Twitter Should Shut Me Down

Post by mindcrime » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #90

scrabble wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. These are people who are following accounts because the accounts favorite a tweet of theirs. If you follow someone without looking into their profile and deciding if you are interested in their content then you get what you deserve.

Ah, the "if the victim is that dumb, they deserve it" school of thought. Note that you can substitute all sorts of adjectives for "dumb". E.g., "those nerds are so unpopular they deserve to get beaten up". Or, "those people are poor enough that they deserve to live next to a toxic waste dump". Basically, it's a way of taking whatever characteristic you pride yourself on and then making yourself feel even better about…

Post by jeremyarussell » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #90

scrabble wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. These are people who are following accounts because the accounts favorite a tweet of theirs. If you follow someone without looking into their profile and deciding if you are interested in their content then you get what you deserve.

Ah, the "if the victim is that dumb, they deserve it" school of thought. Note that you can substitute all sorts of adjectives for "dumb". E.g., "those nerds are so unpopular they deserve to get beaten up". Or, "those people are poor enough that they deserve to live next to a toxic waste dump". Basically, it's a way of taking whatever characteristic you pride yourself on and then making yourself feel even better about…

Post by lucaspiller » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #69

mootothemax wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's got to be an opportunity for Twitter to monetize that instead of fighting it and pissing everyone off. Agreed, and speaking personally, I would love to pay Twitter $XXX/month, especially if it included some form of "we'll reply to X emails within an hour" support. The fact that they're not even charging $20/month for minimal API access is baffling to me. I'd expect it'd only help reduce spam as well!

For $20/month they'd probably spend more on the accounting infrastructure and payment gateway than they'd generate. It's like (snail) mailing someone a bill for $0.25.

Post by jsleuth » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 5:03 PM UTC

biznickman wrote: post #70

I'm confused. Why would someone who's running a profitable business, that works, expose their techniques at the risk of killing the business? You know it may be shut down at some point, so print cash until that point arrives. Not sure why someone would sabotage their own business this way. Is the appeal of recognition that significant?

Post by AznHisoka » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 5:07 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #92

mrilhan wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short term: wants a meeting, and this should probably do the trick. Long term: doesn't want get killed, prefers to partner with Twitter and sustain a lesser profit margin for a longer period of time. I say a slow clap is in order here, no matter what his true intentions are, only if for being so focused on what he wants from Twitter Inc.

Almost certainly will be nuked before the end of week, perhaps by end of day. There goes $50/month/customer, for someone with supposedly hundreds of customers. He probably could have gotten at least a couple months more without being shut down and some free publicity on Hacker News afterwards complaining about being shut down, but he traded that for a maybe 1% chance at some kind of introduction. And, I guess, a HN p…