11–20 of 369 posts
Translation: he doesn't think allowing you to decide who you follow will make Twitter as much money as he wants.
This is an attempt to keep that dynamic from forming in the first place.
And they’ve been bugging me so much to sign in I feel like I can’t give in if I’ve come this far.
I don't understand why Twitter hasn't implemented some kind of reputation gradient that would allow users to filter by levels. Yes, I realize they are tricky to implement and subject to abuse but imagine you got points for using your real name, real photo, demerits for insults etc, then users could filter out hordes of trolls and gutter nonsense and instead focus on the meaningful conversations that do actually occur…
I'd like to see them try other things too. One of the nice features in G+ was that the owner of a thread (the originator) could delete replies. I think that could work nicely in Twitter too.
So reddit.
If you stick to smaller, interested based subs, reddit is a far superior product because it has human moderators and threading. The "breaking news" aspect of Twitter is extremely oversold imo, but people post things just as quickly on reddit.
It'll be interesting to see how Jack Dorsey reacts to that.
Edit: if anyone happening to read this works for Twitter or has the capability to pass a message to @jack, here's a free idea for a pivot to your business model:
Offer hosted ActivityPub federation utilizing your existing Twitter platform. In other words, become the "Google Apps for Your Domain/G Suite" for hosted ActivityPub instances. Media organizations, governments, and celebs should be paying a premium for the content hosting you provide today for free.
> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it — rather than a network where everyone feels like they need to follow a bunch of other accounts This is probably true for the majority of Twitter's users, but this is completely the opposite of what I want. Even with aggressively pruning the list of people I f…
For whatever reason, Jack feels like he needs this to make Twitter more money and is trying to sell it as a benefit for active users. But it's really pissing on the active userbase and claiming that it's raining.
> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it — rather than a network where everyone feels like they need to follow a bunch of other accounts This is probably true for the majority of Twitter's users, but this is completely the opposite of what I want. Even with aggressively pruning the list of people I f…
Networks are trying to move away from long tail content since it is so expensive to moderate. I think in next 10 years expect social networks and video playing websites to become much like network television. Ie there will be a vetted list of large creators, and everyone else will be a consumer. To do that you need to take away peoples ability to control exactly whom they follow / subscribe to.
Wasn't the attraction that you could follow someone who matched your interests, like "antique model steam engine refurbishment", or whatever niche interest an individual might have? If twitter had a vetted list of large creators, they'd be right back in the "all of this network content is lowest-common-denominator dreck" situation that ABC/CBS/NBC were in circa 1985. Which may not be a bad thing for society as a whole (we can have an agreed-upon set of facts again! No alternate facts!), but why did we go through 30 years of media upheavals and the loss of the good things about newspapers and TV (equal time doctrine) to get back there? Was this all just about creating a different set of media moguls?
Christ, the self-importance of the Twitterverse is astonishing. What they don't say out loud is that Trump and Brexiteers and others they oppose have used the platform to effectively end-run the media, they hate that, but they can't figure out a way to stop them. A little bit of plain speaking would be refreshing.
I don't understand why Twitter hasn't implemented some kind of reputation gradient that would allow users to filter by levels. Yes, I realize they are tricky to implement and subject to abuse but imagine you got points for using your real name, real photo, demerits for insults etc, then users could filter out hordes of trolls and gutter nonsense and instead focus on the meaningful conversations that do actually occur…
Not having a real name on Twitter isn't even a good heuristic for anything.