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

Twitter's Fucked

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#291

Post by ruste »

michaelbuddy wrote: post #224
scholia wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. Milo had tens of thousands of flying monkeys to troll and harass people on his behalf. He knew this perfectly well, and used it all the time. His tweets didn't need to be particularly harassing: all he had to do was point the finger. Which he did.

>Milo had tens of thousands of flying monkeys to troll and harass people your claim. I was reading his tweets and you're wrong. It's simple. you don't have a leg to stand on. And thanks to twitter, we don't have the records to look at either. But since I was reading them I know, so I don't have to take your claim into consideration.

For what it's worth: https://tweetsave.com/nero

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#292

Post by cmurf »

devishard wrote: post #116

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…

I think overall this is decently convincing, the problem I have with it though is the Uber example. Uber is bleeding money and clearly subsidizing rides. If people were paying the true cost of what drivers are paid plus some reasonable mark up, I have serious doubts it'd be as popular as it is. And case in point, I don't use Uber in NYC. Friends and colleagues don't either. It's usually easier and cheaper to get a cab. So... if Uber becomes more expensive than it is now, let alone more than a cab, I think broadly speaking most people will vote for the less expensive option rather than the service with the shiny app.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#293

Post by dragonwriter »

ivraatiems wrote: post #103
snaky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.

Definitely not true of current neocons. They use freedom of speech as a cover for "let me say whatever I want to say" while ignoring it when it suits them. As a live-right-now example, the mods of /r/The_Donald on Reddit are preemtively banning users before Trump's AMA to prevent dissent, and have stated plainly they will delete any unflattering questions.

Right-wing authoritarian populism of the kind Trump represents is pretty far from neoconservatism (both are right-of-center and, in the US, uneasily fall under the umbrella of the same major political party, but they are not the same, or even particularly all that similar.)

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#294

Post by Karunamon »

scholia wrote: post #272
Karunamon wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milo knew what he was doing. What objective facts do you base this on? The tweets themselves are completely innocuous . And meanwhile, people who post actual harassment and threats are left unscathed (I've personally reported a few myself), and while I'm not privy to what happens in Jack's office, it definitely quacks like it's okay to to harass if you subscribe to one political mindset, but not another.

We followed each other on Twitter, and have mutual acquaintances. I also know personal stuff about Milo that not many people know. If there were meanings that weren't obvious to you, that doesn't mean they weren't there.

It also means those meanings are completely worthless to bring into this discussion as they can't be evaluated - your comment is worded as if it's personal stuff you don't want to get in to.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#295

Post by [deleted] »

Disruptive_Dave wrote: post #246

Has anyone ever had substantial conversations about the idea that maybe, just maybe, this is a human beings problem? As in we're not conditioned nor designed to communicate in such an environment? And that this type of access to the public and each other is so new (in the greater scheme of the world) that we have no damn clue what we're doing? Or is everyone going to continue to make arguments that are heavily based…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#296

Post by makemoniesonlin »

intoverflow2 wrote: post #27
ivraatiems wrote: post #10

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.

>It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter There absolutely is, if you have a friend of a friend work there in which case you can get special backchannel treatment and they'll ban whomever tweets something unpleasant at you.

*whoever

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#297

Post by digi_owl »

criddell wrote: post #82
mrweasel wrote: post #57

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…

Google fucked it up by hogtying everything from the Play store to Youtube to that G+ account. Thus if you violated the G+ TOS you suddenly found yourself locked out of everything the account tied to.

Then again, the guy responsible for the mess was an ex-MS exec that continued the mentality of mentally tying his fief with everything else. Sadly Google is taking forever to untangle the knot (likely because it is unsexy maintenance work).

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#298

Post by shklnrj »

I really think milo is correct when he says that Twitter would support anyone who is higher in the position of claiming to be victim. Whether that person is victim or not does not matter. Twitter does not stand for free speech for sure in my opinion.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#299

Post by asQuirreL »

ivraatiems wrote: post #191
TheOneTrueKyle wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely at that point, they are making the opinion for themselves and you probably have very little in the decision making

Yes, that's exactly what is happening. You can't reach into somebody's brain and make them change, but you can plant little idea-seeds that grow into change.

Recent studies [Nolan 2010] have shown this method to be tricky and dangerous, but effective.

[Nolan 2010]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception

P.S. Sorry... couldn't resist ;)

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#300

Post by wildmusings »

Domenic_S wrote: post #221
dabockster wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the overall idea, but let's keep it affordable. Something like $10-15 per call.

Why not a 900 number (remember those?), pay per minute.

Then people would accuse them, fairly or not, of being slow on purpose to collect more money.
Post reply on HN