231–240 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already reverted that. https://www.engadget.com/twitter-quietly-backtracks-on-requi...
I still can't view any content without signing in.
Yeah, no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already reverted that. https://www.engadget.com/twitter-quietly-backtracks-on-requi...
I still can't view any content without signing in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see what elon did last week? I am not going to pay for a social media site which still gives me ads and has rate limits.
You don't have to pay and the rate limits are temporary, this was stated at the point they started. It's a big deal to the anti-Musk activists but from a user standpoint it's generally negligible.
More and more accounts are getting off the twitter bandwagon. Clearly it has an impact on users to keep losing features, being asked to pay and now being limited in how many tweets they can read per day. How’s that an improvement for the normal user?
I too name my applications after unrelentingly grim post-apocalyptic British films¹ that harrowingly depict the catastrophic failure of institutions and the dire social and cultural outcomes that accompany the collapse of civilization. This does seem perfectly on-brand for Facebook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Threads copies verification from Instagram which is mostly celebrities, public figures, brands, etc. You may not agree with the choices of noteworthiness, but they are at least checked for validity. https://help.instagram.com/854227311295302 Twitter has verification which is "anyone with spare change who wants to shout louder than others".
You can pay for verification on Instagram as well. I had a blue checkmark last month when I kind of just paid for fun to see if it would increase engagement (I'm not an influencer or popular in the least, just have a few hundred followers). So I'd say Instagram/Threads' verification is equally worthless.
I too name my applications after unrelentingly grim post-apocalyptic British films¹ that harrowingly depict the catastrophic failure of institutions and the dire social and cultural outcomes that accompany the collapse of civilization. This does seem perfectly on-brand for Facebook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)
After? You're seriously going to claim that Threads -- an app entirely for threaded conversations -- is named not after the ubiquitous term of art from Twitter, but it's named after a 39-year-old animated horror film that most people have never even heard of, let alone seen? That's your contention?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they have meaningful verification (apparently), while Twitter doesn't.
What does that mean? Doesn’t the blue tick verification on Twitter require a valid credit card ?
Now it just means someone paid some amount of money. They're "verified" in the sense of like verifying the email address you used to sign up with to an olde timey web forum, and maybe that you're probably not an absolutely minimum effort spam/scam bot. However the "verified" checkmark is still basically useless because it doesn't verify an identity or credentials anymore, and it's easy enough for bad actors to get the checkmark to then impersonate some brand or website or whatever, and have their posts get privileged by The Algorithm.
So, previously "verified" status was useful for people to be able to tell that the posts they're reading are really from who they think they're from. Now, "verified" status means that bad actors and bad posters get their posts boosted ahead of normal posts, so the replies to any mildly popular thread are going to be full of attempted scams and tepid takes. It's become completely useless for its original purpose and makes content discovery worse.