261–270 of 270 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even after it was proven that the story was true Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV. Source?
The email authenticity was verified via DKIM signature. I'm not going to break it down point-by-point because you're just shifting the goalposts now. Twitter and FB let plenty of fake and exaggerated stories run wild when they say something negative about Trump. For example, the fake stories about Trump telling people to "Drink/inject bleach", the fake stories about him calling COVID a "hoax", and the fake stories ab…
Or as Steve Jobs put it: "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering."
A good spin has at least one verifiable element and the rest is vague enough to not be accountable, but still gets the message out.
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…
> 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.
It's easier for a service to say "We'll always stand by our users" when they have like two users, and none of are heads of states, controversial personalities with huge audiences, diplomats, operatives, etc.
Let's wait and see what Substack's position will become when it becomes a service that matters.
I’m curious as to why Twitter chose to do this as an acquisition rather than build their own. It doesn’t seem particularly hard to build from an engineering perspective, and I doubt Twitter needs to acquire the Revue user base given their existing profile and reach.
You would have to be a complete idiot to try and build your revenue on something owned by Twitter. They will shut you down at any time, for any reason, with no recourse.
With Revue and Substack, do the authors have access to subscriber email addresses? If so, that would somewhat blunt concerns like this, both directly (if you are booted off the platform) and indirectly (presumably the platforms would be less aggressive in their rules/enforcement if it is easy for authors to leave).
> You own your list, forever > Bring the audience you’ve built, and take it with you anytime. You are in control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mastodon has a "Delete and repost", which deletes the post, and copies the contents to the posting field so you can edit and repost.
Twitter has users, can't beat that feature. I'll use Mastodon when it's worth the server admin haha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
also some would only put a snippet in their RSS feed rather than the whole article
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When you quote someone, you repeat what they said, not what they might repeat some time in the future. When you quote a book, you write down what's written in the book. Not what the author writes in the next edition.
You may in time edit/remove/amend your tweet to comment on further changes.