice just ain't worth the squeeze.
Thus triggering the headline "missed user growth estimates".
Thus triggering the headline "missed user growth estimates".
In addition, even when fully logged in, having given a phone number, they censor the search function on the site. Not just the tweets you can post - the search - the tweets that they allow to be posted but you are not allowed to read.
This is abhorrent to me and led to me deleting my account after a dozen years of use and double digit thousands of followers.
If you won't let me read it, don't let it be posted.
I will no longer donate my writing and attention to censorship platforms.
This is abhorrent to me and led to me deleting my account after a dozen years of use and double digit thousands of followers.
If you won't let me read it, don't let it be posted.
I will no longer donate my writing and attention to censorship platforms.
Sadly, your outcome is an outlier. The conversion funnel using those hostile tactics is significantly higher than churn in short term, and that's all that matters for someone's promo packet.
> I have never encountered a more hostile website, or company for that matter, towards innocuous behavior.
Instagram pulled that same crap a couple of years back, and I haven't visited since.
Instagram pulled that same crap a couple of years back, and I haven't visited since.
> Twitter started putting up an overlay up prompting you to log in or create an account to continue after viewing x tweets. Annoying, but not a huge issue as you could just dismiss the modal and continue.
you can no longer dismiss the modal, or in any other way bypass this as of a few days ago. (at least on mobile)
you can no longer dismiss the modal, or in any other way bypass this as of a few days ago. (at least on mobile)
Replace twitter.com from the URL with nitter.kavin.rocks or nitter.fdn.fr .
copying the URL into a new tab usually seems to work.
F5 and clicking close is enough
This is also how I use Twitter. FYI, it still works for me in incognito mode.
If anyone reading this works at Twitter: WHY are you guys making these changes? I'm far more likely to just never use the service again out of outrage then make an account.
If anyone reading this works at Twitter: WHY are you guys making these changes? I'm far more likely to just never use the service again out of outrage then make an account.
It might be difficult to measure this.
verified account status these days is meaningless. most of the truly interesting, unique thoughts come from accounts that are not. this is of course my own take after having been on the platform since 2010.
Do you know what verified means? It does not mean endorsement or "high quality user". It just means an account claiming to be a real life person is indeed actually that person.
Do you know that most old school (circa. 2010ish) users know that, but that new school
users thinks it conveys "expert" or "authority"?
I had this exact same usage pattern and the exact same experience as what you describe. Although I refused to give them my phone number, my resolution and conclusion were also exactly the same as yours.
You can use https://nitter.net, or it's another instance, https://nitter.kavin.rocks/. You can view tweets normally as you do it via official twitter site. Moreover, you can have RSS feeds for twitter profiles (main timeline or timeline with replies).
...and to think that Twitter used to be viewable easily without even JavaScript. Once they blocked that I started using Nitter, but most recently it seems that it's been more intermittent and randomly stops showing tweets.
(I've also never created an account there, and only ever used it in "read-only" mode.)
(I've also never created an account there, and only ever used it in "read-only" mode.)
Same experience except I discovered that, at least on iOS, browsing in a private window still works to go to an individual user’s feed. It’s just a matter of time before they close that loophole and I too go away. FWIW, I do pay many of the people I manually follow on Twitter, but through substack or PayPal.
When you scroll on the page the full screen overlay locks you out unless you sign in, just tried on the latest iOS and safari
There is a query param in the URL, something like ?s=21. If you remove that, the login wall doesn't pop up.
When login page is displayed I did one of these:
- go to the address bar and just enter it
- clear all cookies related to twitter
The latter give me longer annoyance displayed.
As of you account deactivation maybe twitter think you are a bot scanning an account.
The latter give me longer annoyance displayed.
As of you account deactivation maybe twitter think you are a bot scanning an account.
I have never created an account either, and eventually added the entire Twitter domain to my uBlock Origin block list the day they booted a certain politician from their platform. Different paths, same destination.
Easiest way to solve this is to disable cookies on twitter.com.
SAME exact scenario here! Twitter is a pile but its doing a good job doing away with traditional media companies so i hope it doesnt collapse just yet.
[deleted]
Yep, same here. It’s infuriating. I’ve been using nitter to get around the modal, but who knows how long that will continue working.
lol LinkedIn used to be famously horrible in dark patterns and auto-following everyone.
And what did it get them? Billions USD from Microsoft.
So dark patterns work.
And what did it get them? Billions USD from Microsoft.
So dark patterns work.
As a heavy twitter user who mostly enjoys it (I'm very particular of who I follow), I just don't understand what they've been doing all this time. Their product has been incredibly stagnant for years save for the occasional feature here and there and some styling.
They've screwed over devs trying to build on their APIs and eroded all trust along the way. New features have been rolled out haphazardly, and they totally botched Vine and let TikTok takeover.
Despite all these issues, I like it, but it's increasingly frustrating to use, and can't help but question what's going on inside the company.
Related: Here's how to hide all the crap they've been adding to the timeline
twitter.com##[aria-label="Timeline: Trending now"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Relevant people"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Search and explore"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Footer"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Who to follow"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Discover new Lists"]
twitter.com##[aria-label=" liked "]
They've screwed over devs trying to build on their APIs and eroded all trust along the way. New features have been rolled out haphazardly, and they totally botched Vine and let TikTok takeover.
Despite all these issues, I like it, but it's increasingly frustrating to use, and can't help but question what's going on inside the company.
Related: Here's how to hide all the crap they've been adding to the timeline
twitter.com##[aria-label="Timeline: Trending now"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Relevant people"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Search and explore"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Footer"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Who to follow"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Discover new Lists"]
twitter.com##[aria-label=" liked "]
One could argue they filled out their niche. Took the VC money, made the thing global, does what it says on the tin. The world now has a broadcast-short-messages service that can be used by people to reach their audience.
Unfortunately that's not enough, since these tech firms tend to be priced to eat the whole planet, thus requiring a lot more than going global with a little thing that works.
Unfortunately that's not enough, since these tech firms tend to be priced to eat the whole planet, thus requiring a lot more than going global with a little thing that works.
> world now has a broadcast-short-messages service
Twitter is a company that has a track record of both user and developer hostility. They shouldn't be this for the world, and they don't need to be either.
I like to say if you're skating where the puck is going to be, you should be skating towards running your own software that speaks ActivityPub.
By you, I don't mean you per se. I mean organizations with budgets who would typically be assigning email accounts and that keep an LDAP directory.
Twitter could even sell a white-labeled version of this and manage it on your behalf on their own servers.
Some of the target organizations may not want to be subject to rules applicable to American corporations. They're free to operate something like this outside those bounds and use an interoperable protocol.
Twitter is a company that has a track record of both user and developer hostility. They shouldn't be this for the world, and they don't need to be either.
I like to say if you're skating where the puck is going to be, you should be skating towards running your own software that speaks ActivityPub.
By you, I don't mean you per se. I mean organizations with budgets who would typically be assigning email accounts and that keep an LDAP directory.
Twitter could even sell a white-labeled version of this and manage it on your behalf on their own servers.
Some of the target organizations may not want to be subject to rules applicable to American corporations. They're free to operate something like this outside those bounds and use an interoperable protocol.
One could argue they filled out their niche
Between this and Facebook's recent woes, I wish this was a sign of a global tiring of social media in general.
I'm frequently wrong about these things, but one can hope.
Between this and Facebook's recent woes, I wish this was a sign of a global tiring of social media in general.
I'm frequently wrong about these things, but one can hope.
Wouldn’t TikToks rise be in opposition to that idea?
I don't use TikTok, so I'm probably wrong here.. but isn't TikTok "algorithmically served user generated content" rather than "community" or "social media". As I understand it, it's like a TV station. If there's "dialog", it's in the form of answer-films, rather than actual discussion. If it does behave the way I think it does, then it backs up the idea that social media is on the wane.
It’s not the end of social media, just nearing the end of its first gods.
TikTok can be considered at least 3rd generation, if FB and Twitter were second and first is MySpace. I am sure one could argue there are more generations. Twitter is not among the first social media god generation.
In my experience, first generation happened on BBSs (contemporaneous with usenet, which wasn't on my radar until it was nearly dead). Then came niche community discussion boards and AOL. Then, Geocities and webrings. Friendster came out a few months earlier than MySpace, but they were close enough to be the same generation. By my count, TikTok is sixth generation? I can't help but feel that I'm missing a few; not even considering my anglocentric experience.
TikTok is just another iteration on Vine. It doesn't seem an upgrade from that just has more money behind it.
They're not even remotely priced at the magnitude to eat the whole planet. And yet, their market IS eating the entire world (except China, due to insular political reasons). That points to me like they're significantly undervalued.
What is Twitter's market? They seem increasingly like just another online community. Most of my feed is the same few Twitter influencers with high follower counts. The drama, conventions, and memes all make it feel insular and hostile to outsiders. Feels more like Tumblr than some global, open, platform.
Twitter has all of the "smart people" and "money" on it, unlike Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Billionaires are tweeting each other in the open. Politicians. Reporters. CEOs, CFOs.
No other social network is like that. It's the only thing keeping Twitter relevant.
TikTok and Instagram have their celebrities and trend setters (which is where the ad dollars are), but you don't see anyone musing about "metaverse", "web3", and what their latest fund is going to pursue, geopolitics, OSINT, stocks, etc.
Billionaires are tweeting each other in the open. Politicians. Reporters. CEOs, CFOs.
No other social network is like that. It's the only thing keeping Twitter relevant.
TikTok and Instagram have their celebrities and trend setters (which is where the ad dollars are), but you don't see anyone musing about "metaverse", "web3", and what their latest fund is going to pursue, geopolitics, OSINT, stocks, etc.
I can only generalise from my own experience.
If I go onto "developer Twitter", there is a thriving ecosystem of thought leaders, developers attached to well-known project, etc. If I follow those people I feel like I am a part of a conversation between People Who Matter™.
But if I compare that to my own firsthand knowledge of those same projects and what's happening in the ecosystem, I realise that there is very little overlap between reality and Twitter's projection of reality.
If I go onto "developer Twitter", there is a thriving ecosystem of thought leaders, developers attached to well-known project, etc. If I follow those people I feel like I am a part of a conversation between People Who Matter™.
But if I compare that to my own firsthand knowledge of those same projects and what's happening in the ecosystem, I realise that there is very little overlap between reality and Twitter's projection of reality.
I don't believe for a second that anything being tweeted by billionaires, C*Os, and politicians is not approved by some marketing and/or social media department. It's not like people are required to tweet, they choose to tweet.
In the end Twitter is just the illusion of people talking to each other. It's all just to further their brand or to push their goals, not insight they give up for free. Sometimes someone slips up but this just results in even more carefully crafted tweets.
In the end Twitter is just the illusion of people talking to each other. It's all just to further their brand or to push their goals, not insight they give up for free. Sometimes someone slips up but this just results in even more carefully crafted tweets.
In the US, Elon Musk, the 45th and AOC are known to tweet on their own. For the 45th, it was easily discoverable if he tweeted on his own or not by looking on the app ID.
In Germany, health minister Karl Lauterbach, foreign Minister Annalena Charlotte Alma Baerbock (yes, her parents really did name her 1312) as well as a boatload of MPs (most notably Katharina Schulze) also tweet on their own.
In Germany, health minister Karl Lauterbach, foreign Minister Annalena Charlotte Alma Baerbock (yes, her parents really did name her 1312) as well as a boatload of MPs (most notably Katharina Schulze) also tweet on their own.
LOL tiktok investors are not a thing?
twitter won; no doubt - but there is no stick or way to money-tise that doesnt not turn into a facebook slow drain gurrgler on your userbase.
this is the conundreum of social enagement based apps. Your a fad, and your only another fad away from history!
GREAT long term investment? NAahhhhh. Traditional PUMP n DUMP stock. Billionaires get made, mom and pops get DESTROYED! Celebs will go wherever the endorsement money is. Life will continue. These apps wont.
twitter won; no doubt - but there is no stick or way to money-tise that doesnt not turn into a facebook slow drain gurrgler on your userbase.
this is the conundreum of social enagement based apps. Your a fad, and your only another fad away from history!
GREAT long term investment? NAahhhhh. Traditional PUMP n DUMP stock. Billionaires get made, mom and pops get DESTROYED! Celebs will go wherever the endorsement money is. Life will continue. These apps wont.
Those topics are only important to you and your bubble though. Not to the vast majority of regular Joes like my mom, grandmothers, people in 3rd world countries, etc.
[deleted]
When you say they are you referring to Twitter specifically or social media/US tech companies in general?
If you mean Twitter specifically I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on the "bull case" for this takeover. I like Twitter and use it to shout into the void from time to time. I wonder if it's just like.. a company and not a growth company? Like what if we just had Twitter with some monetization and then it just paid out dividends to shareholders? Why is that such a bad thing?
If you mean Twitter specifically I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on the "bull case" for this takeover. I like Twitter and use it to shout into the void from time to time. I wonder if it's just like.. a company and not a growth company? Like what if we just had Twitter with some monetization and then it just paid out dividends to shareholders? Why is that such a bad thing?
I think the only thing that keeps them afloat is their importance to political figures who LOVE the short form sound bites. Of course that could just be the conspiracist in me :)
The average voter prefers to base his/her opinion on a soundbyte. And I don't blame them people have actual lives and loved ones nobody has time to waste on democracy.
just because you reach the whole world doesn't necessarily mean there's a good way to monetize it, at least without losing what makes the service attractive.
Sure they could start slapping ads on everything, even paywall the site but at the end of the day there'd be significant competition eroding profits.
Twitter almost makes more sense as an open protocol than a commercial service, which is basically what Mastodon is. It's even what Dorsey wanted to do at one point with Bluesky, not sure if that's still alive.
Sure they could start slapping ads on everything, even paywall the site but at the end of the day there'd be significant competition eroding profits.
Twitter almost makes more sense as an open protocol than a commercial service, which is basically what Mastodon is. It's even what Dorsey wanted to do at one point with Bluesky, not sure if that's still alive.
Adding to this: it's really hard for Do One Thing Well companies to pivot.
Well, they could pivot to a paid-for service without ads and sponsored content. Then we'd see their real value.
