Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Decay of Twitter

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#31

Post by crusso »

DanBC wrote: post #11
pmelendez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm ad tolerant, but the ads Twitter show me are always useless. The ads have zero relevance to me I have actually thinking about this and some ideas come up. If you don't mind me asking... What would be your ideal non-introsive ads mechanism? Maybe a relevant mention to you on a recommended tweet?

Ads should allow me to opt out of any alcohol or gambling company's campaign. If the ad network is slurping all my data they should use that info to serve ads that have some relevance to me. I'm happy for stuff to end up in my twitter stream. I'm not happy for anything to sound like it's come from me, or has my endorsement or recommendation.

The easiest way for everyone to know that you're not endorsing ads in your stream is for you to have absolutely no control over it.

Once you're given any control of your ad stream, your perceived responsibility for it increases.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#32

Post by silverbax88 »

sdegutis wrote: post #3

> In other words, on Twitter, people say things that they think of as ephemeral and chatty. Their utterances are then treated as unequivocal political statements by people outside the conversation. This seems to point to the main problem of Twitter: it's not clear who your audience is. Are you talking to your friends? To your family? To people with similar interests? To people you're trying to convince to agree with…

I've recently heard Twitter described in a way I believe is accurate.

It's a broadcast platform; most people use it broadcast OUT, but very few people use it to consume. Sure, there is some conversation, but primarily, people read their @ replies/notifications. I often will go several hours or a whole day without checking Twitter; the reality is that there are tons of conversations I missed that just disappear.

But if someone hits me with an @ message, I will see it.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#33

Post by mikeg8 »

hissworks wrote: post #30
roymurdock wrote: post #4

Here's the author's thesis, buried in the last paragraph with "little data to support" it: In the final paragraphs of this article, let me assert something I have very little data to support: At some point early last year, the standard knock against Twitter—which had long ceased to be “I don’t want to know what someone’s eating for lunch”—became “I don’t want everyone to see what I have to say.” The public knows abou…

Yeah, this was a poorly constructed article. Lost me at: "To talk about Stewart’s theory, you have to first tackle the ideas of the 20th-century philosopher of media, Walter J. Ong." No, you really don't. That said, Twitter's never made it easy to digest its content. Sure there are lists, and now moments, but it's not always easy to find what you're looking for, and if you're not really careful about curating your ow…

That was the same spot I lost interest as well. Way too verbose.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#34

Post by pmlnr »

benten10 wrote: post #14

I really hope twitter somehow makes money. I would be willing to pay a subscription fee if that helps it sustain. Facebook, I'd rather see die in the hottest fires of all the hells. I don't exaggerate when I say this: twitter has made me smarter. If I'm interested in a new field, I just follow the experts in that field that are on twitter. The conversations and the discussions not only make me feel like an insider, b…

> I would be willing to pay a subscription fee if that helps it sustain

If everyone would agree, we'd all be using https://app.net/.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#35

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

roymurdock wrote: post #4

Here's the author's thesis, buried in the last paragraph with "little data to support" it: In the final paragraphs of this article, let me assert something I have very little data to support: At some point early last year, the standard knock against Twitter—which had long ceased to be “I don’t want to know what someone’s eating for lunch”—became “I don’t want everyone to see what I have to say.” The public knows abou…

Why shouldn't Twitter have a feature common to other social media sites-like FB and G+ to allow selective followers to see each specific Tweet? Seems like a standard feature that wouldn't be too hard to implement.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#36

Post by pmlnr »

dspillett wrote: post #24
mschuster91 wrote: post #18

Twitter has fallen victim to the advertising plague hitting a boatload of other websites. Offer your users a cheap way to opt out of ads (1$ a month) and you'll make far more money than you could ever do with ads.

I very much doubt that will work. People will just install ad blockers instead. You'd be surprised what lengths many people will go to in order to avoid spending even $1. It isn't poor people either: in my experience the well-off who have time on their hands because they aren't busy living hand-to-mouth are more likely to spend a pile of their time instead of giving you that $.

Adblockers don't work on paid articles or on tweets looking exactly like other tweets.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#37

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

johnward wrote: post #27
benten10 wrote: post #14

I really hope twitter somehow makes money. I would be willing to pay a subscription fee if that helps it sustain. Facebook, I'd rather see die in the hottest fires of all the hells. I don't exaggerate when I say this: twitter has made me smarter. If I'm interested in a new field, I just follow the experts in that field that are on twitter. The conversations and the discussions not only make me feel like an insider, b…

Twitter and facebook serve completely different purposes for me. Facebook is where I mostly interact with people I actually know in real life. I use twitter like you do, to follow interesting things. Then linkedin is people I have worked with. Each network serves a different purpose. I'd never pay for any of them though. I guess I should say I'd rather pay with my privacy.

Nothing wrong with using Twitter to meet people IRL. It seems weird to force those artificial boundaries on your social networks.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#39

Post by smacktoward »

dspillett wrote: post #24
mschuster91 wrote: post #18

Twitter has fallen victim to the advertising plague hitting a boatload of other websites. Offer your users a cheap way to opt out of ads (1$ a month) and you'll make far more money than you could ever do with ads.

I very much doubt that will work. People will just install ad blockers instead. You'd be surprised what lengths many people will go to in order to avoid spending even $1. It isn't poor people either: in my experience the well-off who have time on their hands because they aren't busy living hand-to-mouth are more likely to spend a pile of their time instead of giving you that $.

And it kills the values of the ads you do show, too, because suddenly the audience that sees them is limited to only people who can't afford or won't spend $1. Which is the exact opposite of the audience advertisers want to put themselves in front of.

Re: The Decay of Twitter

#40

Post by knoble »

roymurdock wrote: post #4

Here's the author's thesis, buried in the last paragraph with "little data to support" it: In the final paragraphs of this article, let me assert something I have very little data to support: At some point early last year, the standard knock against Twitter—which had long ceased to be “I don’t want to know what someone’s eating for lunch”—became “I don’t want everyone to see what I have to say.” The public knows abou…

I think the main point is that it is dangerous to engage in spoken-word type contexts publicly because there is no delineation between contexts that should be treated as conversational and those that should not. Conversations provide the context to say something dumb, realize it is dumb, and then learn from it without the public shaming and castigation. Tweets are eternal, whether through screens caps or similar preservation techniques.

The most compelling argument for me was about context collapse. Shifting between spoken-word contexts and written-word contexts is at the core of the issue that requires a feature like moments. Spoken-word contexts lack an explicit connection to the events they discuss and require manufacturing a context. I think moments has been great at doing this so far but its existence is a symptom of the bigger problem.

Post reply on HN