171–180 of 398 posts
Speech is not violence. The author's conflation of the two trivializes actual physical violence.
Speech can definitely be violence and suggesting otherwise trivializes emotional abuse and trauma faced by those that suffer from PTSD and other mental illnesses.
Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically." That gives said harassers surprisingly legitimate reasons to claim censorship by Twitter as a company, despite the fact that they were in clear violation of Twitter's ToS and deserved to be banned. I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation (edit:…
I created a parody account for a celebrity, which was getting quite popular. Without discussing it first, they just removed the account and ignored 3 x emails asking them why. I was gutted.
The fact that anyone in the world can read and reply to your tweets (and vice versa) is fundamental to Twitter.
It seems like what people want is an entirely different service, something like Slack or group chat with invite-only groups.
My rule is that if nobody would pay for your service, you probably don't have a worthwhile business. If Google instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use Google search, people would line up to pay it. They don't have to, because their business model works differently, but they could do that, and it would work. I'd probably pay for an account. If Facebook instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use that, a lot of people would do…
"The idea these days is, get a bunch of users and introduce ads." That's exactly what Google and Facebook did. All I can take from your comment is "if hypothetical scenario then my opinion is true"
Would you pay to read Twitter? Do you think that anyone would?
My rule is that if nobody would pay for your service, you probably don't have a worthwhile business. If Google instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use Google search, people would line up to pay it. They don't have to, because their business model works differently, but they could do that, and it would work. I'd probably pay for an account. If Facebook instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use that, a lot of people would do…
However, as a game developer with Free-To-Play development PTSD, I think this rule rests on an implied-but-important condition: People are already using and loving the service. Imagine that some shiny new app called Spark launches tomorrow and vaguely promises to be Twitter 2.0, well no one would be willing to jump on unless it was free. Even $1 a month is too much for us short-attention-spanned smartphone users, as the total shift to F2P games on mobile has shown us. Nothing outside of Minecraft is in the top 100 grossing apps on Android nor iOS.
Perhaps the answer lies in starting free, getting people hooked, and then easing in a subscription fee? This would also come across as a bait-and-switch, as you said, and some users would inevitably flock to the next free clone.
Ultimately, and unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy answer to monetization anywhere...
People are tired from crybullies. We need a place where freedom of speech still matters. Freedom of speech doesn't include invading someone's privacy (this is illegal; doxxing, stalking etc. should be banned and actively fought against). But if you can't handle insults, it is not anyone's job to prevent them. There's always "Block" button, and then, there's always "delete account" button.
Explain to me how effective blocking individuals is when you're being spammed by dozens and hundreds of people with so little to do that they will happily go create egg accounts to continue harassing you. It's not practical or feasible to block all of them. So people should delete their accounts because they get brigaded? To hell with that, and with the people who think that is a social norm worth protecting. "Crybul…
What other button we need to invent? "Activate our hordes of ML algorithms to make sure that all replies you receive are about kittens or pink ponies"? Can be done, but we already have Facebook for that.
For me, all this drama looks like an orchestrated attack on Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main reason Twitter is screwed, isn't that they don't have a product people like. So what if Pokemon Go has more daily users? It's not really the same type of product. Twitter can be successful, at the same type that Pokemon, Facebook and other are successful. These companies aren't mutually exclusive. The reason Twitter is screwed is because they created a popular product and absolutely no idea on to make money…
While I would have no problem paying $10 for a year of Twitter, I think it would kill it. For a brief moment, I thought Google had a chance with Google+. The discussion model is better, the moderation tools are better, but it just doesn't have the users. I wonder if they had launched with a read/write API and good developer libraries, would Google+ have achieved critical mass? I'd still love to see Google try this si…
When they launched all the talk was focused on the social network. The focus should have been on the primary product which is that they introduced an account system. The social network just simply came with it for free. You could use it or not use it.
Google accounts meant you no longer needed to use your Gmail accounts to sign up for Google services.
Could bind everything, Gmail, any other Google services all to the same Google account. When Google then pushed to get people onto the new accounts system people thought Google was trying to shove the social network down their throats.
The social network again, though was secondary to the account system. Google+ likely would have been better received had people been properly informed on the benefits of creating a Google account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, like any good social media platform, they have no actual support. It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter except via form-email smoke signals.
Well, having people answer phones costs money, and you are not paying for Twitter. Your "data" and "eyeballs" aren't actually worth much. Would you be ok with a premium rate number where you pay per minute?
140 Characters; 100% agree, it should have been a minimum requirement of the message length instead maximum.
Effective comment, and you still have 32 characters to spare.
And I could have dedicated pages on how much you write isn't that important, often it is the reader, that can't be arsed to read it anyway.
If twitter would do a bit more on rewarding 'good' (and yes.. who am i to say what is good) behaviour; though some might describe that again as censorship. Creating another discussion.