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

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#241

Post by JoshTriplett »

siruva07 wrote: post #239
JoshTriplett wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Since Twitter has effectively moved the default away from chronological order, what is really the purpose of a retweet? An upvote is naturally a positive interaction for “suggested tweets my followers should see”

Retweets still convey a tweet to your followers much more directly than a "like" does.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#243

Post by siruva07 »

jtsiskin wrote: post #220
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…

Facebook makes $30-40 ARPU in the US+Canada. https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2020/q3...

Got it. Looks like I pulled my figure on a quarterly basis which syncs with this annualized math.

FB is on the high end of ARPU. Most other services are cents to low dollars.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/facebook-towers-over-rivals-...

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#244

Post by FalconSensei »

siruva07 wrote: post #35
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 hear you. But Twitter is an incredible service. From the Arab spring to people like @balajis who broke COVID (for me at least) before major news networks. The only interactive we have as users is positive (a heart or retweet) vs negative (thumbs down on Youtube, downvote on reddit). I think a broken heart, </3, essentially as a downvote, could do a lot to make Twitter more of a community that rewards and punishes,…

> I think a broken heart, God please no, that's the reason I love Twitter. The day people start downvoting Tweets because they disagree, instead of replying, is the day I make my account private, or leave the service.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#245

Post by crocodiletears »

dragonwriter wrote: post #215
crocodiletears wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few of Substack's writers wouldn't be allowed for long on a Twitter-owned platforms, and they know it. Writers like Greenwald, Yarvin, and Taibbi are all to varying degrees, transgressive enough and critical enough of social media to perceive the extra cut Substack takes as a reasonable ask in exchange for a greater level of platform security. Substack will certainly lose a lot of writers, but I think it'll be safe…

> A few of Substack’s writers wouldn’t be allowed for long on a Twitter-owned platforms, and they know it. Maybe, but two of your three examples clearly would be allowed, and quite active, for quite a while "on a Twitter-owned platform": > Writers like Greenwald, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald (1.5M followers, since Aug 2008) > Yarvin, The only one without an obvious verified account on Twitter. There's a no-activity…

You're conflating mantaining a presence on the platform, with the willingness to make it your source of income. It's a matter of risk mitigation with consideration to Twitter's history of moderation.

I cited them not because they've been deplatformed, I cited them because they've at various points commented on media and platform censorship.

Considering Twitter's response to the Hunter Biden NYP story, and the fact that Greenwald left The Intercept over its inwillingness to publish his opinion piece on it, I doubt he would trust a company under Twitter to host his content.

Yarvin is an obvious no - being a neoreactionary who makes often despicable-sounding commentary, Twitter would be unlikely to keep him online and commercialized with pressure from activist groups.

Taibbi is quite moderate, but from interviews, I'd place him in a similar to bucket to Greenwald in terms of demanding editorial independence, and a durable revenue stream from his host platform.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#246

Post by Kye »

cjlm wrote: post #19

This space is quite interesting. You have the gorilla at the picnic (Substack), the stagnating old timers (TinyLetter), the member management platforms (Memberful, probably Mailchimp), the link dump creators (curated.co) and the spunky indie upstarts (Buttondown).

MailChimp owns TinyLetter.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#247

Post by nunez »

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 am absolutely not convinced that Facebook and their like would make more money as a paid service. People are okay with giving up (or not knowing that they are giving up) privacy to use products like social media. Unlike television (where there aren’t any free alternatives), Facebook would lose market share overnight if a somewhat-competent but free competitor sprang up.

I am also not convinced that people would pay to just get rid of ads, especially when there are free and easy alternatives available.

I _am_ convinced that a company like Facebook will try to launch a paid content service with their own exclusives since that seems to be the thing that big content providers are doing.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#248

Post by strogonoff »

strogonoff wrote: post #236
FalconSensei wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that there’s a slight problem with saying “social networks shouldn’t become paid because some users will leave”. Facebook was successful because 'everyone' was on Facebook. It was the one place that I would go and find almost everyone I knew, and if I posted something there, all of them would have access to it. Similarly, I've tried migrating from Twitter to Mastodon. But n…

> Facebook was successful because 'everyone' was on Facebook. I am not convinced that Facebook became successful because it was open to everyone. Arguably, FB owes its success precisely to its exclusive status in the early days, and to rising prevalence of affordable devices in the world. It’s difficult to know whether it was successful because it became open, or it happened independently. However, I agree that socia…

(Correction: “social networks played a significant role” -> “network effects played a significant role”)

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#249

Post by user-the-name »

Spivak wrote: post #122
bachmeier wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean it's not an insurmountable problem though. As long as likes and RTs are tied to a specific version of a Tweet and you can see the edits and associated likes it's fine.

That just makes it even more confusing. So you edit your tweet, but all the people who retweeted are still showing the wrong version and you can't do anything about it.

It kind of makes the situation worse than it is now.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#250

Post by user-the-name »

davidivadavid wrote: post #188
bachmeier wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So keep the original message when you retweet. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable amount of conceptual complexity.

That just makes the feature weird and broken.
Post reply on HN