241–250 of 369 posts
I’m still curious why they don’t pull the plug on Trump. It’s within their legal rights and it would irritate him. Seems like a no brainer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I really dislike is the spam in the notifications section. If someone likes my tweet, replies to it or retweets it, that's relevant. I don't however want to see a notification for something Tweeter deems interesting under other people you follow liked/retweed this as a notification.
Agreed. I wish that they would just mix those into the primary feed. I keep using the "See less often" option, but the "Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your experience better." message that I get in response almost feels like a taunt at this point. I want to turn them off completely.
I've taken to just unfollowing the users who they force notifications from.
Even though sometimes I'm generally interested in the user's content, I'll view it when I feel like it, not when Twitter wants me to.
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…
> Advertising is at the root of the problems of Twitter This is true, but it's not only advertising. Replace ads with any revenue generator large enough to sustain the service and you'll find that (1) the audience disappears or (2) big compromises in user experience or privacy. Maybe some services just can't be delivered by profit-maximizing corporations at all. A big reason for the wildly improbable success of Wikip…
And there you become one of the haters. Purge thyself.
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…
Except they made a mistake, and one person slipped through the net, and was completely miserable and driven insane by this.
To answer your actual question, I bet most social networks would be perfectly fine with just being mass market gatekeepers. It's expensive to have 100,000 newspapers and TV networks to appear customized enough for everyone watching; but it's cheap to have 100,000 versions of Facebook's wall, or Reddit's front page.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kind of the point though - I had no idea this feature existed until they started pushing it to me. I think it's too much to expect users to opt-in to things. How would I have known to opt-in to this? Yet I am now much happier because they improved the UX for me. I think opt-out makes sense though, for users who don't a feature.
If you put it on a single, easily recognizable, easily accessible page (all new features, etc.), then many users will find it. You can even give a notification when a new feature is added (as long as kept to a reasonable amount). Features that will go viral are worth adding for all, features that did not can be kept there.
Twitter very likely did market research on its effectiveness for the target market they were trying to please. Probably that's just not you.
> 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…
That said, I like following people because one of my interests is people.
The other alternative: we all stop using Twitter. There's simply no need for it.
Maybe there should be a 'journalist Twitter feed' that journos can comment and post on, but with no comments. So we get the live action, but not the clutter.
All pop culture and political tweeting is rubbish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Once he had VCs attention he could do what he wanted as he wasn't exactly starting from zero.
Let me get this straight: You think that the hard part of creating a billion dollar company is getting attention from VCs?