I'm amused at you questioning what they've been doing all this time, and then giving instructions to avoid seeing what they've been doing all this time.
I don't like those things in my timeline either, but that's your answer. Also those annoying voice chatrooms and their lame attempt at stories.
I don't like those things in my timeline either, but that's your answer. Also those annoying voice chatrooms and their lame attempt at stories.
I've noticed big strides in making the site more annoying to use if you aren't logged in.
True, but these strides are microscopic compared to Reddit.
What killed me it was Twitter killing developers apis: no more interesting apps than theirs. It sucks big time. They're also screwing the chronology, sometimes you get the latest tweets (most interesting) and sometimes they switch you to Recommended, which, normally, it sucks. Let me browse chronologically as it was in the old days.
I recently wondered about this, from another angle. In a way it was "weird" that they had an API, given our times. I.e., it was different: imagine if FB/Instagram/WhatsApp had an API. (I think it would be awesome, but it puts into perspective that it was weird that they had one imo)
Instagram has an API [1][2], Facebook used to have a decent API back in the days, Reddit still has an excellent API.
But somehow Youtube and Twitter are the only services where I prefer 3rd party clients.
1: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram-api
2: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram-basic-display...
But somehow Youtube and Twitter are the only services where I prefer 3rd party clients.
1: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram-api
2: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram-basic-display...
Back then, free APIs and mashups based on them were the hot thing. (Free geolocation resolvers, Google hat a free search API, Bing as well, FB had one, too, free weather forecasts APIs, etc., etc.) You couldn't be a trendy start-up without providing one. Things have changed a lot since.
PS: I keep a few selected apps from this era on my phone. Once a year I open them and admire them in their data-less beauty. (Favourite one: Partly Clouded) Let's call it software shinto.
PS: I keep a few selected apps from this era on my phone. Once a year I open them and admire them in their data-less beauty. (Favourite one: Partly Clouded) Let's call it software shinto.
It wasn't our times, it was a time when every service provided APIs, and many services provided parsable html to be scraped. The era of "mash ups".
It's incredible how things changed since the 00s.
It's incredible how things changed since the 00s.
WhatsApp has an API for $$:
https://www.whatsapp.com/business/api
https://www.whatsapp.com/business/api
Facebook actually had APIs which got closed down after a couple of data-mining scandals (first these "quiz" apps and games, then Cambridge Analytica as the final nail in the coffin), and their messenger used to support federation via XMPP. IIRC that got shut down because of spam and scams.
Now devs and social engineers are using FaceBook groups to covertly gather intel... I joined a local development (to my home) group and found out after answering development questions people posted that I was suddenly getting a lot of recruiter calls out of nowhere. Facebook apparently exposes contact info in the process, or perhaps the engineers cross-reference other sites as well. It makes the job easy for scammers too.
The convoluted ways in which people are gathering info on individuals is rampant in many Facebutt groups... There is way too much unsolicited spam and it grows every time I use an app or social site.
Makes me not want to log in at all a lot.
The convoluted ways in which people are gathering info on individuals is rampant in many Facebutt groups... There is way too much unsolicited spam and it grows every time I use an app or social site.
Makes me not want to log in at all a lot.
Facebook still has APIs, there's just a bunch of attestations and app reviews before you get access to them now. Some of them have been neutered, like friends' lists and whatnot, but there's a lot they still do.
Is it viable for advertising supported services to have a fully functional API? Some third-party developer will build an alternative client app with no ads and eliminate the revenue stream.
And they'll get their API keys revoked.
Just because you have an API doesn't mean you're going to allow anyone and everyone to use it how they want.
Just because you have an API doesn't mean you're going to allow anyone and everyone to use it how they want.
Facebook used to have an API (that was useable to do interesting things).
Chronological posts were the one thing making tools like twitter useful. The ideal that you could follow someone and see their minute-to-minute thoughts was refreshing.
In the age of bots and schedules posts, fake accounts and marginal content/reposts are rampant. Twitter to me now feels like a "dead body" repost zone where the only thing that grabs attention are snuff clips and pr0n.
Their overhead from all the volume is probably stratospheric, and they're scrambling to stop the hemorrhage of expenses over innovating now, so it's probably gonna take an entirely different platform to recapture the classic dynamic that Twitter once had.
In the age of bots and schedules posts, fake accounts and marginal content/reposts are rampant. Twitter to me now feels like a "dead body" repost zone where the only thing that grabs attention are snuff clips and pr0n.
Their overhead from all the volume is probably stratospheric, and they're scrambling to stop the hemorrhage of expenses over innovating now, so it's probably gonna take an entirely different platform to recapture the classic dynamic that Twitter once had.
Chronological is worse since you will see a bunch meaningless tweets from people. It's better if twitter can show me the important tweets that I've missed since I last used it.
Twitter's redone all their APIs and made it easier to get initial access more quickly. Have you looked at it recently?
https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/getting-st...
https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/getting-st...
Twitter like all mass social media is competing for quantity of user not quality of user. Because their product is the user: behavioral analytics & advertising.
If you're gonna use Twitter anyways, Twitter has zero incentive to make it a more productive tool for you (in fact they want to be slightly less productive so you spend more time on it). Due to network effects, they are not worried about competitors shipping a better product.
If you're gonna use Twitter anyways, Twitter has zero incentive to make it a more productive tool for you (in fact they want to be slightly less productive so you spend more time on it). Due to network effects, they are not worried about competitors shipping a better product.
>Twitter like all mass social media is competing for quantity of user not quality of user.
Then why do they ban low quality users such as bots or users who have broken their rules?
Then why do they ban low quality users such as bots or users who have broken their rules?
Their advertiser don't want to advertise to bots and the users who break the rules potentially cause a pile of bad publicity for them so they're happy to get rid of them.
Those are examples of twitter preferring quality over quantity.
There are plenty of low-quality tweeters who know how to ride the line and not cause Twitter PR problems.
Come on. Human users is implied.
> I just don't understand what they've been doing all this time.
There was that one time in 2017 when they increased the character limit.
There was that one time in 2017 when they increased the character limit.
They've actually screwed up the very basis that made it useful though, they reduced control over what users can elect to see, they've completely wrecked real time timelines, and they are covertly ratio-ing user accounts so that even their subscribers see posts later than they are completed or even in many cases not at all, and now they're marketing to users (main contributors to all the platform's content) to pay in order to boost their posts... The whole business model is like telling people they can ride electricity generating stationary bikes in order to charge up teslas for the wealthy.
I've never seen any other tool as productive as it boched terribly... Facebook was never really as useful for real time news and events in nature (mind you).
I've never seen any other tool as productive as it boched terribly... Facebook was never really as useful for real time news and events in nature (mind you).
> I just don't understand what they've been doing all this time.
They added NFT profile pics. What more do you want?
They added NFT profile pics. What more do you want?
What they’ve been doing is tons and tons and incomprehensibly many tons of work on targeting and selling advertisements.
Based on the ads I see in my timeline, they didn't do a great job at that. I have used the service for many many years and I have literally never seen any ad that I wanted to click.
Maybe they do better for the US, but they seem to have done far worse than their competitors in ad space.
Maybe they do better for the US, but they seem to have done far worse than their competitors in ad space.
I've used Twitter for almost 13 years (!!) and its ads are barely relevant to me. An example of Twitter missing the mark: my Twitter mute list includes a bunch of cryptocurrency keywords and yet Twitter still shows me cryptocurrency ads that include those muted words. I've explicitly told Twitter that I'm not interested in cryptocurrency, but they show the ads anyway. Perhaps Twitter still considers me in the target audience because I've proven that I what cryptocurrency is by muting those keywords.
In contrast, I joined Instagram just last year and use it very little, but its ads are much more (sometimes almost scarily) relevant to me. My wife is a big Instagram user, so perhaps Instagram has a shadow profile for our home IP address and I'm seeing ads personalized based on her activity (and thus peripherally relevant to me).
In contrast, I joined Instagram just last year and use it very little, but its ads are much more (sometimes almost scarily) relevant to me. My wife is a big Instagram user, so perhaps Instagram has a shadow profile for our home IP address and I'm seeing ads personalized based on her activity (and thus peripherally relevant to me).
Thanks, that's useful.
What I don't get about twitter as a company: Why do they have so many employees? If they scaled back they could have a nice business as it is.
What I don't get about twitter as a company: Why do they have so many employees? If they scaled back they could have a nice business as it is.
The goto answer for this is that they have the number of employees they have because they deemed each new employee to provide more value than they cost to employee. That’s their goal. Their goal is not to have the minimal number of people required to run some very simplistic description of their company. They would employee a thousand milk delivery people if they thought each one would provide more value than their cost to employee.
Alternatively, the cost of hiring the employee is lower than the cost of letting a competitor hire them
Do they need to do anything? The product just works, pays their bills, why should everyone jump off pants trying to squeeze as much money from their product as possible?
For me (different language, if it makes a difference), the "Discover new Lists" was interesting but didn't work because just that one doesn't have an aria-label. Instead, it's just a series of divs placed consecutively in the Lists page, each containing a span inside, with the header and the suggested lists.
I found it a nice challenge to learn a bit about selectors and uBlock Origin filter rules, and got this working, for anyone who might care:
twitter.com##span:has-text(Discover new Lists):upward(6) > :nth-child(n+5):nth-child(-n+11)
PS. also a nice tip: you can use the uBlock's "element picker mode" and write your filter starting from the "##" (i.e. leave the domain name out), and that will provide immediate visual feedback of the affected area, without having to reload the page. Neat!
I found it a nice challenge to learn a bit about selectors and uBlock Origin filter rules, and got this working, for anyone who might care:
twitter.com##span:has-text(Discover new Lists):upward(6) > :nth-child(n+5):nth-child(-n+11)
PS. also a nice tip: you can use the uBlock's "element picker mode" and write your filter starting from the "##" (i.e. leave the domain name out), and that will provide immediate visual feedback of the affected area, without having to reload the page. Neat!
I honestly don't get it. My company gets a lot of traffic from Twitter apparently so I signed up to get some perspective. I mostly follow journalists and publications as well as some business and tech folks I like. I see so many context-free messages of people arguing about topics I'm out of the loop on or posting links to news I already saw in a better aggregator. Maybe once or twice a week do I see an interesting bit of insight but it's drowning in an ocean of gibberish. And as far as I can tell that's the entire premise of the platform.
Thank you, here's how you can add these custom rules to Brave since it comes with a built-in adblocker.
https://sergiotapia.com/how-to-use-custom-adblock-rules-in-b...
https://sergiotapia.com/how-to-use-custom-adblock-rules-in-b...
Do these ublock rules still work? At least in my web ui, most css classes and IDs seem to be randomized now..
They do. Twitter's randomized css means the filters need to be based on something else like aria tags rather than css. Going after these means twitter will have to decide between blocking adblock or... Screen readers.
It's unfortunate that these tags need to be leveraged outside of their intended purpose to make their product more usable, but here we are.
It's unfortunate that these tags need to be leveraged outside of their intended purpose to make their product more usable, but here we are.
Thanks!
...and almost every time I end up on a mobile link to a tweet in a web browser I have to refresh the page to get anything but an error. Which has been going on for years, or at least seems like it.
[deleted]
You also can't right click their trending widget to open in a new tab.
Honestly? It's because their ads are trash. I know lots of marketing people and they all stay away from using them.
Say what you will about Facebook and Instagram, their ads are better overall. There's been several times an Instagram ad showed up in my feed, and I said shut up and take my money.
Nothing like that has ever happened on Twitter for me.
Say what you will about Facebook and Instagram, their ads are better overall. There's been several times an Instagram ad showed up in my feed, and I said shut up and take my money.
Nothing like that has ever happened on Twitter for me.
As an advertiser yes. This is definitely part of the answer.
Google Ads is an amazing piece of tech with usually great ROI but requires lots of setup. Facebook is easy to use, worse in terms of ROI but it has the amazing feature of optimizing for spending 100% of your budget all the time.
Twitter and LinkedIn don't do either.
Google Ads is an amazing piece of tech with usually great ROI but requires lots of setup. Facebook is easy to use, worse in terms of ROI but it has the amazing feature of optimizing for spending 100% of your budget all the time.
Twitter and LinkedIn don't do either.
Weird. All the B2B services I've bought in the last year are because of advertising were based on LinkedIn ads
I've been thinking about this because it's true from my observation, and I wonder what's the main reason:
- Is it because they are "not evil enough" compared to FB in tracking people?
- Is it because they can't track people in the same way (FB pixel is _everywhere_ on the net, Twitter's code is also widespread but probably less?)
- Is it because publisher tools are not as good as FB's? (in FB from what I know you can target various demographics really well with campaigns, based on criteria such as location, age, interests, approximated wealth etc)
- Is it because they are "not evil enough" compared to FB in tracking people?
- Is it because they can't track people in the same way (FB pixel is _everywhere_ on the net, Twitter's code is also widespread but probably less?)
- Is it because publisher tools are not as good as FB's? (in FB from what I know you can target various demographics really well with campaigns, based on criteria such as location, age, interests, approximated wealth etc)
Facebook tracks you almost obsessively all over the web, and on its own website (with many features designed specifically to get more info about you).
Twitter does neither.
Which is great for the users, but probably horrible for the advertisers.
Twitter does neither.
Which is great for the users, but probably horrible for the advertisers.
Twitter is not set up to know things about people in the first place. Your profile doesn't contain any personal information. Most of the interaction on Twitter is between users, while on FB it can be both users and companies with either ads or corporate posts making it into the feed. You click a post from a clothing company, Facebook will show you a relevant ad a week later. On Twitter on the other hand seems like companies never really bother advertising.
Another big part of it for me is that they make their ads appear almost like tweets so now when I scroll, my brain has learned to tune them out as useless filler. I don't think making them easier to distinguish would be better because I would tune them out even faster but they need to change how they display ads to actually make them effective.
[deleted]
Very effective for free influencer marketing or crypto scamming though
this. if a Google/IG ads team was put on Twitter ads, their revenue and user satisfaction would likely go through the roof
[deleted]
when they (and other platforms) started having sponsored posts that, themselves, have a pre-roll ad that plays before the user is granted the privilege of viewing them, it reeked of desperation. years later now this is the norm—crazy.
