901–910 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
then your understanding seems to be quite limited :)
what even was the point of typing that? it just reads as kindergarten bully on an ipad.
The fact that so many large companies are still on X is so wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". I feel like way too many people forget that there was a great middle ground for the longest time, in the form of Google AdWords. Text only, no animations, flash, iframes serving malware, or any of the other bullshit that had already taken over banner ad networks like Doubleclick at the time. I recall at the time one of the ea…
Scalar Monomania (profit maximization in this case) is the root of so much evil :/
Regardless of the legality of the service: I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment. My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
You want to read what service XYZ offers, but you dont want to do it within the constraints of service XYZ. If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content. The market would dictate that if X content consumers found it too inconvenient to consume from X and that would result in a significant drop in demand, the X content producers would stop producing their content on X…
That's the issue though, it's not Twitter's "content" and I'm not trying to "consume" it. I want to be able to read and see what others including public official and primary sources for ongoing events have to say. That they are on twitter is coincidental and generally only because Twitter has captured the "public square". That doesn't make what's posted on there theirs anymore than the postal service owns the letters you send.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when you paid your ISP for internet access and in that cost they also provided you with an e-mail address, they ran a Usenet server for their customers, and gave you space for web hosting. Now all of that is expected to be paid for with ads instead.
Im too young to remember this but it would be an interesting idea if ISPs paid website hosts (kinda like cable companies pay networks based on viewership) The privacy implications of this are many, but the idea itself could be interesting.
Regardless of the legality of the service: I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment. My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. What an idealistic nonsense. Companies do anything not for people, but for money. We are not living in a socialist utopia (fortunately!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. What an idealistic nonsense. Companies do anything not for people, but for money. We are not living in a socialist utopia (fortunately!).
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's worth pointing out that most businesses outside of tech don't operate a "build a monopoly then bleed it dry" model, and are a lot nicer for it, while still making money. Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want. (I do get that tech VC doesn't work under this principle and it's not simpld to just change a sectors…
There are plenty of dark patterns and enshittification in all of these as well. Tech is just way ahead of the curve but the rest isn't innocent either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
^ this and the entire drama is just an ad campaign to make the rebranding stick. what is really going to work is to keep calling it Twitter, as it identifies itself, and slowly move over the scene to Bluesky/Mastodon. What demoralize them the most is to show whoever pays for it doesn't matter.
It would be really funny if Elon lost the Twitter trademark due to not using it.