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

Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 369 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#161

Post by panarky »

pjc50 wrote: post #154
grey-area wrote: post #147

It's time to rethink twitter and launch another service. Readers want to see the content they select, in the order they select, from people/posters they find interesting. Have conversations and maybe connect with people they follow. Posters want to control their feed and who sees it, control the conversation a bit more, perhaps pay for better tools to curate replies, get rid of spam/trolls etc, have their complaints…

No no no, the content producers are the ones doing the work and the readers should be funding the platform somehow. And possibly the creators too. I'd like a "Reddit gold"-like system. (I know I wouldn't pay to post because I have lurked on metafilter for most of its life but never paid the $5 to post)

Make the readers pay and you'll lose your audience.

Make the posters pay and you'll lose your content.

Without advertising, that means the service cannot make a profit.

Maybe that's the solution to the puzzle.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#162

Post by markdog12 »

jsnell wrote: post #2

> 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 Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…

I recently created a Twitter account, mostly as an experiment. I just followed some programmers, stuck to programming content. Immediately and every day after, I was constantly being displayed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Justin Trudeau, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, etc. Not a single politician or voice not on the left. Considering how powerful Twitter has become, this is troubling. I know this is just one anecdote, wondering what the rest of HN sees...

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#163

Post by grey-area »

pjc50 wrote: post #154
grey-area wrote: post #147

It's time to rethink twitter and launch another service. Readers want to see the content they select, in the order they select, from people/posters they find interesting. Have conversations and maybe connect with people they follow. Posters want to control their feed and who sees it, control the conversation a bit more, perhaps pay for better tools to curate replies, get rid of spam/trolls etc, have their complaints…

No no no, the content producers are the ones doing the work and the readers should be funding the platform somehow. And possibly the creators too. I'd like a "Reddit gold"-like system. (I know I wouldn't pay to post because I have lurked on metafilter for most of its life but never paid the $5 to post)

Readers will never, ever pay. That's not sustainable and you need them to attract posters.

Content producers on the other hand are an assorted mix of businesses (make money from attention/clicks), personalities (make money from attention), influencers (make money from attention), academics (no money). If you have an audience many of them would pay.

You could charge the top 10% of content producers/businesses for better tools they would use and ask for all the time (moderation, blocking, shadowbanning etc), and also sell the public data of a popular service like this (for sentiment analysis, trending topics etc), and have a very healthy business model.

There is no need for advertising, it is actively harmful, and it results in misaligned incentives, but if you try to make it reader funded it would IMO fail too - several services have, I think I saw one on HN a few months ago, but the now defunct app dot net is the most prominent example.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#164

Post by jrumbut »

bediger4000 wrote: post #18
dman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand the economic and legal pressure for this to happen, but how would that make social networks anything other than mass market gatekeepers, like newspapers and TV networks once were? 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 creator…

I think the "antique model steam engine refurbishment" is where we go off the tracks with social media.

If you are single mindedly contented with some obscure niche you have so many wonderful options today because nothing is easier to advertise to than groups with really specific interests that require buying things.

What's lacking is well rounded, pleasant experiences. I'm not a collection of discrete interests and I definitely don't want to become one nor am I interested in meeting one.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#165

Post by ahakki »

grey-area wrote: post #149
simonsarris wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I follow a few hundred people with very varied interests, and I don't log in every few minutes. For non-addicted people, the algo is pretty nice. I want to see a sampling of interesting stuff I "missed" over the last day or two. If I want to go look at a particular person's chronological feed, I can do that. You can change it if you don't like it, click the sparkle button to do so, but don't think nobody likes it.

Try doing that, and find out how many times Twitter helpfully resets you to go back 'home' - a home which they feel they own and control. I press that button about once a week to go back to a chronological feed. I don't log in every few minutes - every few hours perhaps on a good day, but have no interest in an algorithmic feed - a scrolling chronological feed is just fine. There are very good reasons they forced us…

Once a week? Lucky you, I have to set it to "Latest Tweets" almost every time I open the app. It even reminds me to set my "Content Preferences" every time I do it, just to ignore them over and over again. Helpful.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#166

Post by platz »

markdog12 wrote: post #162
jsnell wrote: post #2

> 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 Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…

I recently created a Twitter account, mostly as an experiment. I just followed some programmers, stuck to programming content. Immediately and every day after, I was constantly being displayed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Justin Trudeau, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, etc. Not a single politician or voice not on the left. Considering how powerful Twitter has become, this is troubling. I know this is just one…

> just followed some programmers

Well now you know why you're seeing what you're seeing.