We did that once, it was a kids pool.. we thought it would be great for our large dog to lounge in during the summer. When we got it though, it was literally about 9 inches in diameter. It was a like a pool for GI Joe dolls.
At least for B2B, LinkedIn (and paid search) is mostly where it's at.
This. Twitter ads are horrible.
I never ever get an actually good ad on Twitter.
I never ever get an actually good ad on Twitter.
Honestly, Twitter is just a weird product. On the authoring side, it has a tremendous product-market fit with particular outspoken groups (investors, founders, politicians, journalists, activists, etc) and a terrible product-market fit with everyone else.
I believe their biggest bet on revenue has always been to grow their passive audiences (people who just use the feed and don't tweet) but their product lacks the immediate stickiness that other feed products have. It's almost impossible to get the value of Twitter out of the box if you don't have a clear idea of what topics matter to you and who are the central figures in those topics.
News outlets have a better funnel to distill and distribute information, so most people don't need to have Twitter to have a general idea of what was said on Twitter. A large amount of news nowadays is "X person tweeted Y".
I'm convinced Twitter will never be able to grow into a meaningful mainstream social media (+1B users) with their current model, but I do believe there's a lot of unlocked value in what they have created.
I believe their biggest bet on revenue has always been to grow their passive audiences (people who just use the feed and don't tweet) but their product lacks the immediate stickiness that other feed products have. It's almost impossible to get the value of Twitter out of the box if you don't have a clear idea of what topics matter to you and who are the central figures in those topics.
News outlets have a better funnel to distill and distribute information, so most people don't need to have Twitter to have a general idea of what was said on Twitter. A large amount of news nowadays is "X person tweeted Y".
I'm convinced Twitter will never be able to grow into a meaningful mainstream social media (+1B users) with their current model, but I do believe there's a lot of unlocked value in what they have created.
Me and my peer group seem to be using Twitter more than anything these days (early 30s) - but not how you'd think.
We seem to all browse it to find interesting news/articles and then share them on WhatsApp groups. Having said that we all follow politics pretty closely so maybe we are a bit niche?
I actually get a lot of value out of twitter. Way more than I used to do with Facebook, which is just total trash now and my habit of checking it all the time has actually stopped simply because the content was so poor I seem to have inadvertently trained my brain out of expecting a dopamine hit scrolling through it.
We seem to all browse it to find interesting news/articles and then share them on WhatsApp groups. Having said that we all follow politics pretty closely so maybe we are a bit niche?
I actually get a lot of value out of twitter. Way more than I used to do with Facebook, which is just total trash now and my habit of checking it all the time has actually stopped simply because the content was so poor I seem to have inadvertently trained my brain out of expecting a dopamine hit scrolling through it.
Yea, TikTok is playing in a similar place (big creators, lots of passive people) but their algo + video being stickier has led to massive wins. I think it’s late for Twitter, but interesting thought exercise on what could have been if they had the TikTok discovery algo.
After all of these decades ...
After talk/ytalk, .plan files, sysop chat, fidonet, usenet, livejournal/myspace/facebook ...
I can't believe that the mass-adoption of threaded, text discussions looks like this !
What must non-technical, end user, always-online-generation think of this ?
It's confusing, barely-usable garbage.
After talk/ytalk, .plan files, sysop chat, fidonet, usenet, livejournal/myspace/facebook ...
I can't believe that the mass-adoption of threaded, text discussions looks like this !
What must non-technical, end user, always-online-generation think of this ?
It's confusing, barely-usable garbage.
Unfortunately having been through a similar evolution, I feel the same, but when I talk to younger people, they think it's great.
I specifically agree with the part about barely-usable garbage. Whenever I'm linked to a Twitter thread it's a dumpster fire. Baffling.
I specifically agree with the part about barely-usable garbage. Whenever I'm linked to a Twitter thread it's a dumpster fire. Baffling.
Honestly ? It great. Short consumable content that allows for vertical discussion in two directions with different meanings , per thread discussions that you can skip if you want.
If you find it boring you can bail at anytime and if you find it interesting you can bookmark tweets for later consumption. The trending feature allows for multi-community discussion, jokes, and memes.
Twitter encompasses engaging text-based human interaction perfectly.
If you find it boring you can bail at anytime and if you find it interesting you can bookmark tweets for later consumption. The trending feature allows for multi-community discussion, jokes, and memes.
Twitter encompasses engaging text-based human interaction perfectly.
I'd love to see a workgroup to discuss social UX ideas with the goal of implementing a new type of social media experience. Even the FOSS, decentralized and federated implementations of social media are taking their queues from these terrible UX designs.
Yep, every time I'm linked to twitter (I don't have mobile app) I feel myself so old, because for the love of god I can't figure why anyone would use this for communication. Maybe the fact that I don't use it from mobile adds to this.
Twitter is best used thru Bitlbee and an IRC client.
I use Twitter occasionally -- but the real shift in the past year is that all of my family (4 siblings, parents, in-laws, etc) have switched to using Signal. A group Signal chat is a wonderful social media platform, without any advertisements, algorithms, or similar nonsense. Just updates and thoughts from people I care about. It gives me hope that the destructive social media platforms like Twitter and FB will eventually be small compared to actually private communication channels like Signal.
This is something I learned to love with Snapchat. Instead of public posts, people just send stuff to you or the group. It's private, personal, and as you say, ad-free.
Snapchat is all ads for me. I have no idea what any of the buttons do except there is a 50% chance of seeing an ad with women in bikinis.
> This is something I learned to love with Snapchat. It's private, personal, and as you say, ad-free.
It's not private if it's viewable by Snapchat. You can have personal on any platform. And Snapchat is one of the most advertisement-laden platforms ever.
It's not private if it's viewable by Snapchat. You can have personal on any platform. And Snapchat is one of the most advertisement-laden platforms ever.
I meant strictly in terms of user experience. That was years ago though, and back then there were no ads.
[deleted]
First, billions of people have been using WhatsApp for years for 1:1 and small group communication. It's much bigger than Twitter for years now. Second, it's not the same. On WhatsApp/Signal you primarily communicate with people you know well. On Twitter you primarily consume content or communicate with people you don't know.
I never understood Twitter until I started using it professionally, if you could call it that, as an academic. "Science Twitter" complements traditional academic publishing models really well. When I want updates about science, I read papers that I find from searching, RSS updates, or citations. When I want updates about _how science is done_, I turn to Twitter, where many of my scientific role models are active and almost all of the interesting stuff tends to bubble to the top.
Its algorithm seems to work really well for rapid consumption of buzz within a particular network that you can tap into by following people. It is one of the few cases where I like the fact that I occasionally get out-of-network Tweets in my timeline because it usually exposes me to something really interesting posted by someone outside of my direct field. I'd never want to use Twitter for comprehensive reviews of some topic, reliable back-and-forth discussion, etc. but it's just fantastic for gossip and trends.
The tables here are even starting to turn–so many people are on Science Twitter that it feels like I find as many new and relevant papers on Twitter as I do in my tailored email notifications and RSS feeds. Twitter is also always a day or two ahead, and the papers usually come with the backstory and context in plain English. I hate to say that the Twitter thread from the paper author is often more informative (at least, per unit of time that it takes to consume) than the content of the paper itself.
Its algorithm seems to work really well for rapid consumption of buzz within a particular network that you can tap into by following people. It is one of the few cases where I like the fact that I occasionally get out-of-network Tweets in my timeline because it usually exposes me to something really interesting posted by someone outside of my direct field. I'd never want to use Twitter for comprehensive reviews of some topic, reliable back-and-forth discussion, etc. but it's just fantastic for gossip and trends.
The tables here are even starting to turn–so many people are on Science Twitter that it feels like I find as many new and relevant papers on Twitter as I do in my tailored email notifications and RSS feeds. Twitter is also always a day or two ahead, and the papers usually come with the backstory and context in plain English. I hate to say that the Twitter thread from the paper author is often more informative (at least, per unit of time that it takes to consume) than the content of the paper itself.
They failed to get revenue from ads, just started a paid version that doesn't offer anything attractive for most people (I would be willing to pay a bit for a good experience), and by focusing SO MUCH on engagement without a way to opt-out, they make people hate the tool and their timelines.
Tik Tok at least has two tabs: Following and For You. On following I only see content from users I follow. But Twitter refuses to let this happen, and clutter my timeline with things I don't wanna see.
And even if I create lists for people I want to see posts from (suggestion from another post from earlier this week), I still can't make my likes not be 'advertised' to everyone that follows me. So basically sometimes I can't even give a like to a tweet if it's risqué for example, because some followers might not like seeing that and then unfollow me.
And even if I create lists for people I want to see posts from (suggestion from another post from earlier this week), I still can't make my likes not be 'advertised' to everyone that follows me. So basically sometimes I can't even give a like to a tweet if it's risqué for example, because some followers might not like seeing that and then unfollow me.
4.5 billion in ads per year on 200 mil users is a failure? What revenue number would you define as successful?
I feel so naive / out-of-touch when Twitter comes up. How is it we don't have a simple micro-blogging protocol. Like we do for email. Twitter didn't invent it, neither did Unix for that matter. Twtxt and others are doing some great things, but why don't we move from innovation to standardized protocols to enhance the user experience of the internet. Is it just great marketing driven by profits. As I said, I'm probably just naive, but it sure seems like a trivial protocol to write and then we can all jump on the task of building clients.
We do and no one uses it.
There is some truth to the classic HN post that "Twitter can be built in a weekend". A service / protocol that can distribute 280 character messages isn't really where the value is for a service like Twitter. It's 20% engineering, 80% recruiting the right users, retaining them, and getting them to engage on the platform.
Additionally, open protocols are way harder to evolve and are therefore less competitive with closed services. The only reason why email has stuck around as long as it has is because it locked everyone in with its network effect before commercial players figured out how to compete.
Additionally, email isn't really an open protocol in practice. Sure, it's spec'd, but in order to actually participate in the network you need to navigate a really complicated system of anti-spam reputation systems. This is why people just end up paying companies like Twilio to send email instead of running their own servers.
Overall, I don't think we should be looking to learn any lessons from email. It achieved market dominance in a time that doesn't look anything like the modern era, and is much more complex than most people realize.
There is some truth to the classic HN post that "Twitter can be built in a weekend". A service / protocol that can distribute 280 character messages isn't really where the value is for a service like Twitter. It's 20% engineering, 80% recruiting the right users, retaining them, and getting them to engage on the platform.
Additionally, open protocols are way harder to evolve and are therefore less competitive with closed services. The only reason why email has stuck around as long as it has is because it locked everyone in with its network effect before commercial players figured out how to compete.
Additionally, email isn't really an open protocol in practice. Sure, it's spec'd, but in order to actually participate in the network you need to navigate a really complicated system of anti-spam reputation systems. This is why people just end up paying companies like Twilio to send email instead of running their own servers.
Overall, I don't think we should be looking to learn any lessons from email. It achieved market dominance in a time that doesn't look anything like the modern era, and is much more complex than most people realize.
> We do and no one uses it.
This is straight up denialist and hyperbolic FUD. There's a healthy and vibrant ecosystem surrounding the federated social web, which has been a thing since 2008 or so.
Also, I would argue that email's staying power isn't quite backed by the answer you gave ("it locked everyone in with its network effect") but more along the lines that it survived the Lindy effect (the great thing about this is that it's not going to its grave as a technology anytime soon).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
This is straight up denialist and hyperbolic FUD. There's a healthy and vibrant ecosystem surrounding the federated social web, which has been a thing since 2008 or so.
Also, I would argue that email's staying power isn't quite backed by the answer you gave ("it locked everyone in with its network effect") but more along the lines that it survived the Lindy effect (the great thing about this is that it's not going to its grave as a technology anytime soon).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
I think the denialism is that open standards somehow magically win. That's only happened a few times and is the reason that the Web is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure humanity has ever created.
Yes, there are people using federated social products but the growth rate is low and so are the absolute numbers. If growth were good, we would see VC backed startups trying to profit off of it. Why do you think that is?
Yes, there are people using federated social products but the growth rate is low and so are the absolute numbers. If growth were good, we would see VC backed startups trying to profit off of it. Why do you think that is?
> How is it we don't have a simple micro-blogging protocol. Like we do for email. Twitter didn't invent it, neither did Unix for that matter. Twtxt and others are doing some great things, but why don't we move from innovation to standardized protocols to enhance the user experience of the internet.
I read an interesting point somewhere: empirically, platforms can change an innovate far faster than protocols. The example given was encryption: email doesn't have it, even though people have been talking about it for literally decades, but WhatsApp added it in a relatively short time (a year? less?).
It makes sense. With a protocol, once it gets popular, change becomes really hard. It's like herding cats to get everyone to update, so things stagnate at the lowest common denominator for interoperability reasons. When all the software and installs are controlled by one entity, that entity can make a decision to change and just execute it, no herding needed.
I read an interesting point somewhere: empirically, platforms can change an innovate far faster than protocols. The example given was encryption: email doesn't have it, even though people have been talking about it for literally decades, but WhatsApp added it in a relatively short time (a year? less?).
It makes sense. With a protocol, once it gets popular, change becomes really hard. It's like herding cats to get everyone to update, so things stagnate at the lowest common denominator for interoperability reasons. When all the software and installs are controlled by one entity, that entity can make a decision to change and just execute it, no herding needed.
I believe we do: it's called ActivityPub[1], and it's what Mastodon and others use.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub
Surprisingly difficult for Joe Public to get on - how to solve that problem?
The problem is number of users they want to see on that platform. If you want to follow/read/interact with someone you will be there. If not you do not care about it. It is surprisingly hard to make a network of people if your network has no people in it. I had to teach this lesson to several managers over the years 'setup a page where our users can interact'. That turned out to be the easy part. The hard part was getting anyone to actually post anything. Much less interact with each other. That happens a decent amount when you try to move into a space that already has established players.
Mastodon is about as easy to create an account on as Twitter (if not easier; Twitter's human verification process is pretty cumbersome).
You can sign up here: https://mastodon.social/about
(Solving the "critical mass of users" problem is left as an exercise to the user.)
