301–310 of 648 posts
Make advertising more accessible/cheaper. I have a Facebook page where I can spend ZAR210 a day and get value. Twitter costs way more for less perceived value. Opening up advertising to more small projects like ours brings in more revenue I think.
1. Remove post length limit. 2. Limit the number of tweets per day instead. 3. You can pay to remove the above limit. This solves the problem of timeline being unreadable once you subscribe to enough people. Ain't nobody got time to read all that crap. Once everyone is rate-limited, everyone can easily digest their timeline. Without length limit, tweets become more thoughtful. 4. Fix the UI. Make it easy to view repl…
Regarding #1, #2, and #3. So what happens if instead of having 1,000 x 140 char tweets cluttering your timeline, you instead wind up with 100 x 1400 char tweets? Do you have time to read all that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as "just words". That's a position only sustainable from privilege.
See grandalf's reply to eropple. In addition: No, it's not a position only sustainable from privilege. I'm fairly privileged - white, male, upper middle class, good job, good neighborhood. If someone threatened to kill me, that's just words - it's not the same as them showing up at my door with a gun in their hand. But I'd still have to think seriously about whether they were going to show up at my door, and what to…
To conflate speech with privilege is absurd. We are all equally empowered and equally vulnerable in a free speech society.
A non-privileged person is free to draw a cartoon of Trump that looks like Muhammed. In a totalitarian society nobody is free to draw cartoons of certain subjects.
To assume that a person of lower social status is more likely to be emotionally wounded from words is akin to claiming him/her to be less rational (and thus less human) than others.
Speech is dangerous because it can incite passionate behavior while also being nonviolent. That is why we must preserve our right to this freedom. It is far better than the many coercive alternatives.
Information is powerful, and it can empower and inspire people to act. But the idea that certain ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed reminds me of the embarrassing attempts during the 1980s by social conservatives to cast heavy metal lyrics as satanic and deserving of censorship.
I'd tear it apart until all that's left is a profitable, maintainable core. Like Craigslist. Twitter's payroll (to say nothing of its stock-based compensation expense) is bloated. Slashing staff isn't a popular play. This is a textbook private equity deal. Twitter's habit of ringing in the year with $500MM losses could be single-handedly cut with a 2/3rd staffing reduction (which costs lots in payroll and $800MM in s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> do not stifle political speech And when that political speech threatens violence or is intended to foment violence against a person or people? 'Cause I'm not saying you're conflating the two, but a whole lot of people for whom this is an axe they grind really kind of constantly do .
> threatens violence or is intended to foment violence against a person or people I see no reason why having a clear, public record of such communications is worse than forcing those involved to use a different messaging system. It's just words. The simple answer is press the "unfollow" button, or follow it, read it, and act in your best interests based on it.
Milo was banned not because of anything he said directly against Leslie Jones, but because he drove a hate mob against her. Twitter really needs to give people the anti-abuse tools they demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is any of this gonna result in Twitter making more money?
Absolutely nothing. It's just what OP wants Twitter to be I guess.
Imposing a modest signal cost should improve the signal - to - noise ratio substantially. Charge for reach. Ask accounts with more than 50K followers to either pay for all followers to receive tweets, or limit distribution to 50K followers, randomly chosen. It's the accounts with many followers that get the most benefit from the platform. And, a twitter crack could, in present circumstances, cause global political in…
I was hoping someone would say this! I've been saying this for years, and I mean since 2007 or 2008, though I had figured just price levels. If you have 100K followers, that's probably worth some money to you. If you have 1M followers, that's worth even more. I was saying in the 2008 elections that CNN should have an entire rack in the data center sponsored by them, they were pushing their Twitter handles so hard. On…
Now you're asked to pay to reach them? No way.
I think Twitter is already pretty great. My suggestions are below: - Twitter is a platform, open it up to allow any clients first class access. - Stop political censorship immediately. It's fine to prevent scams and bot-nets, but do not stifle political speech. - Lower burn rate. Cancel all of the product-oriented projects that are expensive, simply focus on building the infrastructure to make Twitter's platform as i…