Are programmers supposed to be some apolitical hyper-rational cohort?

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#167

Post by Hayvok »

gfodor wrote: post #41

Dorsey to me has it half right. Twitter should just follow with what we typically do in real life: "follow" people, but masked by interests we trust those people about. I want to read about politics from the political analysts I follow, but don't care about their cooking adventures on the weekend. I want to read about tech from the software folks I follow, but don't want to hear about their politics. I sure as heck d…

> I want to read about politics from the political analysts I follow, but don't care about their cooking adventures on the weekend. I want to read about tech from the software folks I follow, but don't want to hear about their politics.

This is the biggest reason I end up unfollowing people.

Say I follow a person because they post interesting technical articles. Over time (as their follower count increases, usually...) they drift toward making 80% political posts and only 20% technical. I'd still like to see their technical posts w/o having to sift through all the political posts. Usually I just end up unfollowing, depending on how bad it gets, but I wish I could still see and participate in their topics I care about.

This is true even in real-life relationships. There are some people you just don't discuss certain topics with.

I don't discuss politics or medicine with my in-laws. I don't discuss religion anymore with my cousin. Or history with my grandfather. I avoid talking about money with my brother. Why? Because over time I've realized there's nothing to be gained from participating in a conversation with them on that particular topic.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#168

Post by markdog12 »

platz wrote: post #166
markdog12 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently created a Twitter account, mostly as an experiment. I just followed some programmers, stuck to programming content. Immediately and every day after, I was constantly being displayed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Justin Trudeau, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, etc. Not a single politician or voice not on the left. Considering how powerful Twitter has become, this is troubling. I know this is just one…

> just followed some programmers Well now you know why you're seeing what you're seeing. Are programmers supposed to be some apolitical hyper-rational cohort?

I did wait 2 weeks without following anyone, just searched for programming languages and such. But yes, I wondered that as well.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#169

Post by grey-area »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #159
grey-area wrote: post #147

It's time to rethink twitter and launch another service. Readers want to see the content they select, in the order they select, from people/posters they find interesting. Have conversations and maybe connect with people they follow. Posters want to control their feed and who sees it, control the conversation a bit more, perhaps pay for better tools to curate replies, get rid of spam/trolls etc, have their complaints…

I am. It's called Micro.blog. Micro.blog has been discussed on HN before and people were, well, skeptical, in part because we've seen App.Net fail at this before -- but also because I think a lot of folks don't quite understand what Micro.blog is doing. (To be fair, I don't think they're particularly good at explaining what they're doing.) In short form: Micro.blog is built on IndieWeb principles. You can pay to have…

That looks really nice - thanks for trying to fix this. I really like your straightforward home page.

In case this is useful my concerns would be on seeing your home page - Is this going to go out of business in 2 years and lose my stuff? Do I want to pay to post drivel about my life, and retweet the odd thing?

I don't really use twitter for personal blogging, and don't think I'd pay for it, but it's really interesting to see that there are probably several different audiences using twitter for such different things and your service is aimed at a different segment.

The value in twitter for me is the posts from prominent people in various industries who expose what they're really thinking, their foibles, interests and links to interesting research they've just read. I put up with all the drama, nazis and ads for that alone. I use several accounts to follow/promote different interests, and for some businesses, but wouldn't pay for personal use.

Personally I'm really skeptical of a federated network, it's a solution to a problem I don't have, which introduces other problems, but it's not a blocker, I just think it's a distraction to the real problems of social media.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#170

Post by billmalarky »

hannasanarion wrote: post #133
kolbe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonprofit? A service that does what you likely desire would cost in the eight digits a year to provide for the whole world.

Wikipedia gets along just fine. "nonprofit" is not code for "zero revenue"

Wikipedia's costs are extremely small relative the service usage. They don't have a lot of active development (relatively), and they don't need a ton of expensive infrastructure (relatively). Twitter's annual operating costs are in the $2+ billions. Wikipedia's are in the ~$60 millions. Not to say a non-profit twitter couldn't exist - this just feels like an unfair comparison. Just because two services are popular tech services doesn't mean they are apples to apples to operate.
Post reply on HN