Twitter's Fucked

Post by dustingetz » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

ivraatiems wrote: post #3

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:…

Post by projectramo » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:04 PM UTC

Daviey wrote: post #8

ivraatiems wrote: post #3

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.

Post by devishard » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #292

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 ca…

Post by intended » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:13 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #280

bmo311 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that enforcing real names induces civility and you use Facebook as an example, your argument is wrong and self-contradictory. Facebook is /proof/ that the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory doesn't need anonymity. What the Internet proves about communication is that fuckwaddery (yes, this is a word, my word) is inversely proportional to interface friction. The quicker it is to spill the contents of your min…

I'd say fuckwaddery or whatever is more proportional to the distance between the user and the person they're communicating with. If someone lives in the same town, you'll be a lot more hesitant to insult the hell out of them than if they live on another continent. That might be why Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc are so screwed up. Because the userbase knows that there's a very slim chance they'll ever meet the person…

Post by devishard » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #273

devishard wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree with my hypothetical scenarios? That is, do you think if Google/Facebook introduced subscription fees nobody would subscribe? Would you pay to read Twitter? Do you think that anyone would?

I disagree with it when put in the context of when the product launched . I wouldn't have paid for Google in 2000 when I first discovered it; while it was better than all the other search engines out there, it wasn't better enough that I'd break my rule of never shelling out money to visit a website. I certainly wouldn't have paid money for Facebook; I was a poor college student when I got my FB account in 2004, and…