You can sign up here: https://mastodon.social/about
(Solving the "critical mass of users" problem is left as an exercise to the user.)
I use Mastodon as well as Twitter. Even though there are things that I love about it, I can't say it's easier to use or has more appeal than Twitter.
I think Twitter is easier for the mass public to join. Go to Twitter.com, put username and password, verify phone number. Done! The screens are cleaner and very intuitive.
For mastodon, there's more text and messaging about the differences regarding Twitter, what's the Fediverse, instance rules. So you just landed on the main screen and you have to think about choosing an instance with different number of people, different rules.
After you are in, you can't search!! You can only search usernames or hashtags, but that is REALLY cumbersome and ineffective since people don't write "This is my #Twilight #book #review #bookreview URL". If you are not tech/privacy focused, the trending tags are usually not interesting, apart from #caturday I guess?.
Even after you are able to follow people, you can't quote-retweet (which is a pro AND a con), and even "retweeting" is cumbersome if you are on someone's profile from another instance.
Sharing is also more cumbersome since there's no bookmarklet or chrome extension that I could find, and sites don't have a "share on mastodon" link. The solution was to enable a cross-poster, so I just keep posting on Twitter.
About instances: on some main instances, speed is ok, but try to follow some pic focused profiles on smaller instances. It can take like 5~10 seconds for an image to load. And now on the iPhone official app, I can't seem to be able to download pictures anymore, and the option to bookmark a post (not like) is not there, only on the web-mobile version.
I think Twitter is easier for the mass public to join. Go to Twitter.com, put username and password, verify phone number. Done! The screens are cleaner and very intuitive.
For mastodon, there's more text and messaging about the differences regarding Twitter, what's the Fediverse, instance rules. So you just landed on the main screen and you have to think about choosing an instance with different number of people, different rules.
After you are in, you can't search!! You can only search usernames or hashtags, but that is REALLY cumbersome and ineffective since people don't write "This is my #Twilight #book #review #bookreview URL". If you are not tech/privacy focused, the trending tags are usually not interesting, apart from #caturday I guess?.
Even after you are able to follow people, you can't quote-retweet (which is a pro AND a con), and even "retweeting" is cumbersome if you are on someone's profile from another instance.
Sharing is also more cumbersome since there's no bookmarklet or chrome extension that I could find, and sites don't have a "share on mastodon" link. The solution was to enable a cross-poster, so I just keep posting on Twitter.
About instances: on some main instances, speed is ok, but try to follow some pic focused profiles on smaller instances. It can take like 5~10 seconds for an image to load. And now on the iPhone official app, I can't seem to be able to download pictures anymore, and the option to bookmark a post (not like) is not there, only on the web-mobile version.
Running your own email server is pretty difficult but getting an email address somewhere doesn't seem to be a problem with the public anymore.
To answer "How to solve that problem?", I'd say don't worry a damn thing about Joe Public.
To answer "How to solve that problem?", I'd say don't worry a damn thing about Joe Public.
Technology isn't the hard part, for example Mastodon exists and works fine. Funding a sustained product delivery effort is expensive, developing a value prop big enough to overcome network effects is really hard, etc.
Open source creates a superior product, technically and morally. Silicon valley creates a more addicting product.
Do we really want any new technology to be “like email”? Email is basically useless now with all of the spam.
Are you sure about that Reuters? Twitter's stock is up 5% over the last five days. It seems to me that they met the market's expectation for growth. Not many people buy more of a stock after it underperforms their expectations.
This headline is at best misleading -- intended to give the impression that Twitter is performing worse than they are by ignoring the metrics in which they are excelling -- or potentially even just outright wrong.
This headline is at best misleading -- intended to give the impression that Twitter is performing worse than they are by ignoring the metrics in which they are excelling -- or potentially even just outright wrong.
Remember, this is Wall Street you're talking about, so both things can be true: Twitter can miss analyst's expectations, and the stock can go up because other analysts see an opportunity based on different expectations.
If you're expecting much of what Wall Street (or journalists covering the markets) does to make sense, you're going to have a bad time.
If you're expecting much of what Wall Street (or journalists covering the markets) does to make sense, you're going to have a bad time.
Estimates are analyst estimates, not market expectation. The market can (and often does) expect a company to miss estimates. If they missed by less than expected, the stock usually goes up.
Is there some reason articles like this doesn't include profits? Revenue is specified along with a number of other key metrics, but not profit.
The overall conclusion seems to be the same as with Meta last week: It's going well, but not as well as predicted. The slower than expected growth is only a problem, because the stock market likes predictability and will punish any company unable to correctly foresee the future.
The overall conclusion seems to be the same as with Meta last week: It's going well, but not as well as predicted. The slower than expected growth is only a problem, because the stock market likes predictability and will punish any company unable to correctly foresee the future.
> punish any company unable to correctly foresee the future
If you're calculating the present value of future profits and the rate of increase in profits declines then the present value can swing wildly. That's not "punishment". It's the market self correcting.
If you're calculating the present value of future profits and the rate of increase in profits declines then the present value can swing wildly. That's not "punishment". It's the market self correcting.
Because profit doesn't matter as much for a growth story, growth does. They do it to themselves... in the face of this 'miss' the CEO continues to pitch the growth story: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/10/22925114/twitter-earnings... So it should be no surprise when the financial reporters and markets flog them when they miss.
For reference, Amazon would have had $1.8 billion in losses had it not been for AWS's insane profit [0].
https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-would-have-posted-1-8-b...
https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-would-have-posted-1-8-b...
Profit isn't very meaningful without a lot of context. A growing business could plow all of their would-be profits back into growing their business, making it look like they are losing money. Or a failing business could cannibalize itself to get a couple quarters of profits at the cost of destroying its long term prospects for success. Revenue is a much more concrete figure that sort of tells its own story, unlike profit.
That's is an interesting take, because the company I work for is the exact opposite. Revenue is useless, because you can just create all the revenue you want.
Among other things, we resell hardware and software. The basic idea is that customers can get a Dell, or Oracle server and a license for an Oracle database from us, when buying hosting. This saves them the trouble of dealing with multiple suppliers. The hardware and software business is just sort of a side thing, but we can generate crazy amounts of revenue by losing money on hardware. The idea is that we make the money back longterm on hosting. We never use revenue as a meaningful KPI, because we know that some years it will be inflated like crazy by hardware or software sales (which aren't profitable).
So I don't really see revenue as useful figure either, not without also knowing if you're profitable.
Among other things, we resell hardware and software. The basic idea is that customers can get a Dell, or Oracle server and a license for an Oracle database from us, when buying hosting. This saves them the trouble of dealing with multiple suppliers. The hardware and software business is just sort of a side thing, but we can generate crazy amounts of revenue by losing money on hardware. The idea is that we make the money back longterm on hosting. We never use revenue as a meaningful KPI, because we know that some years it will be inflated like crazy by hardware or software sales (which aren't profitable).
So I don't really see revenue as useful figure either, not without also knowing if you're profitable.
Your company has a different model than Twitter. Some companies need to measure Revenue, some Profit and some Growth - and many will switch which is the important one as they grow (or shrink).
> Revenue is a much more concrete figure that sort of tells its own story, unlike profit.
No single number tells any story on its own. You can have $1T revenue tomorrow. Just sell $10 bills for $1.
No single number tells any story on its own. You can have $1T revenue tomorrow. Just sell $10 bills for $1.
But then you lost money. If you are selling assets worth $10 for $1, your revenue is literally negative
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp
Net income would be negative. Aka profit.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp
If you sold 2 $10 bills and received $2 in exchange, your revenue is $2, your cost of goods sold is $20, and your net income or profit is -$18.
Net income would be negative. Aka profit.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp
If you sold 2 $10 bills and received $2 in exchange, your revenue is $2, your cost of goods sold is $20, and your net income or profit is -$18.
[deleted]
So like most tech unicorns
So how well does revenue tell a story if you have negative unit costs?
If you keep losing money, you eventually run out.
If you keep losing money, you eventually run out.
Nope. Cause you have growth, which gets new investors who bring in Money - if you can convince them your Growth numbers are good.
It’s called a Ponzi scheme. It works until it doesn’t. See Robinhood and Peleton.
All five of the Big Tech companies were profitable before they went public. Even Amazon had positive margins and they were plowing money back in to the business. Most of the former unicorns don’t have positive margins.
“Growth” is okay if your funneling profits back into your business. But see DoorDash. How do you not money delivering food when everyone is afraid to leave their house like in 2020?
It’s not about growth, it’s about attrition. Every VC is hoping that they can pawn their money losing investments off to a gullible public.
All five of the Big Tech companies were profitable before they went public. Even Amazon had positive margins and they were plowing money back in to the business. Most of the former unicorns don’t have positive margins.
“Growth” is okay if your funneling profits back into your business. But see DoorDash. How do you not money delivering food when everyone is afraid to leave their house like in 2020?
It’s not about growth, it’s about attrition. Every VC is hoping that they can pawn their money losing investments off to a gullible public.
The money doesn't run out for as long as your investors have faith.
> Revenue is a much more concrete figure that sort of tells its own story, unlike profit.
But if you look at a company that is always in the red with no plan to become profitable, the question becomes:
- how is this a business?
- where is money coming from?
- why is money still coming?
Twitter seems to be mostly profitable in the past few years.
But if you look at a company that is always in the red with no plan to become profitable, the question becomes:
- how is this a business?
- where is money coming from?
- why is money still coming?
Twitter seems to be mostly profitable in the past few years.
The companies don't have to foresee the future, there is no law requiring them to make estimates about future earnings/expenses/profits.
TWTR investors seem unfazed, at least so far. Stock is essentially flat on the news.
I actually still get a pretty decent experience out of Twitter. The only topic I really engage with is remote work.. I don’t follow very many people (only humans who post real content) and unfollow anyone who goes “off topic”. Which is too bad, but it keeps my feed simple and sane.
I feel like Twitter would be way better if people had different topics you could subscribe (or not) to.
I feel like Twitter would be way better if people had different topics you could subscribe (or not) to.
That's kind of the rub with twitter, it puts individuals front and center... and individuals presumably have more than one interest that they might want to talk about. I mainly use twitter to surface fanart and some communities are very organized with using the right #tags, and when I check those tags I have a 100% hit rate on finding something new that I want to see. But anything else on that site is a crapshoot. It's kind of twitter's normal culture to be disorganized, but I'm pretty sure I and everyone I interact with on twitter are actually tumblr refugees and we're very diligent with tagging.
You're really better off with traditional thread-based forums to have conversation topics. Muting somebody's entire existence just because they occasionally dirty the general feed with 'offtopic' just doesn't seem like a sustainable way to use social media.
You're really better off with traditional thread-based forums to have conversation topics. Muting somebody's entire existence just because they occasionally dirty the general feed with 'offtopic' just doesn't seem like a sustainable way to use social media.
It has worked well for many years, at least for me. More people than you might expect really do focus an account on one topic. Some people have multiple accounts to separate work/personal life as well.
It’s nothing personal for me not to follow someone, so I don’t really see it as muting their whole existence.
It’s nothing personal for me not to follow someone, so I don’t really see it as muting their whole existence.
> I feel like Twitter would be way better if people had different topics you could subscribe (or not) to.
All services would be better if they were more like Google+ (but didn't share name with a despised effort to crush pseudonyms and wasn't owned by a company that buried it as soon as they had been forced to iron out the wrinkles ;-)
All services would be better if they were more like Google+ (but didn't share name with a despised effort to crush pseudonyms and wasn't owned by a company that buried it as soon as they had been forced to iron out the wrinkles ;-)
I suspect that the complexity tradeoff isn't worth it for them. As in it would solve the problem but probably send overall engagement down.
Opt in would be nice, I am sure high follower people would rather go to the effort of categorising their tweets rather than losing followers when they decide to Tweet about their local sports.
Opt in would be nice, I am sure high follower people would rather go to the effort of categorising their tweets rather than losing followers when they decide to Tweet about their local sports.
YouTube and TikTok pay people who have popular videos, which gives "creators" an incentive to put a lot of work into what they do.
You can argue that the payouts are a pittance for the large number of views those YouTubers get, but in comparison, the only thing Twitter has done to reward its users is provide a virtual tip jar.
Not only that, you can't pay to remove ads on Twitter.
You can argue that the payouts are a pittance for the large number of views those YouTubers get, but in comparison, the only thing Twitter has done to reward its users is provide a virtual tip jar.
Not only that, you can't pay to remove ads on Twitter.
Twitter pays its content creators by giving them an ego boost they can’t get anywhere else.
Is this at all related to Apple's privacy change? The article mentions FB's recent miss, which was attributed to this issue, but doesn't say whether it was at play here as well.
I realize iOS users are not the majority, but it's likely that they are more valuable for advertisers and therefore could generate more revenue.
edit: as noted below, this was in the article — I had done a search for "FB" and didn't see there was another reference to Apple that was upstream from where I landed.
I realize iOS users are not the majority, but it's likely that they are more valuable for advertisers and therefore could generate more revenue.
edit: as noted below, this was in the article — I had done a search for "FB" and didn't see there was another reference to Apple that was upstream from where I landed.
It's addressed in the article, though absent specific numbers:
> The company said the impact from privacy changes by Apple Inc (AAPL.O) remained modest. Last year, Apple began requiring apps to receive permission from iOS users to track their activity on apps and websites owned by other companies.
> The Apple changes could impact Twitter in the future as it grows its performance advertising business, Segal said, referring to ads that seek to drive sales or other consumer actions. He said Twitter is working to mitigate future negative impacts from Apple's changes.
> The company said the impact from privacy changes by Apple Inc (AAPL.O) remained modest. Last year, Apple began requiring apps to receive permission from iOS users to track their activity on apps and websites owned by other companies.
> The Apple changes could impact Twitter in the future as it grows its performance advertising business, Segal said, referring to ads that seek to drive sales or other consumer actions. He said Twitter is working to mitigate future negative impacts from Apple's changes.
It's the only social I use really but I've been looking into alternatives. Ever since Twitter decided to open up a crypto/web3 team and introduced NFT profile pics I'm out and won't support it... but as the only social I have to keep in touch with other open source contributors and projects I work on/follow it's going to take some time before I totally close my account.
