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

Twitter acquires Revue

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#111

Post by enos_feedler »

woodpanel wrote: post #74
complianceowl wrote: post #69

Use Revue, build a sizeable distribution list, so I can get banned for expressing my thoughts? So I can be treated like a pedophile for saying something unpopular that doesn't align with their radical leftist ideology? No thank you. There's a lot of other subscription services for me to take a risk that big with anyone associated with Twitter.

Probably a win for Substack, as a take-over by less-diverse-on-purpose Twitter will drive away those who seek diversity of opinions. Although, I can already feel the cancel-pressure building up in and around Substack, just by writing this.

I dont think this is a win for substack. Before this acquisition Substack was probably the leading product in this category. Im sure if Substack polled it’s publishers on what they want most, people would say “more paid subscribers”. Twitter is a platform that can offer this from day 1. A chance to have your newsletter promoted to new eyeballs with a strong interest in what you write about. Substack needs to grow the reader side organically and so the race is on. Substack needs to turn into twitter faster than twitter can build substacks tools. Twitter just acquired a company to accelerate this process. How can substack accelerate?

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#112

Post by elliekelly »

whomst wrote: post #81
CivBase wrote: post #79

"Revue by Twitter" It's interesting that the tech giants keep tagging their names onto the brands they acquire. Does that really help? I know that the tech crowd exists in a bubble and that the hatred for the tech giants on HN doesn't really reflect the feelings of the general public... but even outside the tech sphere, are there really many people who like Twitter as a company? Most people just seem to tolerate the…

I’ve heard that it might be for anti trust reasons (but with putting Facebook on all of its properties). Properly establishing who owns what up front makes the average user more aware of the consolidation of platforms

I’ve seen that argument a few times recently as well but I don’t find it at all persuasive. Public perception of market competition isn’t relevant to antitrust law. That the public is more aware of a company’s anti-competitive behavior doesn’t somehow absolve or even lessen the potential liability for the anti-competitive behavior.

Or perhaps I just don’t understand the point they’re trying to make? I’ve yet to come across this antitrust/branding argument where the rationale has been explained but I’d definitely be curious to hear the legal theory.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#113

Post by sneak »

siruva07 wrote: post #7

Excellent acquisition. Twitter will definitely compete and take marketshare from Substack with lower fees from 20% to 5%. I hope this acquisition is actually a stepping stone for Twitter to become a much better service. Twitter could absolutely become a paid service and move away from ads as its business model. No political ads to worry about. No interference with the product experience. And believe it or not, if I u…

> I hope this acquisition is actually a stepping stone for Twitter to become a much better service.

I don't. Centralization of censorship ability in a small number of platforms is a bad thing for everyone. Twitter and Instagram or any other centralized censor becoming a "better service" makes our whole society worse.

It's time to leave Twitter and never look back. Only assholes tell other adults what they're allowed to see or read.

I tolerated Twitter deciding what I was allowed to write for a dozen years. When they started censoring search and dictating what I was allowed to read, I deleted my account.

Sharecropping on someone else's platform is a dead end.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#114

Post by moksly »

seneca wrote: post #29

Twitter is in an interesting position as a business. They can buy new platforms all they like but I, and many others, will never consider them because they have already poisoned the well when it comes to censorship. I would never consider them a useful platform for publishing, whether long-form or short. They're destined to be a home for partisans that agree with their orthodoxy and perhaps people with nothing vaguel…

The internet split long ago, and the vast majority of western consumers won’t give two shits about non-progressive voices getting drowned.

I’m not judging either way, and there is certainly something ironic about Apple using slave labour while taking the moral high ground against hateful assholes and their refusal to moderate.

But it’s the way the wind blows, and you’re honestly not going to be able of resisting.

In the EU we’re certainly going to regulate big tech, but the result wouldn’t lead to Trump not getting banned for inciting violence, if anything it would probably have happened sooner and with a public mandate.

