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

341–350 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#341

Post by nostrademons »

Kequc wrote: post #338
nostrademons wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google accounts actually came out several years before Google+. I remember that Google already had a unified account system across all products before I started working for them; I think they rolled it out in 2008. Google+ didn't launch as a destination site until 2011.

As far as I can remember Google services required a Gmail account before Google+. Here is Schmidt commenting about the release of Google+ as an identity service. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/08/29/googles-e...

My point is that Google's had a unified login system across all products (except legacy Blogger and YouTube accounts) since at least 2008. It doesn't really make sense to call it a GMail account - GMail was one of the services that it gave you access to, but it also was your account for AdWords, Analytics, Google Voice, Blogger, Reader, Docs, etc. You can find references to it on the web from 2009 onwards, as well as reports that the Chinese hacked it in 2010:

http://blogoscoped.com/forum/164385.html

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2517360/security0/repor...

The "G+ is just an identity layer on top of Google" was a common soundbite reported by executives at the time, and perhaps they even believed it, but my engineers-level view as someone who worked with the G+ codebase was that this was mostly marketing speak to differentiate us from Facebook and deflect criticism of "Well, if G+ is a new social network, why would I use it over Facebook?" By saying it's the identity layer for Google, they can then say "Well, you use Google already, this is just the social layer that ties all Google products together." On a technical level a "G+ account" was just a bit set in your Gaia record that indicated whether you had opted in to G+ features.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#342

Post by kefka_p »

I, for one, do want technology companies making ethically informed decisions. It doesn't mean they will always make the right ethical decisions, but it has a far higher chance of positive outcome than simply avoiding the matter altogether.

I can understand why the author is somewhat frightened by the prospect, but fear doesn't justify inaction.

To say Twitter isn't free speech because it has limitations seems dubious. The U.S. is fairly well-regarded on the rights of speech, but even here there are limits. That doesn't mean free speech doesn't exist, it means it is paired with responsibility with penalties for failure to abide by those responsibilities.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#343

Post by ryanmarsh »

stcredzero wrote: post #190
ryanmarsh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give them 500 characters. It doesn't matter it's the commons. You want people to behave? Teach real civics in the schools.

It doesn't matter it's the commons. Oh yes, it does ! There's a ton of historical, economic, and game theoretic work that indicates this matters. A lot! You want people to behave? Teach real civics in the schools. That only provides the information, not the incentive. If you want people to behave, give them a stake in society.

All good points. Perhaps I was too flippant. To clarify, it does matter how people behave. I just have little faith that the commons won't continue to fall tragedy to itself without some sort of indoctrination (or incentive system as you pointed out).

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#344

Post by ryanmarsh »

majani wrote: post #247
ryanmarsh wrote: post #14

Does Twitter have to be Facebook to not be "fucked"? I don't understand these statements that "Twitter is fucked". Twitter could improve filtering and safety but if it never changed I'd probably still get my news from it for the rest of my life. I just can't think of a better app for my use cases. I often like Twitter Moments, like something funny or some pop culture stuff I wouldn't have picked up on. Every time the…

I feel a more accurate way to put it would be that Twitter the $11b, 4,000 employee juggernaut is fucked, but Twitter the niche, 100 employee, 100 million dollar site for news junkies still has a chance

Time to pivot.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#345

Post by __david__ »

peterwwillis wrote: post #223
nostrebored wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have word-phrases for what you're talking about. More nuanced than your proposed catch-all of 'violent communication.' As someone who's been on the receiving end of a large portion of 'violent communication', it's much easier, and significantly more validating to say 'emotional abuse' or 'hate speech'. I don't understand what about asking violence to retain its definition is unrealistic. It's an important word wit…

Violent communication is an umbrella term for a variety of causes and effects. It may not be hateful. It may not be abusive. But it has the quality and characteristics of the intent to cause harm, which is what violence is. But going back to your main assertion here, you say that the word 'violence' has a particular definition, and the use of this phrase does not retain it, and that it thus harms people's interpretat…

> exposure to 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁

FYI, those bold unicode letters don't render in firefox on my mac, making a large portion of your comment unreadable.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#346

Post by forloop »

jjnoakes wrote: post #340
forloop wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wait, missing one mention equates to not reading the entire article? Amazing indeed. See nardi's comment. Amazing indeed!

Keep reading the discussion. Amazing indeed!

The OP is a liar, so I don't take his word on reading the rest of the article. And you're incept. Thanks for the input!

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#347

Post by davidivadavid »

pawn wrote: post #315
munificent wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber "Echo chamber" is a deliberately pejorative term, which I think is unfair here. If you use Twitter to discuss your beliefs , then, yes, it functions like an echo chamber, and that can be a bad thing because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged. But I generally use Twitter to discuss my interests . Sure, the line between the…

"because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged." Does this ever happen? It seems to me like every time someone says something unpopular, the world goes on a witch hunt to destroy that person's life. That's not what I call "constructively challenged". I call it "just short of hanging them, which is what people really want to do." I'd love to see a world where I could debate a matter with…

I must say I'm similarly perplexed by this notion.

Every time I've witnessed a "debate" where people "constructively challenge" people who have opposite views, it ended in a shouting match.

I'm happy to avoid any such "debate." In my experience, the kind of debate you describe tends to happen far more often between people who have (paradoxically?) similar views, and who just like to explore ideas and challenge each other.

That intellectual trait is completely orthogonal to the views themselves. The closest thing I tend to compare it to is the charity principle, but that may not encapsulate everything quite right.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#348

Post by rabboRubble »

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 "safely" follow the @theRealDonaldTrump comedy show.

I don't like him or think like him, but it's sure fun to have a firsthand view on the dumpster fire that is the 2016 election.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#349

Post by chipotle_coyote »

simonswords82 wrote: post #335
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up until earlier this year, WhatsApp actually had a for-pay business model: it cost $1 per year. They stopped charging in January, evidently, in theory to remove a barrier to entry. (Being owned by Facebook now probably helps them make that move, though.) I've wondered how Twitter would have been different if they'd taken a similar approach: $1 per account per year. They'd certainly be smaller than they are now, but…

The problem is that Twitter delivers very little real value to the majority of the people who use it. If it was switched off tomorrow how many people would really miss it? I suspect the answer is just their core user base, which is a very small % of all accounts Twitter has. IMO had Twitter tried to charge their demise would have been even faster than the current slow but steady decline we're all watching.

That's quite possible. But if you're not the kind of user who checks Twitter on a fairly regular basis--not necessarily more than once a day, but at least several times a week--you're probably not the kind of user who's bringing in much advertising revenue, either. Maybe making signing up free but requiring the $1/yr to be able to post, or to follow more than 50 people.

It's possible none of that would work, either, but I'm confident in saying there are at least tens of millions of people who do get value from Twitter. They've chosen a business model where having "merely" tens of millions of users may not be enough to support them, but I don't think that points to an intrinsic flaw in Twitter's concept--just an intrinsic flaw in their particular monetization strategy.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#350

Post by boneheadmed »

rabboRubble wrote: post #348
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 "safely" follow the @theRealDonaldTrump comedy show. I don't like him or think like him, but it's sure fun to have a firsthand view on the dumpster fire that is the 2016 election.

Funny, I thought the comedy show was the DNC Convention! #Fake #Corrupt #"Missing emails" #BuyInfluence #Pander #DelfectToRussians #LOLOL! http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014...
Post reply on HN