That being said, good recommendations are welcome!
That being said, good recommendations are welcome!
I honestly thought this stuff was going to disappear with the change of leadership but it looks like they’ve doubled down.
NFT profile pictures? Who wants this?
NFT profile pictures? Who wants this?
run a blog and connect with the Indieweb community.
Someone else mentioned Mastodon. If you don't want to run your own Mastodon server, but you have a WordPress site, use an ActivityPub plugin to connect with the wider network.
Someone else mentioned Mastodon. If you don't want to run your own Mastodon server, but you have a WordPress site, use an ActivityPub plugin to connect with the wider network.
I'd suggest as an initial migratory step (or just for having that extra reach) start using a Mastodon server for microblogging. That appears to be where this twitter-like social UX paradigm is headed.
Maybe they shouldn't have banned that user, after all.
Nah, they should have...and sooner.
As an American, it feels strange to me that the CEO of Twitter has control over how The President is able to communicate.
The CEO of Twitter has control over how the President is able to communicate on Twitter. As an American, this makes sense because Twitter is private property.
It's one of those things where in theory and in the rule of law the CEO can do so. It does make me feel uncomfortable, though. As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies.
I don't know what 'the solution' is, but I do sense a precedent being established that I am weary of. Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users, but also a private platform where they can be ejected at-will.
I don't know what 'the solution' is, but I do sense a precedent being established that I am weary of. Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users, but also a private platform where they can be ejected at-will.
> Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users
I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either.
The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.
I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either.
The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.
Sure, but you'll have a hard time convincing people that is an effective alternative. How many people do you know who visit the official website of the White House to read press releases and memos? Does the average person know that the president used to give a weekly radio address? The medium of the message is just as important as the message itself.
I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter account. She'd be the same as the other 435 Representatives who release statements on their house.gov website that no one realizes exists.
Edit: >"I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts."
This was actually a court ruling. I have no clue if Twitter actually coded this requirement on @realDonaldTrump after the fact. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his...
I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter account. She'd be the same as the other 435 Representatives who release statements on their house.gov website that no one realizes exists.
Edit: >"I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts."
This was actually a court ruling. I have no clue if Twitter actually coded this requirement on @realDonaldTrump after the fact. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his...
That is a court order due to the President’s status as a particular type of government employee, not a Twitter policy.
Okay. The whole situation still makes me uncomfortable. I don't particularly think that being a "private company" on the size and scale of Twitter justifies their ability to censor the president.
I think the root problem is that a single private platform has become a de facto public sphere, like, at all. Is there any precedent for this? I also don't know what a solution might look like, I mean, what are you going to do? Nationalize Twitter?
It's a general problem too (IMO): Microsoft/Github mediates FOSS development, Facebook (I'm never going to call them "Meta", I think the rename was a huge dick move by Zuckerberg that pollutes our language and culture. Nyah.) Facebook is Easy-Bake oven Internet for normies and they love it. Smart phones are malls.
It's a general problem too (IMO): Microsoft/Github mediates FOSS development, Facebook (I'm never going to call them "Meta", I think the rename was a huge dick move by Zuckerberg that pollutes our language and culture. Nyah.) Facebook is Easy-Bake oven Internet for normies and they love it. Smart phones are malls.
> Twitter is [...] a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users
No, it's not.
When a public official uses their Twitter account as an official channel, that account becomes a limited public forum from which users cannot be blocked for reasons that they could not be excluded from official government fora more generally (e.g., viewpoint discrimination is not permitted.) This is not a restriction on Twitter, but on the conduct of government business by public officials that applies wherever and whenever they conduct such business.
No, it's not.
When a public official uses their Twitter account as an official channel, that account becomes a limited public forum from which users cannot be blocked for reasons that they could not be excluded from official government fora more generally (e.g., viewpoint discrimination is not permitted.) This is not a restriction on Twitter, but on the conduct of government business by public officials that applies wherever and whenever they conduct such business.
I'm saying it's a de-facto public sphere rather than de-jure one.
> I'm saying it's a de-facto public sphere rather than de-jure one.
“a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users” is a de jure not de facto distinction, unless you are using hyperbolic language for a practical difficulty rather than an actual prohibition.
“a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users” is a de jure not de facto distinction, unless you are using hyperbolic language for a practical difficulty rather than an actual prohibition.
>As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies.
There is no such notion - private companies have to obey the laws of the land like anyone else.
Platforms like Twitter have the right to ban politicians on the basis of the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. The same rights that allow restaurants to eject people for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and allow radio stations and newspapers to choose what and what not to publish, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses off. I don't know why this suddenly makes people feel uncomfortable, when these rights, and the ability of private enterprise to exercise them, have been part of the basis of Western liberal democracies for hundreds of years.
The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians - including social media platforms, that supersede the rights and desires of the platform owners. That it would be illegal to ban any politician from any private property under any circumstances.
I believe it's a good thing that the President of the United States has no more right to act the fool on Twitter than you or I should. Twitter is not, and should not be, the sole nexus for all global political and cultural communication. It's a microblogging platform, ffs, the only reason it "matters" at all is because one specific paranoiac President didn't trust his own media apparatus.
It's a convenience. It's certainly useful, but it isn't necessary.
There is no such notion - private companies have to obey the laws of the land like anyone else.
Platforms like Twitter have the right to ban politicians on the basis of the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. The same rights that allow restaurants to eject people for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and allow radio stations and newspapers to choose what and what not to publish, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses off. I don't know why this suddenly makes people feel uncomfortable, when these rights, and the ability of private enterprise to exercise them, have been part of the basis of Western liberal democracies for hundreds of years.
The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians - including social media platforms, that supersede the rights and desires of the platform owners. That it would be illegal to ban any politician from any private property under any circumstances.
I believe it's a good thing that the President of the United States has no more right to act the fool on Twitter than you or I should. Twitter is not, and should not be, the sole nexus for all global political and cultural communication. It's a microblogging platform, ffs, the only reason it "matters" at all is because one specific paranoiac President didn't trust his own media apparatus.
It's a convenience. It's certainly useful, but it isn't necessary.
>"The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians"
Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property? The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances. The Net Neutrality folks are fighting so that Comcast cannot determine which parts of the internet I am allowed to visit using their service.
What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure."
The government controls what citizens can do with their private property all the time, and in just about every facet of our lives. I see no harm in making laws depending on the scale of the company.
Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property? The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances. The Net Neutrality folks are fighting so that Comcast cannot determine which parts of the internet I am allowed to visit using their service.
What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure."
The government controls what citizens can do with their private property all the time, and in just about every facet of our lives. I see no harm in making laws depending on the scale of the company.
>Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property?
Because the rights of property, free speech and association that apply to social media platforms apply everywhere, so altering those rights for social media platforms also alters them everywhere.
>The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances.
Social media platforms are not common carriers. They don't have monopoly over free speech or the dissemination of information, nor has any platform ever claimed to act neutrally. The entire business model of social media is curation and algorithmic recommendation of content - the exact opposite of what a common carrier does.
Also, broadcasters are regulated because broadcast spectrum space is a limited resource. Cable broadcasters, for instance, aren't subject to the same regulations.
>What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure."
The harm is that the First Amendment prevents the government from abridging the people's freedom of speech, and a fundamental part of freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech. Forcing all social media platforms which meet some arbitrary (and arbitrarily changeable) limit on membership to carry speech by the government is compelled speech, and an abridgement on freedom of speech, and thus voids, or at least weakens, the First Amendment. Which is a bad thing.
Governments already have their own media infrastructure. Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President of the US have Twitter accounts (remember, what was banned was Trump's personal account, @POTUS is still perfectly fine.) The solution here is for the government to either comply with the rules set by social media platforms like everyone else, or else create their own platform.
Because the rights of property, free speech and association that apply to social media platforms apply everywhere, so altering those rights for social media platforms also alters them everywhere.
>The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances.
Social media platforms are not common carriers. They don't have monopoly over free speech or the dissemination of information, nor has any platform ever claimed to act neutrally. The entire business model of social media is curation and algorithmic recommendation of content - the exact opposite of what a common carrier does.
Also, broadcasters are regulated because broadcast spectrum space is a limited resource. Cable broadcasters, for instance, aren't subject to the same regulations.
>What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure."
The harm is that the First Amendment prevents the government from abridging the people's freedom of speech, and a fundamental part of freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech. Forcing all social media platforms which meet some arbitrary (and arbitrarily changeable) limit on membership to carry speech by the government is compelled speech, and an abridgement on freedom of speech, and thus voids, or at least weakens, the First Amendment. Which is a bad thing.
Governments already have their own media infrastructure. Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President of the US have Twitter accounts (remember, what was banned was Trump's personal account, @POTUS is still perfectly fine.) The solution here is for the government to either comply with the rules set by social media platforms like everyone else, or else create their own platform.
...as an American, I find it strange to see a POTUS feel like the laws have no bearing on him (I am not a fan of ever expanding and oblique "executive privilege"), especially to be given exemptions for behaviors not otherwise allowed by a private entity.
You mean @realDonaldTrump? Gee, I wonder why everyone cannot stop talking, reporting about that person given that they have been 'deplatformed' for over year.
I don’t understand why platforms like Twitter don’t make money the easy way: let people pay for visual customizations, like a different profile shape (octogonal instead of a circle), or a special banner or label, or any other cosmetics. That has been very successful for multiplayer games since more than a decade, people love to pay to show their cool new cosmetic. Let people pay for cool set of emotes. Or different colors, etc.
That doesn’t require ads, is optional, and works well in a social context.
That doesn’t require ads, is optional, and works well in a social context.
It should be increasingly expensive and time consuming to add more sides to your profile shape, eg pentagon->hexagon is a step up. Adding enough sides to be a circle, or indistinguishable from one on a pixelated screen, would be very prestigious. Of course, this dimension might be disrupted by block...
You might find it silly but people pay a lot of money to feel they look different from the rest of the crowd. And they are happy doing so.
Understandably so because I'm not sure Twitter wants their platform to end up looking like MySpace. Furthermore, these visual customizations are very hard to translate to the plethora of other clients users use to consume Twitter.
I think Twitter has massive opportunity though with their power users. Many of them are definitely willing to spend $100+/mo just based on the value they get out of it alone if they can get access to power user analytics, insights, data, or better tools to engage with their audience.
Assuming 1% of their users are power users, that's around 3M users with a market opportunity exceeding $3B annually.
I think Twitter has massive opportunity though with their power users. Many of them are definitely willing to spend $100+/mo just based on the value they get out of it alone if they can get access to power user analytics, insights, data, or better tools to engage with their audience.
Assuming 1% of their users are power users, that's around 3M users with a market opportunity exceeding $3B annually.
Paid emotes or profile customization does not result in MySpace. It can be done in a subtle way. They actually do something like this with their NFT profile picture (the certified owner has a different profile shape). And is trivial to support in new clients when you’re a tech company with talents Twitter has.
Seriously, that has been developed by game companies since a while now, people pay for showing to their friends their cool little golden label. Twitter has the advantage of not being a serious platform, people are there to shitpost, create and follow drama, or other type of crowd interactions. And users already show of their affiliation, how cool and trendy they are using their bio and username.
Imagine for example a 1-month “official Marvel fan” banner for $$ at the time of release of a big marvel movie, people would pay for this.
Seriously, that has been developed by game companies since a while now, people pay for showing to their friends their cool little golden label. Twitter has the advantage of not being a serious platform, people are there to shitpost, create and follow drama, or other type of crowd interactions. And users already show of their affiliation, how cool and trendy they are using their bio and username.
Imagine for example a 1-month “official Marvel fan” banner for $$ at the time of release of a big marvel movie, people would pay for this.
I think Twitter is a victim of it's niche.
It's hard to describe why some people love twitter and others don't. But it seems fairly difficult to change it in such a way that you gain new users and don't lose the current.
It's hard to describe why some people love twitter and others don't. But it seems fairly difficult to change it in such a way that you gain new users and don't lose the current.
Really? I can describe pretty precisely why I hate it. I don't have an account, so when I get a link to Twitter, I see one or more of the following:
- A reply to someone else that I can't see, so I now have no context about what I'm looking at. It's like coming in in the middle of a conversation.
- A normal tweet followed by a set of replies that appear to be incomplete. There are a bunch of buttons to press to "see more". Often when you click on them there's only a single additional response, not a very long thread, so it's unclear why I had to click to "see more". Other times there are several back-and-forth replies in a row shown, most of them inconsequential. What decides whether I need to click to "see more"?
- Bots, crypto scams, misinformation, ads
- The entire interface appears to be an overlay over something else. Like it looks like you're reading a popup that you can dismiss to see the actual content. But when you do that, it shows you something unrelated.
- Sometimes, but not always, I see the tweet I was intended to see, but instead of seeing replies, there's a bunch of completely unrelated tweets below that where the replies normally are
I'm old, so it's probably me, but I just can't parse a Twitter page because it's so bizarrely laid out, and so much of the expected content either isn't shown, or is hidden by default, and so much unexpected content is shown. Call me crazy, but I don't have time to figure it out just to read someone's hot take on the latest trend.
- A reply to someone else that I can't see, so I now have no context about what I'm looking at. It's like coming in in the middle of a conversation.
- A normal tweet followed by a set of replies that appear to be incomplete. There are a bunch of buttons to press to "see more". Often when you click on them there's only a single additional response, not a very long thread, so it's unclear why I had to click to "see more". Other times there are several back-and-forth replies in a row shown, most of them inconsequential. What decides whether I need to click to "see more"?
- Bots, crypto scams, misinformation, ads
- The entire interface appears to be an overlay over something else. Like it looks like you're reading a popup that you can dismiss to see the actual content. But when you do that, it shows you something unrelated.
- Sometimes, but not always, I see the tweet I was intended to see, but instead of seeing replies, there's a bunch of completely unrelated tweets below that where the replies normally are
I'm old, so it's probably me, but I just can't parse a Twitter page because it's so bizarrely laid out, and so much of the expected content either isn't shown, or is hidden by default, and so much unexpected content is shown. Call me crazy, but I don't have time to figure it out just to read someone's hot take on the latest trend.