And good luck building a marketable platform out of the users who get kicked off the mainstream internet.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#115

Post by rchaud »

walleeee wrote: post #84

Why is the Revue model preferable to a blog with a tip jar and RSS? I understand why Twitter wants in on a lucrative game, but I don't understand the value proposition for writers or readers. I struggle to see how, as a regular person on the internet, I benefit from a "public square" that will hijack my brainstem to maximize engagement, sell my attention and browsing habits to 3rd parties, and suspend my account with…

It's preferable because people don't want to have to click through multiple screens to do PayPal/Visa Checkout authentication to give somebody $3.

Nobody knows what RSS is either. Even back in mid-00s, I would sometimes struggle to add a blog to my Firefox feed (this was pre-Chrome). On some sites you'd click the RSS button and it would work. On other sites clicking it would display incomprehensible XML markup, causing me to abandon the site.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#116

Post by mrisoli »

Tenoke wrote: post #95
motoboi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they charge 5 to 15 reais per month 80% of Brazil’s users will exit Twitter and Facebook for the free competitor the same day. I suppose the same would happen anywhere the exchange rate is unfavorable. A price for FB in Brazil? R$ 1 ($0,2). And the free option would still get a huge market share.

For what is worth, those users also earn them much lees revenue, so the cost can be lower, too.

It's a matter of perception, especially in poorer countries like Brazil, why would anyone pay money for something that was previously free?

Good example of this is WhatsApp, IIRC it was free for a year then charged $1 for lifetime access, people still scrambled to get around the app(download illegal APKs, or recreate accounts).

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#117

Post by cblconfederate »

I ve seen people talking about owning their twitter audience but the suggestion was to move away from twitter and towards self-hosting. Substack is promoted as a temporary in-between. Interesting that twitter thinks authors want to lock long-form content in there. What happens after the inevitable next Purge?

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#118

Post by nomdep »

DavidPeiffer wrote: post #97
RankingMember wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The temptation to increase margins is high no matter what. yep, I remember when cable tv was ad-free (because who would've dreamt people would be ok with paying a subscription fee while still getting ads shoved down their throat?)

I knew someone who was an early adopter of satellite TV. She said during the news, rather than ads, you saw the hosts smoking and chatting. That sounds so much more pleasant than what we have today. When cable had no ads, did all programs just run continously? If a channel did a special where they played standard TV programs designed for over the air broadcast (18-23 minutes/episode), did they just play them consecut…

At least in my country, in the week just after christmas, in several children cable channels, the ads dissapear. Instead the run "ads" for other shows in the channel.

I guess that how TV without ads would look like.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#119

Post by walleeee »

rchaud wrote: post #115
walleeee wrote: post #84

Why is the Revue model preferable to a blog with a tip jar and RSS? I understand why Twitter wants in on a lucrative game, but I don't understand the value proposition for writers or readers. I struggle to see how, as a regular person on the internet, I benefit from a "public square" that will hijack my brainstem to maximize engagement, sell my attention and browsing habits to 3rd parties, and suspend my account with…

It's preferable because people don't want to have to click through multiple screens to do PayPal/Visa Checkout authentication to give somebody $3. Nobody knows what RSS is either. Even back in mid-00s, I would sometimes struggle to add a blog to my Firefox feed (this was pre-Chrome). On some sites you'd click the RSS button and it would work. On other sites clicking it would display incomprehensible XML markup, causi…

That's fair, although to me that suggests we need to create easier self-hostable blog/newsletter tools, not all migrate to Twitter's next big fishtank

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#120

Post by Applejinx »

siruva07 wrote: post #7

Excellent acquisition. Twitter will definitely compete and take marketshare from Substack with lower fees from 20% to 5%. I hope this acquisition is actually a stepping stone for Twitter to become a much better service. Twitter could absolutely become a paid service and move away from ads as its business model. No political ads to worry about. No interference with the product experience. And believe it or not, if I u…

Funnily enough, just last week I deleted both Facebook and Twitter, even though they 'cost me nothing'.
Post reply on HN