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

I would prefer to pay for Twitter

justindunham.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#31

Post by teacup50 »

pbreit wrote: post #12
JeremyMorgan wrote: post #6

I would pay for Twitter as well. Though it would be a huge backlash, I think it would clean things up quite a bit. I was one of the people who sprung for app.net. It was a crazy idea, and it's unfortunate it didn't take off. In the time App.net was buzzing with activity I did notice a significant lack of spam and fake profiles. It was nice, but it seems now most have abandoned it.

You do understand that the paid aspect of app.net guaranteed that it would fail? Usage is oxygen, fees are suffocation.

I didn't stop using app.net because of a lack of usage, I stopped using it because of the lack of decent clients, coupled with the fact that it was just another walled garden -- not a standardized protocol.

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#33

Post by the_watcher »

1337biz wrote: post #22
arjunnarayan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tptacek is right. It's even worse, if you consider two-tiered pricing (ad supported, and paid), since advertisers want the expensive types who would pay for access, so they would pay less for the ad supported user group than you would think.

But you could find a way to work around that issue e.g. by offering certain features that are fee based and that are unrelated to advertising.

Twitter could charge for something. They already do (ads). However, some advertisers will always pay more to reach those on a platform like Twitter, especially those who are likely wealthy, and those budgets are large enough to overwhelm whatever you would pay to avoid ads.

If, however, you are simply arguing that Twitter should add some cool features that you have to pay for, then you are correct. They could, and may.

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#34

Post by the_watcher »

foxit wrote: post #10

>(By the way, if significant portions of your userbase are capable of becoming addicted to your product, consider that it may not be fully ethical to produce it.) Well, there goes the gaming industry.

And Google. And Facebook. And Reddit (and the entire Internet).

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#35

Post by janvdberg »

When discussing Twitter I always keep this thing in mind http://paulgraham.com/twitter.html

Twitter is not a service it is (more) a protocol.

So it that sense people can and should use it anyway they want. And paying for it doesn't/shouldn't change that. I have a certain way of using Twitter that makes it valuable for me. But a lot of people I know seem to be shouting without listening or engaging. But hey, if that works for you, go right ahead.

Also for the other arguments: - I do feel social pressure in following back. So that's just personal I guess.

- I always felt the "favorite" feature is a bit 'off'. I used to use this to bookmark tweets with interesting links (read later kind of thing). But now it seems to be used as the "Like" for Twitter. But Twitter itself isn't utilizing it as such.

People favoriting tweets doesn't change your timeline.

You can go to "Discover" but that is not the same. So I always felt Twitter is missing a feature OR they are not utilizing the Favorite thing the right way.

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#36

Post by mhurron »

SuperCynical wrote: post #17

Excuse my slight condescending tone, but I don't think he really understands what twitter is for, and who benefits from its service. The model explained, which was tried by app.net, doesn't coincide with the real idea behind twitter in the first place. A neighbor once said to me, we should pay to use the sidewalks in our city; I don't think she understood the ramifications of such a move, but it made sense in her min…

> I don't think he really understands what twitter is for

I can't really hold that against anyone since I can't figure out what it's for ether.

> she didn't understand that the sidewalk wasn't even necessarily meant for her. ... homeless persons use to panhandle, ... and every once in a while some lune is up there with a sign expressing their view.

She probably fully knew this and this was exactly what she was trying to prevent.

Basically, just like this from elsewhere in the comments -

> I would pay for Twitter as well. Though it would be a huge backlash, I think it would clean things up quite a bit.

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#37

Post by riboflavin »

teacup50 wrote: post #30
jamesjyu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Would this also apply to products like Uber? I use it all the time, and can't imagine life without it. Am I addicted to it? Is it an unethical company because people love to use it and it provides value to their lives?

"Addiction is the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences, or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors." Would you say you have an addiction to Uber?

I chose the word "addiction" pretty specifically - does it enrich the user's life? Uber does. (And you probably don't have a desire to use Uber for hours every day).

Social gaming (someone mentioned below) does, to a point, and then it's engineered to go way, way beyond that point.

It's complicated of course - and there's a spectrum - but I think a bad sign is if your architecture is intended to hack the reward systems of your customers.

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#38

Post by hnriot »

jamesjyu wrote: post #14
foxit wrote: post #10

>(By the way, if significant portions of your userbase are capable of becoming addicted to your product, consider that it may not be fully ethical to produce it.) Well, there goes the gaming industry.

Exactly. Would this also apply to products like Uber? I use it all the time, and can't imagine life without it. Am I addicted to it? Is it an unethical company because people love to use it and it provides value to their lives?

"I use it all the time" - you might find it more economical to buy a car. I fail to see how anyone could be addicted to something as basic as transport. It's like saying you're addicted to using BART or MUNI.

Re: I would prefer to pay for Twitter

#39

Post by hnriot »

tptacek wrote: post #13

You would pay for Twitter, but you would not outbid the advertisers, who unlike you are willing to subsidize the people who won't pay for Twitter. Which is just a complicated way of saying that if Twitter charged for access, it would charge substantially more than you'd expect them to.

while you might be willing to pay for Twitter, if that happened, you'd quickly not want to since it would become a ghost town and any value you get from the service would be wiped out.
Post reply on HN