Twitter is up by over 150% since 2016.
Both are pretty useless statements without context.
Both are pretty useless statements without context.
The context is the original IPO share price of Twitter in 2013.
The context of "since IPO" for a company that's been public for almost a decade, in the tech business.
In fact, what other tech stock valued at double digit billions has had such a flat valuation for its whole lifetime, yet still survived?
Yes, a range of ~14-77, but it's neither taken off nor crashed.
Look at any other survivor and they'll be shaped more like Oracle, Cisco, FB&NFLX (well, recent troubles aside)
Look at them all over the last 9 years. Twitter stands out to me.
I dunno, maybe there are many big tech companies following the same pattern. But none of them are this high profile, so Twitter is the odd one out.
In fact, what other tech stock valued at double digit billions has had such a flat valuation for its whole lifetime, yet still survived?
Yes, a range of ~14-77, but it's neither taken off nor crashed.
Look at any other survivor and they'll be shaped more like Oracle, Cisco, FB&NFLX (well, recent troubles aside)
Look at them all over the last 9 years. Twitter stands out to me.
I dunno, maybe there are many big tech companies following the same pattern. But none of them are this high profile, so Twitter is the odd one out.
Look at AMD before and after the new CEO...
It's been pretty much a straight line downward trend for 10 years. There's probably not a whole lot that is redeemable by more context.
Twitter has been an absolute mess over the last few years. Through the explore tab, they aggressively promote topics that I have no interest in: k-pop, fashion, reality TV, telenovelas and birthdays. And there's no way to tell them that I don't really care about those topics, you can't even hide them.
The trending topics used to be a very good way to know what's happening. Being the pulse of the planet was achieved. Nowadays, the trending topics are heavily abused. When a streamer or an influencer does something, there's usually 6 or 7 trending topics all related to that person.
And then there are the spoilers. Every major movie release has the name of the characters or actors right in your home page the very same day of the premiere. I had to permanently hide them in my browser, and I've been reducing the usage of Twitter in my phone. I'm very tempted to uninstall it from it and use it only in a PC, although I don't see myself closing my account.
And even though they're alienating a big part of their user base by promoting topics that clearly drive their numbers, they're still not reaching their goals. I wonder what they'll do next.
The trending topics used to be a very good way to know what's happening. Being the pulse of the planet was achieved. Nowadays, the trending topics are heavily abused. When a streamer or an influencer does something, there's usually 6 or 7 trending topics all related to that person.
And then there are the spoilers. Every major movie release has the name of the characters or actors right in your home page the very same day of the premiere. I had to permanently hide them in my browser, and I've been reducing the usage of Twitter in my phone. I'm very tempted to uninstall it from it and use it only in a PC, although I don't see myself closing my account.
And even though they're alienating a big part of their user base by promoting topics that clearly drive their numbers, they're still not reaching their goals. I wonder what they'll do next.
> you can't even hide them
I changed my trends location to Tokyo on someone's recommendation, and it's been a great workaround. I don't speak Japanese, so it's the same as 'hiding' the trends to my brain.
(I think the way to do this is 'Explore' -> gear icon, at least on desktop.)
I changed my trends location to Tokyo on someone's recommendation, and it's been a great workaround. I don't speak Japanese, so it's the same as 'hiding' the trends to my brain.
(I think the way to do this is 'Explore' -> gear icon, at least on desktop.)
I loathe how often BrooklynDad_Defiant!, DutyToWarn, OccupyDemocrats, Palmer Report, Gravel Institute, Jeff Tiedrich, and many others always end up being the top tweet of whatever trending topic there happens to be. I refuse to believe this is a coincidence or the result of organic participation. Their appearance is far too consistent, predictable, and durable. Politically motivated trends also start appearing around a paltry 2,000 mentions, which seems absurdly low.
But also, in terms of non-politics, I am so tired of seeing "JUST ANNOUNCED".
But also, in terms of non-politics, I am so tired of seeing "JUST ANNOUNCED".
FWIW, BrooklynDad_Defiant! is a paid operative for the US Democratic Party: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
If the Democratic Party is paying him to tweet really well, can trending topics by him be the result of coincidence or organic participation?
If the Democratic Party is paying him to tweet really well, can trending topics by him be the result of coincidence or organic participation?
I suspect these social networks don't really care, but I block any and every "public" facebook page that gets shared in my feed. Of course, you still see "what was your first car? from 93.7 THE OCTOPUS Des Moines, or whatever page you haven't yet blocked, but at least it gets rid of the worst, most-often shared offenders like the ones you cite. I'm assuming Twitter doesn't let you do that, though. I wish Facebook would give you an option "never ever ever show me anything from a public page". I will never care that a friend shared or posted on a public page. I will only ever care about their own content, and the groups I choose to be a member of.
(Incidentally, this is more broadly my problem with the default-public nature of Twitter).
I just wonder at what phase of growth-and-bust the networks will start to care a bit more about serving the demands of their eyeballs.
(Incidentally, this is more broadly my problem with the default-public nature of Twitter).
I just wonder at what phase of growth-and-bust the networks will start to care a bit more about serving the demands of their eyeballs.
The biggest problem for me is showing me favorites/likes/hearts of the people I follow in my feed with no way to hide them. Not only does it make my feed into a hot mess, I now make sure not like anything since I don't want that showing on my followers feed.
uBlock:
twitter.com##[aria-label="Timeline: Trending now"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Relevant people"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Search and explore"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Footer"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Who to follow"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Discover new Lists"]
twitter.com##[aria-label=" liked "]
It won't stop your likes from showing on their feeds, however.
twitter.com##[aria-label="Timeline: Trending now"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Relevant people"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Search and explore"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Footer"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Who to follow"]
twitter.com##[aria-label="Discover new Lists"]
twitter.com##[aria-label=" liked "]
It won't stop your likes from showing on their feeds, however.
Nah, TikTok is much, much worse since their algorithm and the nature of the UX is so much better at it. We only think Twitter is the king of this because we have so much experience with it after 10+ years.
You have to aggresively curate your For You page constantly to stop TikTok from throwing a bombastic opinion piece at you
You have to aggresively curate your For You page constantly to stop TikTok from throwing a bombastic opinion piece at you
> You have to aggresively curate your For You page constantly to stop TikTok from throwing a bombastic opinion piece at you
As you regularly hear people say about TikTok.. "ive never seen that on my FYP". I think honestly you react in a certain way to the opinion pieces dude. Do you comment on them? Share them? Linger? Just scroll on and leave it alone...
As you regularly hear people say about TikTok.. "ive never seen that on my FYP". I think honestly you react in a certain way to the opinion pieces dude. Do you comment on them? Share them? Linger? Just scroll on and leave it alone...
As a person who never understood why twitter existed, let alone what purpose it might serve this information validates my feelings.
It exists so you can know what everyone is talking about 5 weeks before they do.
Follow the right people and it will change your life.
How did it change your life?
Gave me good cause to pivot from finance to technology in 2012, resulted in making literally 5x more than I would have likely made.
Got me a strong introduction to multiple jobs. One of which really transformed my career. (Twitter is a much better LinkedIn than LinkedIn)
Exposed me to really interesting thinkers which fundamentally altered what I pursue in life.
Told my COVID was coming in early 2020, shorted the US market and made ~$35k.
Got me off mainstream media and made me deeply pessimistic about both political parties but really optimistic about the future.
Got me a strong introduction to multiple jobs. One of which really transformed my career. (Twitter is a much better LinkedIn than LinkedIn)
Exposed me to really interesting thinkers which fundamentally altered what I pursue in life.
Told my COVID was coming in early 2020, shorted the US market and made ~$35k.
Got me off mainstream media and made me deeply pessimistic about both political parties but really optimistic about the future.
Any recommendations?
I would strongly bias towards people who have built or created something anything even a small thing vs "experts" "academics" "blue checks" (Eg. John Arnold probably knows a lot more about economic fundamentals than most economists)
I would bias towards people who have a concrete position they are advocating for and not just talk about what they are against. Critique is cheap and mostly pointless without a real solution.
I tend to find the best accounts are ones that you disagree with on some things but not everything. Avoid people who still need herd acceptance to survive. So either niche accounts or people with a social moat/fairly uncancelable, this will get you rawer inputs.
DO NOT JUST FOLLOW PEOPLE YOU AGREE WITH. They should either make you think at a deeper level or inspire you. If they just parrot back what you already think then what's the point of reading what they have to say?
@evacide @JohnArnoldFndtn @sama @ShellenbergerMD @balajis @dhh @micsolana
Also find people who break up the monotony with interesting things: @Rainmaker1973 @Mikeachim @simonsarris
Also do not unfollow people just because they believe/do something your tribe says is "unforgivable". When someone asks you to hate a stranger on the internet, just say no.
I would bias towards people who have a concrete position they are advocating for and not just talk about what they are against. Critique is cheap and mostly pointless without a real solution.
I tend to find the best accounts are ones that you disagree with on some things but not everything. Avoid people who still need herd acceptance to survive. So either niche accounts or people with a social moat/fairly uncancelable, this will get you rawer inputs.
DO NOT JUST FOLLOW PEOPLE YOU AGREE WITH. They should either make you think at a deeper level or inspire you. If they just parrot back what you already think then what's the point of reading what they have to say?
@evacide @JohnArnoldFndtn @sama @ShellenbergerMD @balajis @dhh @micsolana
Also find people who break up the monotony with interesting things: @Rainmaker1973 @Mikeachim @simonsarris
Also do not unfollow people just because they believe/do something your tribe says is "unforgivable". When someone asks you to hate a stranger on the internet, just say no.
> I would bias towards people who have a concrete position they are advocating for and not just talk about what they are against. Critique is cheap and mostly pointless without a real solution.
I'm a big believer in this. I feel a bunch of social issues would be assisted and better understood if people somehow had to attach a possible/attempted solution to any stated gripe. It would 1) serve to generally shut up complainers for a more positive enviroment, 2) make people aware of reasons things are often the way they are once they consider a problem more deeply and 3) aid healthier conversation.
I like the HN view conversation must be interesting or add value type approach. I hope this gets increasingly enforced here as there seems increased volume of low effort comments the last 6 months or so.
I'm a big believer in this. I feel a bunch of social issues would be assisted and better understood if people somehow had to attach a possible/attempted solution to any stated gripe. It would 1) serve to generally shut up complainers for a more positive enviroment, 2) make people aware of reasons things are often the way they are once they consider a problem more deeply and 3) aid healthier conversation.
I like the HN view conversation must be interesting or add value type approach. I hope this gets increasingly enforced here as there seems increased volume of low effort comments the last 6 months or so.
Explain in your own words what "blue check" means
Could have been more clear on that. Some of the accounts I follow are blue checks. What I meant is blue checks that are using their popularity to critique/support another issue very far afield of why they are a blue check.
Eg. Famous actor advocating for some luxury belief
Eg. Famous actor advocating for some luxury belief
Then "blue check" is completely incidental to the matter, and the real issue is that it is a very popular person. The same issue would exist for any popular user whether or not their account is blue checked.
Sure but it very rare for an account with substantial follower numbers not to be a blue check (unless they became prominent during a time when Twitter had suspended the verification program for new blue checks). Blue checks also get recommended as people to follow more which inflates their numbers so it is a feedback cycle.
I would wager that a blue check on Twitter is more valuable and monetizable than most 4 yr degrees.
I would wager that a blue check on Twitter is more valuable and monetizable than most 4 yr degrees.
Verified accounts
I know what it means, but the one I am responding to isn't, either out of ignorance or deliberately.
It doesn't mean anything more or anything less than that these people are verified to be who they claim they are. But the person above is trying to indicate it means some kind of "endorsement" by some vague "establishment" that he dislikes.
It doesn't mean anything more or anything less than that these people are verified to be who they claim they are. But the person above is trying to indicate it means some kind of "endorsement" by some vague "establishment" that he dislikes.
Blue checks typically mean large (sometimes rabid) twitter followings. Sometimes that’s fine but often their engagement in a topic can really derail it. Blue checks in practice mean more than just “verified account”.
Side note: anonymity can often improve the quality of online discussion. See: “breaking the social media prism”
Side note: anonymity can often improve the quality of online discussion. See: “breaking the social media prism”
FB deservedly gets a lot of criticism. I personally feel Twitter doesn't get its fair share of blame. IME Twitter is the most toxic social media platform out there. Twitter deserves a fair share of blame for the divisive political culture we live in right now. I hope these companies go bankrupt and it'd be nothing but a blessing for humanity.
The most damage Twitter does isn't even Twitters fault. Journalist f-ing love Twitter and believe that everything important is on Twitter, and everything on Twitter is important. News media is becoming the weird echo chamber of journalist talking to journalists, press people and analysts on Twitter and reporting on their Twitter conversations.
Some stories are completely missed, due to not being Twitter friendly (to many words, hard to boil down to a tweet). Other non-stories are blow out of proportions because it was big on Twitter, even if no one outside Twitter cares.
Some stories are completely missed, due to not being Twitter friendly (to many words, hard to boil down to a tweet). Other non-stories are blow out of proportions because it was big on Twitter, even if no one outside Twitter cares.
I think the difference is that the toxicity on Twitter is much more visible, it overflows onto everyones timelines, trending topics and in reply’s to celebrities and politicians. On Facebook it’s all “behind closed doors” in groups and on pages.
They are both bad, but in very different ways.
They are both bad, but in very different ways.
It really is absurd. I don't get why the focus is all on FB. I honestly only keep FB around because my family is on it, and sometimes I use FB messenger with my friends. It has zero impact on my life.
On the other hand, a single glance into twitter can lead to 2-3 hours of a sustained state of mild rage, and you just feel bad when you finally exit the app.
On the other hand, a single glance into twitter can lead to 2-3 hours of a sustained state of mild rage, and you just feel bad when you finally exit the app.
The focus is on FB because they are the ones taking ad revenue away from news publishers and traditional media. That gives the media more incentive to publish negative articles about them.
When in doubt, follow the money.
When in doubt, follow the money.
This is poisoning the well because there are legitimate reasons being reported to dislike FB's smarmy practices; it's not all sour grapes from media.
