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

171–180 of 270 posts

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#171

Post by TimPC »

reidjs wrote: post #163
Nacdor wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter will definitely compete and take marketshare from Substack with lower fees from 20% to 5%. Twitter's willingness to silence users for political reasons will ensure this service never competes with Substack in any meaningful way. I don't doubt that it will be popular, but you won't see top-tier independent journalists building their houses on a Twitter's land after what we learned in the past year.

I assume you're mainly referring to Trump. Inciting a coup is technically a political reason, but I think most people agree that's a valid reason to silence someone.

Twitter has done far more than silence Trump. The NY Post article they shut down before the election turned out to be more true than false. It wasn't an attempt to incite a coup, it was an attempt to report some inconvenient facts about the son of a man who is now president and corruption. I'm glad Biden is president as I think it was a needed change that will be good for the US and the world but I still found this shut down of information deeply troubling.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#172

Post by julianlam »

TimPC wrote: post #164
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?)

cable tv always had ads because the cable subscription goes to an infrastructure provider not the content provider. If the infrastructure provider was the content provider there is a substantial incentive to reduce or eliminate ads a la Netflix and Amazon Prime which largely restrict ads to brief promotions of other content on the network.

I don't believe this is correct. Certain cable television channels were originally ad free (e.g. USA, Nickelodeon) because they competed against free OTA broadcasts which were ad supported.

Similarly to pay per view.

That those channels now show commercials (and has for a long enough time that people think "it was always like this") just cements our expectations that commercials are a fact of life.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#173

Post by Nacdor »

reidjs wrote: post #163
Nacdor wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter will definitely compete and take marketshare from Substack with lower fees from 20% to 5%. Twitter's willingness to silence users for political reasons will ensure this service never competes with Substack in any meaningful way. I don't doubt that it will be popular, but you won't see top-tier independent journalists building their houses on a Twitter's land after what we learned in the past year.

I assume you're mainly referring to Trump. Inciting a coup is technically a political reason, but I think most people agree that's a valid reason to silence someone.

No, I'm mainly referring to the NY Post which was pre-emptively banned before Twitter had fact-checked their story. Even after it was proven that the story was true, Twitter refused to unlock their account. It took weeks of immense public pressure and even then the NY Post might've still been forced to delete the "offending" tweets just to satisfy Twitter and get their account back.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1354077568555692034

No sane journalist would rely on Twitter for income after that.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#174

Post by TimPC »

elliekelly wrote: post #112
whomst wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The only thing I can come up with is that being aware of the damages in advance of a purchasing decision might in some cases serve to limit said damages relative to being unaware of them. Not sure it applies in a monopoly setting where awareness of damages doesn't give you an alternative though. It gets more complicated when damage is speech instead of a financial exploit on a product.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#175

Post by adolph »

whimsicalism wrote: post #132
cblconfederate wrote: post #117

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?

> What happens after the inevitable next Purge? Most authors are not going to be "purged" full stop.

"Most" definitely messes with the business model. The requirement is for only enough to get everyone else to fall in line. It also helps to make selections idiosyncraticly arbitrary to maintain strategic ambiguity instead of drawing a clear line.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#176

Post by complianceowl »

spacesword wrote: post #156
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.

Good point, bad analogy. Twitter treats pedophiles really well.

Lol, you make a good point.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#177

Post by herodoturtle »

mschuster91 wrote: post #137

Fascinating. I wonder what happened to Medium?

No idea what happened because I stopped using it after they started adding all the accessibility friction. The UI was decent, original. And giving the reader an idea of the "Reading time" of each article was a nice touch.

But yeah, that friction got to be a little too much.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#178

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

andrew_ wrote: post #21

As someone who moved away from Twitter, the last thing I need in my life is another Twitter-owned property. The politics of the last month aside, Twitter is a foul, trite, snide place where the worst of us are trumpeted to the loudest voice and widest audience. The negativity and incentive to waste hours and focus are pervasive in every community I've participated in. Of course, YMMV. Despite my best efforts, I was u…

I suspect that one problem on Twitter is how wide you "open the door". If you crack it open just a little (i.e. limited follows), you can have a nice, useful, informative stream there, without all the negativity. But if you insist on opening the door fairly wide (i.e. lots more follows), you're effectively inviting the whole world in.

And guess what? "the whole world", taken as a whole, isn't so great.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#179

Post by JoshTriplett »

nefitty wrote: post #152
bachmeier wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because rather than retweeting "I hate the KKK" you just retweeted "I support the KKK".

This is a particularly low-tier way to troll on Reddit. It doesn’t seem like the problem is drastic there, or even here on HN. I think the problem does stem from a retweet having a vibe of “I endorse this message.”, regardless of what the retweeter has written in their bio.

> I think the problem does stem from a retweet having a vibe of “I endorse this message.”, regardless of what the retweeter has written in their bio.

At the very least, a retweet always means "I want more people to see this message".

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#180

Post by smileybarry »

nomdep wrote: post #118
DavidPeiffer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Israel, cable/satellite company-owned channels only ads shown for other shows or channels. That's not because they're nice, but because they're legally barred from showing "real" ads (only commercial, free OTA channels can do that; gov-owned public access only shows ads for their own shows, same reason). Plus those ads are just between programs and never in the middle of one. They still get very repetitive, though.
Post reply on HN