441–450 of 648 posts
I hate doing this but maybe they need to consider a "freemium" model where you get basic tweets at a certain rate limit for free but to do things like post long videos or images directly in the tweet you can pay to do that.
Consider charging for different types of searches a user can do.
Offer researchers and people using Tweets as a dataset for sentiment or other analysis a fee for real-time and direct access to data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Politics is truly separate from threatening to kill/rape people, why are you grouping them? Because it's not. The actions of actively authoritarian/alt-right political actors on Twitter are inextricably tied to the movement itself. Milo Yiannopoulos was not banned for the content of what he said. He was banned for saying things he knew would rile up his base of threatening, assaultive troglodytes into attacking som…
> Twitter need not be an accessory to that. There is no great loss, either moral or financial, to the slow leakage of anime avatars and Twitter eggs. Many people would say that exact thing if Twitter decided to censor content that was about gay marriage, etc. You are giving Twitter an easy out. Just censor everything that doesn't go over well in the suburban zipcode that best mirrors the target audience of Coca Cola.
That would be why I am making a clear distinction between "moral" and "financial". The alt-right is immoral and financially negative. The people you so concernedly cite are neither.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Let people pay $1/month to raise their limit to 280 characters per message. The format is the entire point of twitter. It forces the condensation of thought. Increasing the limit would fundamentally change the service.
People already hack around this by posting images of text, or using several tweets (usually annotated with "1/" "2/" etc, or merely by replying to their own tweets). The images hurt accessibility, and the streams make it harder to share the discussion (which is partly the purpose of being a social app to begin with).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Let people pay $1/month to raise their limit to 280 characters per message. The format is the entire point of twitter. It forces the condensation of thought. Increasing the limit would fundamentally change the service.
The very first Twitter clone I remember came up with the killer feature - infinitely long Tweets. How many times did I hear this dumb idea? It is not a sandwich, longer does not mean better! The scarce resource is not the number of electrons you send, the scarce resource is the attention of the reader.
There's a large distance between 140 and infinitely long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Let people pay $1/month to raise their limit to 280 characters per message. The format is the entire point of twitter. It forces the condensation of thought. Increasing the limit would fundamentally change the service.
Well, the original reason for the 140 character limit was because you could get tweets via SMS, which at the time had a character limit.
The size of SMS messages is still fixed at 160 characters, but now they can be transparently chained to send longer texts. This is quite unlike IP protocols which have much larger maximum packet sizes.
Whether Twitter should ever have taken a cue from SMS is moot: apparently the Twitter creators were inspired by the way police and emergency services use radio, so terseness was an aesthetic choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen their HQ, much less their lunches, but is that really a thing? And aren't they in the Tenderloin in SF? Wouldn't they normally be donating their excess food to shelters / the homeless / the poor? I don't disagree with your points, it just strikes me as weird that the lunch menu would be such an issue.
> And aren't they in the Tenderloin in SF? Nope, they're on Market St: https://about.twitter.com/company
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People already hack around this by posting images of text, or using several tweets (usually annotated with "1/" "2/" etc, or merely by replying to their own tweets). The images hurt accessibility, and the streams make it harder to share the discussion (which is partly the purpose of being a social app to begin with).
But doing it has friction, both for the writer and for the readers. If you remove the friction, you get more of it.
Is there data to suggest that people will just rant all the time if they're permitted to?
[edit] Anecdotally, my current top 20 posts in my FB feed: 17 under 140 chars, 3 greater than 140 chars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To conflate speech with privilege is absurd. We are all equally empowered and equally vulnerable in a free speech society. No, we're not. As a straight white guy, I can say "video games suck because X, Y, and Z" and people might call it stupid or call me a "cuck", but that's about it. A woman who say "video games are generally cool but have some problematic tendencies like X, Y, and Z" gets death and rape threats a…
> does not happen to straight white men There are many aspects of how society treats men and women differently that are abhorrent to me. One of the most abhorrent is how a girl who struggles in math is more likely to be encouraged to focus on other subjects, while a boy in the same situation is more likely to be encouraged to achieve mastery. We (as a society) can do so much better... but censoring ideas is not he so…
I will not cede the ground of basic language to protofascists and you shouldn't either.
Get the info you want from the sources you like at the moment you desire.