> On the other hand, a single glance into twitter can lead to 2-3 hours of a sustained state of mild rage, and you just feel bad when you finally exit the app.
Definitely. It's really one of the few sites I block using my hosts file when I get a new computer.
Definitely. It's really one of the few sites I block using my hosts file when I get a new computer.
Same here. I really feel like I should curate a twitter profile but it is just bad for my mental health.
To me, it feels like a small library of really cool books but the library happens to be housed randomly inside of a giant lunatic asylum.
To me, it feels like a small library of really cool books but the library happens to be housed randomly inside of a giant lunatic asylum.
But how can you blame Twitter for the divisive political culture when “we” are the ones generating the content?
I’m not sure if I understand how Twitter is systematically dividing the culture.
I really don’t think Twitter is the root cause of this. But I may be wrong.
I’m not sure if I understand how Twitter is systematically dividing the culture.
I really don’t think Twitter is the root cause of this. But I may be wrong.
The problem is that these sites have optimized their algorithms to show you content which provoke a reaction, they don't care if positive or toxic. At least that's what FB does, dunno about Twitter tbh.
Whenever this topic comes up, I think a lot of people assume this is some elaborate ML algorithm, but I believe it's really just "trending things go up, _sometimes_ categorized and targeted."
It's a really basic algorithm that captures the equivalent of groupthink.
It's a really basic algorithm that captures the equivalent of groupthink.
> The problem is that these sites have optimized their algorithms to show you content which provoke a reaction, they don't care if positive or toxic.
Twitter should learn from Tiktok and Spotify. Their algorithms work very differently.
Spotify has allowed me to discover some great songs just by creating a Song Radio from a song I liked. And it has also broadened the genres I listed. And spending 5 minutes on Tiktok's For You Page can help me feel better after a stressful day.
On the other hand 5 minutes on Twitter can easily lead to more stress in my case.
Twitter should learn from Tiktok and Spotify. Their algorithms work very differently.
Spotify has allowed me to discover some great songs just by creating a Song Radio from a song I liked. And it has also broadened the genres I listed. And spending 5 minutes on Tiktok's For You Page can help me feel better after a stressful day.
On the other hand 5 minutes on Twitter can easily lead to more stress in my case.
But FB doesn’t randomly put “toxic” content in my feed. It’s because I’m either following “toxic” news originations or someone showed your crazy uncle how to get on line and you accepted his friend request. My feed has pictures of family, dumb non political memes, people talking about sports or “uplifting sayings and scripture verses” (I usually unfollow people who post too much of the latter)
>"divisive political culture when “we” are the ones generating the content"
I feel like this "we" is misplaced. In a broad sense, yes, these acerbic tweets are indeed being made by our fellow citizens. That being said, Twitter tends to amplify the messaging of a small and vocal segment of it's vast userbase. It's a vicious cycle because exposure begets exposure and anger begets engagement.
I feel like this "we" is misplaced. In a broad sense, yes, these acerbic tweets are indeed being made by our fellow citizens. That being said, Twitter tends to amplify the messaging of a small and vocal segment of it's vast userbase. It's a vicious cycle because exposure begets exposure and anger begets engagement.
It's hard to prove any of this, but I feel that I see a lot more astroturfing on Twitter than on FB.
I mean Marshall McLuhan's entire career is practically about this.
A medium of communication is not neutral. A book is not just word of mouth stories written down. There is a feedback loop in there that a book becomes something entirely different.
I mean if we take things to extremes and make a platform that we can only communicate with 4 letter words, what words do you think are going to dominate engagement and take over the platform?
A medium of communication is not neutral. A book is not just word of mouth stories written down. There is a feedback loop in there that a book becomes something entirely different.
I mean if we take things to extremes and make a platform that we can only communicate with 4 letter words, what words do you think are going to dominate engagement and take over the platform?
Twitter optimises for engagement. That's not optimising for controversy, but it's close. Shiri's scissor statements[0] aren't the fault of the people writing the training data; they're the fault of the people making them.
Twitter doesn't synthesise things, but it fosters an environment where people are driven to write more controversial, outrageous, engaging things by tight-loop-feedback classical conditioning. It's not magic – the people posting such things are partly to blame – but Twitter wouldn't have half as many problems if it just showed random tweets to people. Instead, it shows people what it thinks will keep people on Twitter; short term, that works, but long-term it destroys Twitter's value (and value of everything Twitter touches, as a side effect).
[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
Twitter doesn't synthesise things, but it fosters an environment where people are driven to write more controversial, outrageous, engaging things by tight-loop-feedback classical conditioning. It's not magic – the people posting such things are partly to blame – but Twitter wouldn't have half as many problems if it just showed random tweets to people. Instead, it shows people what it thinks will keep people on Twitter; short term, that works, but long-term it destroys Twitter's value (and value of everything Twitter touches, as a side effect).
[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
If your FB newsfeed is toxic, it’s because you have toxic friends.
It’s easy to mute accounts you don’t want to see on Twitter, even ones shown as ads.
If you mute the account, the conversation still happens. So awesome if you dont like a point of view. Terrible if you're gay, female, muslim, or any other hated minority subgroup that gets stalked and slandered on Twitter. If someone is posting slanderous material on Twitter, and you mute it, it isnt a solution. Even if you block it, it barely helps.
I don’t understand. If you don’t want to see what someone says, you can mute or block them. What do you mean by conversation still happens?
idk, it's pretty civil in my bubble, though obviously there is some drama every now and then like now (Jonathan Scott ^^)
Twitter aggressively censors anyone without institutional approval. Twitters scratch the elites' backs, so the elites scratch back.
Trump was banned from Twitter first. Any one with mildly right wing opinion is insta-banned from twitter. Blue checkmarks are strongly tied to institutional approval and fringe institutional voices are given a megaphone.
Twitter perpetuates the current class system. So those in power have no qualms with it.
Trump was banned from Twitter first. Any one with mildly right wing opinion is insta-banned from twitter. Blue checkmarks are strongly tied to institutional approval and fringe institutional voices are given a megaphone.
Twitter perpetuates the current class system. So those in power have no qualms with it.
Since when wasn’t someone who is supposedly a billionaire not part of the “elite”?
The cultural elite is completely different from having money. It is the same reason that Trump was ridiculed for putting ketchup on steak or why journalists/post-docs are willing to make pennies on jobs that grand them access the cultural elite. I give the example of Trump because he the clearest contrast that differentiates wealth from the elite.
Phrases like 'Nouveau Riche' or 'Paise aaye, par aukaad nahi aaye' (money without class) have existed in different cultures for centuries. This is not a new concept.
Phrases like 'Nouveau Riche' or 'Paise aaye, par aukaad nahi aaye' (money without class) have existed in different cultures for centuries. This is not a new concept.
Someone who owns private airplanes and golf courses aren’t part of the “cultural elite”? Before Trump’s conversion to a populist in 2016, he was very much part of the cultural elite and spent most of his time hanging out with celebrities and Democrats.
Trump is part of the elite just not the elite Twitter is part of.
You think the elite all think the same? No they have their political differences. But you don't have to cry for him the GOP has its own media empire.
You think the elite all think the same? No they have their political differences. But you don't have to cry for him the GOP has its own media empire.
If you look at the graph of the share price since IPO it doesn't exactly look as though Twitter is suddenly doing badly.
Correct, except for some brief delusional pumps, it's always done badly.
In the same period that Twitter is -10.4% from its IPO, the S&P500 is +150%. The NASDAQ composite is +260%.
And the destruction wraught by Twitter Inc goes beyond what can be measured in its shareholders' lost value. By purchasing short-form video leader Vine, privileging it just enough to undermine competitor Periscope, then fumbling Vine completely, they destroyed two promising US-based short-form video companies – allowing Chinese-owned TikTok to dominate.
Twitter-like companies overseas have pioneered new e-commerce & private-messaging features, while Twitter launches, then ignores, half-thought-out features like polls, bookmarks, or fleets.
Twitter Inc is a corporate malignancy suppressing innovation on an essential communications frontier.
In the same period that Twitter is -10.4% from its IPO, the S&P500 is +150%. The NASDAQ composite is +260%.
And the destruction wraught by Twitter Inc goes beyond what can be measured in its shareholders' lost value. By purchasing short-form video leader Vine, privileging it just enough to undermine competitor Periscope, then fumbling Vine completely, they destroyed two promising US-based short-form video companies – allowing Chinese-owned TikTok to dominate.
Twitter-like companies overseas have pioneered new e-commerce & private-messaging features, while Twitter launches, then ignores, half-thought-out features like polls, bookmarks, or fleets.
Twitter Inc is a corporate malignancy suppressing innovation on an essential communications frontier.
It's only once you compare the performance of Twitter to other tech shares and realize the last 12 years were the biggest tech bull market in history. And Twitter shows zero return.
It's not just tech--the entire market has been on fire since the Twitter IPO. The S&P has risen 150%.
Doesn't help their user base largely stopped growing in 2015 while their competitors are in the billions.
To put it in perspective, if you invested $10k in TWTR in 2013, I invested $10k in GOOG, and Mary invested $10k in AMZN - you'd have $9k, I'd have $55k, and Mary would have $90k
Those ratios are too close to Jesus's "Parable of the Talents". (A "Talent" was a huge sum of silver in the Biblical / Roman days). One investor brought back 10 Talents, another brought back 5, and one brought back 1.
Probably just a coincidence to to round numbers and such, but it amuses me.
Probably just a coincidence to to round numbers and such, but it amuses me.
> Probably just a coincidence to to round numbers and such, but it amuses me.
Or is it? Maybe Jesus knew how Twitter would turn out in 2022. /s
Or is it? Maybe Jesus knew how Twitter would turn out in 2022. /s
Since inception, Twitter is down 10.4%.
Starting at the same time (Oct 3, 2013), S&P 500 is up 153.45% and the NASDAQ is up 260.30%
Starting at the same time (Oct 3, 2013), S&P 500 is up 153.45% and the NASDAQ is up 260.30%
opportunity cost especially relative to other tech companies
The Hacker News zeitgeist appears to be strongly anti-Twitter. I'm not entirely sure why.
As far as "is the stock fairly priced" - it is only 5% of the market cap of Facebook.
As far as "is Twitter a good product" - apart from complaints that people talk about politics on the app, I don't see anything substantial in the complaints here.
As far as "is the stock fairly priced" - it is only 5% of the market cap of Facebook.
As far as "is Twitter a good product" - apart from complaints that people talk about politics on the app, I don't see anything substantial in the complaints here.
> As far as "is the stock fairly priced" - it is only 5% of the market cap of Facebook.
Twitter looks under-priced if you count its recent acquisitions from Quill, Sphere, Revue and it's intention to focus on the so-called 'web3'. Lots of ways to grow in those areas if they are smart enough.
Twitter looks under-priced if you count its recent acquisitions from Quill, Sphere, Revue and it's intention to focus on the so-called 'web3'. Lots of ways to grow in those areas if they are smart enough.
Shocker, a cesspool political platform that is banning users every day isn't growing....you don't say.
I don't understand why anyone would read Twitter regularly. The short limit in messages makes any intelligent discussion difficult, so nearly all tweets are either links elsewhere or nonsense. Either way, Twitter is by far the easiest of all social media giants to avoid.
Twitter it's actually on a better path for generating revenue nowadays:
- Spaces have successfully siphoned users out of Clubhouse - Audio ads could be next - The crypto integration they've done is just the tip of the iceberg
- Spaces have successfully siphoned users out of Clubhouse - Audio ads could be next - The crypto integration they've done is just the tip of the iceberg
I see they a huge loss of more than 500 million dollars on a healthy 1.2 billion dollars (which is up 37% from last quarter).
What did they spend that money on? Did they invest it in some new stuff or spend it on marketing?
What did they spend that money on? Did they invest it in some new stuff or spend it on marketing?
User growth? Why does it need user growth? It’s twitter, it’s been around a long time, everyone that wants to use a service like that knows what it is.
So much opposition with everything having to be bigger and bigger.
So much opposition with everything having to be bigger and bigger.
yeah, agree. Unfortunately there's always a too big (IMHO) focus on growth, not only on Twitter but in general, instead of offering a good service that is healthy (in terms of paying the bills and generating revenue). They failed to grow in users, then they try to grow in engagement, but everything they do makes the experience less pleasant
It's a version of the same problem that Facebook has.
Once you've had your term of ruling the world, there are only so many directions you can go from there. And by definition, the majority are downwards.
Once you've had your term of ruling the world, there are only so many directions you can go from there. And by definition, the majority are downwards.
I am willing to pay for no noise -- straight dope twitter just like I do for YouTube premium. But, Twitter has to remind of some fucking celebrity, some fucking political meltdown, so cultural gossip bullshit and days outrage. There is no way, I could turn this off this. Along with this, the garbage mumbling of the tweets of people I follow based on popularity (as twitter claims) instead of chronological or some other custom organization, I feel works for me.
I think there used to be an adage that if you can get enough members, you can monetize it. Twitter haven't exactly made no money but I can't imagine that there is any real trick here other than adverts - the same as most other "free" services.
Maybe they should try something more person like where people pay a certain amount of money to get exclusive content from the people they follow. Can't think of any other way I would pay for micro-blogging.
Maybe they should try something more person like where people pay a certain amount of money to get exclusive content from the people they follow. Can't think of any other way I would pay for micro-blogging.
So, I guess it turns out that buying user engagement isn't really worthwhile if you have no monetization strategy (that doesn't make all those users angry)?
They have ads but not even nearly is the tech on par with Facebook or Google.
Difficult to understand how they are doing so poor when the media and politicians are the ones holding this simple platform on float like a baby.
There aren’t many companies with a need to target journalist and politicians for a profit… well there is but Twitter ads are a little to obvious.
Twitter has a pretty large userbase, but I think it’s the wrong demographics for consumer ads.
Twitter has a pretty large userbase, but I think it’s the wrong demographics for consumer ads.
I have never understood Twitter as a product. The idea of following people seems bizarre to me. If I wanted to follow some product or organization I would subscribe to an email, mailer, RSS, or something of the sort specific to the thing I wish to stay informed about.
Over sharing, or the idea of broadcasting details about my life to strangers on the internet is also something I completely don't understand.
Over sharing, or the idea of broadcasting details about my life to strangers on the internet is also something I completely don't understand.
Do you understand the concept of being a fan of someone? For example you can follow a bunch of artists to see what they are working on. You can follow your favorite content creators to see what they are working on. You can follow your friends to see what they are up to.
"It's the UX stupid!"
Maybe there just aren't enough people in the world that want to be a part of something like Twitter. It's an aggressively public platform, which many people understandably don't want. one in twenty people in the world using your platform aught be enough for anybody, but the whole financial system we've set up around these companies is insane.
>It's an aggressively public platform
You can easily make a private account.
You can easily make a private account.
There aren’t enough ex-USA Ad Dollars. Its a modern version of the town crier there isn’t much room to grow in terms of features. So they are trying with ‘clubhouse’ aka Spaces which has been a flop and other superficial UX gimmicks.
I think it hit its apex and something or someone will disrupt it so the cycle of businesses continue.
Twitter is terrible at targeted advertising.
I'm actively looking to buy a house in Sydney for a million dollars, yet Twitter shows me general ads that have no interest to me - like investing in gold or installing a virtual chatbot app.
Twitter should be working with Domain.com.au to show targeted ads to Domain's active user base.
I'm actively looking to buy a house in Sydney for a million dollars, yet Twitter shows me general ads that have no interest to me - like investing in gold or installing a virtual chatbot app.
Twitter should be working with Domain.com.au to show targeted ads to Domain's active user base.
[deleted]
I'm one of the suckers buying Twitter stock. My theory is that they're the last untapped value in social networking. In order to tap that value, they need to get someone that can run a business in the top spot. Time will tell if they ever find them.
I use Twitter regularly, but I do not have an account. I just bookmarked maybe a dozen of my favorite journalists/public figures, and go through their timelines daily. I do not feel the need to participate in the flamewars that arise under their tweets.
This chart doesn't take into account inflation.
Anyway, someone described twitter as a "honeypot for assholes". If your platform is dominated by trolls or other malicious people, I can't see it having a good valuation no matter how many users you have.
Anyway, someone described twitter as a "honeypot for assholes". If your platform is dominated by trolls or other malicious people, I can't see it having a good valuation no matter how many users you have.
Has anyone messed with their developer apis recently?
Curious if anything has gotten better on that front.
Curious if anything has gotten better on that front.
I think they've gotten a lot better. A whole new version has been released recently. The V2 API
https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api
https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api
Every 5th tweet on my timeline is a sponsored one! I never seen twitter this aggressive. I was surprised how my brain has on auto-pilot for sometime that it refuses to acknowledge the ads even.
Jack saw this coming and hightailed it outta there as fast as he could!
I got a new political debate with three other people on Twitter and at some point they revealed to me that all three of them were the same person.
That's what I decided to quit using Twitter.
That's what I decided to quit using Twitter.
Should HN have ads and become a revenue generating part of Y Combinator? Twitter and Reddit fall in a similar camp. Should they take the ad tech approach to sustain themselves?
> Twitter also announced a new $4 billion share repurchase program, which replaces a $2 billion program from 2020.
So they're a growth stock, but really they're a dividend stock?
So they're a growth stock, but really they're a dividend stock?
Could platforms like this be better served as non-profits?
Mastodon, perhaps, would be one non-profit to look at.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/shdmpq/mastodon_a...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/shdmpq/mastodon_a...
or public utilities
I wonder if they count crypto scammers as real users. Hell , i can't even tweet at Amazon support without multiple automated scambots messaging me.
Well, if they let me sign up without a phone number...
I wonder if Jack's new company will see a similar stagnation. Square is getting beat by Clover while the CEO is focused on blockchain.
The nail in the coffin you are looking for …
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/apple-unveils-contact...
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/apple-unveils-contact...
Apple and Stripe are also set to commoditize the small business Point of Sale that is Square's bread and butter. iPhones were just announced to soon accept contactless payments directly, and probably also the next iPad will include the required NFC hardware.
The hardware is less important than the merchant account. The risk of charge backs means a small business accepting a credit card is effectively taking out a loan. Apple isn't going into that part of the value chain (so far).
Right, Apple is only providing the hardware and it requires to use a (partnered) processor, like Stripe, which was the example they used in their recent announcement. Stripe coincidentally sells chargeback protection as a service https://stripe.com/radar/chargeback-protection if that is a concern.
Exactly, afaict this feature's impact on Square is that online payment processors like Stripe have an easier path to competing for in person sales.
Not related to said beating but I opened https://www.clover.com and umatrix icon showed the number 258. This many requests to 3rd party resources at start usually mean there is too much tracking. A good reason to just close the tab. By the way, Square had only 2.
[deleted]
Twitter is the best professional networking tool I’ve ever used and should be making the kind of money that LinkedIn is.
They may not make much money but I think they will outlast Facebook - Meta.
Like Instagram and others they have gotten quite hostile to visitors without an account. I guess tracking and monetizing your users earns a lot more than displaying ads for everyone.
Yeah, if you click too many links without an account it'll bring up a sign-up pop-up that takes you to the previous page when you close it. You can get around it by opening the link in a new tab, or save yourself constant hassle by disabling cookies on twitter altogether.
While we're here, take another pro-tip: Set yourself up with an RSS/Atom reader and "Follow" accounts you are interested in through Nitter. No account, no random "We thought you might like", and no ads, just posts and retweets from the accounts you're interested in.
While we're here, take another pro-tip: Set yourself up with an RSS/Atom reader and "Follow" accounts you are interested in through Nitter. No account, no random "We thought you might like", and no ads, just posts and retweets from the accounts you're interested in.
Twitter is also hellbent on associating accounts with phone numbers. This is a dealbreaker for me. I will look into Nitter.
Well with France making it illegal to use Google analytics, I expect many more websites to move forward with forcing you to login. They force you to have an account, which makes you agree to them tracking you, and they'll use you being logged in to track that. When they can use third party analytics it's not as important, but still obviously a plus to them to have people have an account.
*making it illegal to use Google Analytics because GA moves identifying data to the US. Tracking with an account doesn't solve this. Let's not be reductive.
In other comments they mention that user consent would be enough to allow this.
Unfortunately I'm not going to read another country's laws to see if this is actually the case.
Unfortunately I'm not going to read another country's laws to see if this is actually the case.
> I guess tracking and monetizing your users earns a lot more than displaying ads for everyone.
During a gold rush, sell shovels.
During a gold rush, sell shovels.
Maybe if they'd stop deplatforming people.
They are not making money, are they?
Yes they are, they have just announced a $4B stock buyback.
They are a “dividend” stock without proper dividends. Not everything needs to be a growth stock. Having said that 10% down in 10 years isn’t great, especially with where the rest of tech has gone in that time.
They are a “dividend” stock without proper dividends. Not everything needs to be a growth stock. Having said that 10% down in 10 years isn’t great, especially with where the rest of tech has gone in that time.
If their main way distributing profits to investors is through stock buybacks then that would mean that their stock should have grown right? 10% down without real dividends is terrible.
In what way are they a dividend stock?
They don't pay dividends and despite share buyback stock is down since IPO
They don't pay dividends and despite share buyback stock is down since IPO
From an investor standpoint, dividends and stock buybacks are roughly equivalent. Both are ways of returning cash to investors. Buybacks can be more tax efficient for investors using taxable accounts.
I don't think the confusion is around the concept, but the characterization of "them" as an instance of one, given the stock has performed terribly.
They are simply in no way that matters a "dividend stock" literally or figuratively.
Many are familiar with the concept of buybacks, but Twitter seems to be a "growth" stock that hasn't grown.
They are simply in no way that matters a "dividend stock" literally or figuratively.
Many are familiar with the concept of buybacks, but Twitter seems to be a "growth" stock that hasn't grown.
>isn't great
It's terrible
It's terrible
Even flat for 10 years isn't great.
It’s more about growth. Twitter isn’t growing as it should be.
If they were able to show strong user growth, revenue would follow as would the stock price. There are folks who love twitter, and those who prefer images. The larger segment is those who prefer images.
If they were able to show strong user growth, revenue would follow as would the stock price. There are folks who love twitter, and those who prefer images. The larger segment is those who prefer images.
They have had positive net income in a handful of quarters in their existence, but not recently.
Twitters design makes it kind of a weird one way communication tool.
Elon Musk can tweet something and a million people will reply. What percentage if those replies are bots, shills, or people trying to get money out of some offer of employment? Likely an absurdly high %.
Then there are the hacker groups and their influence campaigns... All over twitter.
I feel like twitter might be useful on a self hosted intranet with your close family and friends -- but as a global product it is grotesque.
Elon Musk can tweet something and a million people will reply. What percentage if those replies are bots, shills, or people trying to get money out of some offer of employment? Likely an absurdly high %.
Then there are the hacker groups and their influence campaigns... All over twitter.
I feel like twitter might be useful on a self hosted intranet with your close family and friends -- but as a global product it is grotesque.
I’ve always thought of it as that. More generally, idea could be applied to YouTube, podcasting, etc. One person has ability to broadcast to millions, while the millions can’t broadcast back equally.
Vine:Tiktok::Myspace:Facebook
Throwing a subscription wall over reply chains doesn't entice me to create an account.
[deleted]
It beggars belief that people don't think the numbers from any of these companies are completely fraudulent.
Has anyone been on Twitter? Bots, spam, etc.
Has anyone been on Twitter? Bots, spam, etc.
I use twitter daily and I believe most of the content I see is real people? Perhaps that's just based on who I follow so I don't have the same experience as you.
I think it depends on the topic. I don't think you will find many sockpuppet accounts when you are talking about some CS programming framework... but you want to talk about politics? Its where the culture war is being waged.
Sure - no one thinks Twitter (or anyone) knows the exact count for real users, etc. But fraudulent activity and bot development is also driven by the underlying success of the website (scammers don't scam where there's no one to scam) so there's reason to pay attention to relative changes (or lack of change) in overall patterns.
If their numbers are completely fraudulent why would they release fraudulent numbers indicating they missed their targets?
While there may be a flood of bots and sock puppet accounts, it’s worth noting that advertisers wouldn’t be spending if they couldn’t see actual conversions from Twitter ads. So there are at least enough real people on there for their advertising business to work.
That's not necessarily totally true. The advertising world is susceptible to FOMO just as much as other people. Companies authorize their ad agencies to come up with a campaign and agree on an ad spend for that year/campaign. That money gets split up to cover as many markets as possible. If a competitor is spending on Twitter, then you spend on Twitter as well. You can't give the competitor the entire Twitter market.
how do we know you're not a bot?
Aye, Twitter seems to be mostly a social network for bots and people’s scripts to talk to each other. Very few real humans posting original thoughts. Maybe celebrity types use it as an easy way to get a word out, but not the common man. Fascinating.
I wouldn't be surprised if most celebrity tweets are just written up in advance by their spokesperson and doled out throughout the week with a script.
I think that even political speeches are written in a way that they can easily be twitted.
The funny thing about all these articles about missed growth is that all the mission statements are just arbitrary numbers. Spotify, Twitter, Facebook none of them said anything about building something new or trying to be the best at something, nope. "Our Mission is XXX with YYY growth trajectory."
Maybe Meta buys Twitter. The world would be better off with out these two toxic platforms.
Guess Trump needs to come back.
hunterb123(1)
Buy more, it's on sale
Like a gallon of milk nearing its sell by date?
That’s what people say when a normally healthy and growing company has a dip. But when a company does nothing but lose value for almost a decade, the phrase is totally inapplicable.
> Buy more, it's on sale
Only works when you have money lying around
Only works when you have money lying around
Live by the wokism, die by the wokism.
Remember that weird time in 2020 when they were slapping "offensive content" to all tweets from supporters of one specific party while still allowing porn clips without any filter. Yeah, I quit twitter around that time.
Remember that weird time in 2020 when they were slapping "offensive content" to all tweets from supporters of one specific party while still allowing porn clips without any filter. Yeah, I quit twitter around that time.
I think social media for political shit posting will be the first to splinter. In other words, Twitter will split into multiple smaller Twitters each targeting a specific political group.
I wish Twitter would give Jack Dorsey's idea a chance--just make the censorship optional. If you want Twitter to be the wild west--you've got it! Just disable the little 'safe-space' toggle and anything goes. You'll have to mentally filter out the fake news, racism, and [foo]-phobia. If you want Twitter to be a safe space--you've got it! Just enable that 'safe-space' toggle, and Big Brother Jack will make all the nasty people go away.
Yes. I think he understood that censorship beyond what is strictly required by law would be the end of Twitter as an omnibus-platform, and thus the end of Twitter.
In the same way that we have newspapers split by political observation, we will end up with social media split. In a way it is natural.
In the same way that we have newspapers split by political observation, we will end up with social media split. In a way it is natural.
Ie. Gettr:
https://gettr.com
Really just Twitter but for right-wing people.
https://gettr.com
Really just Twitter but for right-wing people.
It seems that every popular Social Media platform became an extension of the liberal governments. I trust a proper sentiment analysis would reveal this.
Why not do that sentiment analysis?
Over time, it became cumbersome to continue doing this and I thought I'd give in and create an account (on the website) so that these people were all easy to access from a single point. So I did, and went and immediately followed the 4 or 5 people. On the last one, my account locked up and said there was "suspicious activity" and if I wanted to continue I needed to supply my phone number. What? I haven't even tweeted anything yet and only followed verified checkmarked users. And why do I have to supply a phone number to use a web site? So, I just left the account in limbo and went back to what I was doing before - just manually going to individuals walls to read because they're bookmarked.
So then a few months ago, Twitter started putting up an overlay up prompting you to log in or create an account to continue after viewing x tweets. Annoying, but not a huge issue as you could just dismiss the modal and continue.
As of a few weeks ago, they got rid of the ability to dismiss the modal. The page just locks and you can't scroll unless you sign in.
And that was the last day I used or visited Twitter. I now see 0 ads, will never give up a phone number to join a website, and have nothing but disdain for that company.
I have never encountered a more hostile website, or company for that matter, towards innocuous behavior. The juice just ain't worth the squeeze. At least I was seeing your ads before.