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

Twitter acquires Revue

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 270 posts

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#61

Post by splaytreemap »

pembrook wrote: post #23

> Starting today, we’re making Revue’s Pro features free for all accounts and lowering the paid newsletter fee to 5% ...and there goes Substack's entire business. Overall, this is great for writers however. The missing component to Substack was the discovery/social mechanism. From a strategic perspective, it's easier to bolt on newsletter sending than it is to build a new social network. So this was always a huge ris…

Let's see if the DOJ goes after them for predatory pricing first. Twitter may have bought themselves enough favor with the Biden administration that he'll let it slide.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#62

Post by offtop5 »

pembrook wrote: post #51
offtop5 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. The Twitter brand isn't looking so hot right now. I think it's the same thing with Slack, Slack only exists because Microsoft teams is made by Microsoft. I swear to God it's mostly a placebo effect, but you're like oh yeah we're using slack we're the cool kids now. Many companies will have a single breakaway team that uses slack just to feel cool. But if $10 a month makes a developer happier she might pr…

> The Twitter brand isn't looking so hot right now. I see "current press sentiment" as an irrelevant factor. Just wait until some prominent right winger heads to Substack and the journalists start aiming their sights. The point is, if I'm going to start a paid newsletter, am I willing to give up an extra 5% of my income for the same feature set? The answer is hell no. Substack will have to lower their prices, and the…

To each their own, but given the major questions around how much power Twitter has, I don't see a lot of free and open journalism happening there.

Ideally the entire reason you pay for this type of content is because you don't want to just read CNN. If Twitter is perceived as controlling your content anyway, why pay for it

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#63

Post by siruva07 »

user-the-name wrote: post #43
siruva07 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does an edit button not make sense for a service like Twitter? How would it be abused? Deleting and reposting hurts and would eliminate engagement statistics. From a product experience, edited tweets, similar to Slack, could show an "(edited)" that when clicked on let's a user see the version history. That way, it can't be abused, but does allow for minor typos (e.g. https://twitter.com/sir/status/135373794972946…

Because you can completely change the content of a post after it gets traction.

A time or engagement based restriction would prevent this, i.e. having 3-5 minutes to edit the tweet, at which point the edit button is locked. Revision history would still show. "Undo Send" a la Gmail, but for tweets.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#64

Post by the_drunkard »

Curious if Twitter will carry-over their draconian (and selectively enforced) censorship rules to Revue.

I assume this was discussed as part of the acquisition? Will publishers have free reign to discuss topics that they want to publish on or do Twitter "rules" govern what's allowed to be discussed?

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#65

Post by coldtea »

While censorship people for their writings (based on whatever the US elites that happen to be mainstream in 2020 consider acceptable)?

To the degree that even the sitting President, right or wrong, can be shut down?

Yeah, pass...

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#67

Post by user-the-name »

siruva07 wrote: post #63
user-the-name wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can completely change the content of a post after it gets traction.

A time or engagement based restriction would prevent this, i.e. having 3-5 minutes to edit the tweet, at which point the edit button is locked. Revision history would still show. "Undo Send" a la Gmail, but for tweets.

But if the tweet has only been live for a few minutes, you might as well delete and repost.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#68

Post by mrweasel »

malwarebytess wrote: post #66

Interesting they're framing it as Revue joining twitter rather than Twitter acquiring Revue.

It’s standard “we got bought up” jargon, but it is weird way of saying it.

Joining indicates some come goal or success, but it has become Silicon Vally slang for: Our product is dead but at least we made some money.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#69

Post by complianceowl »

Use Revue, build a sizeable distribution list, so I can get banned for expressing my thoughts? So I can be treated like a pedophile for saying something unpopular that doesn't align with their radical leftist ideology? No thank you. There's a lot of other subscription services for me to take a risk that big with anyone associated with Twitter.

Re: Twitter acquires Revue

#70

Post by tentacleuno »

herodoturtle wrote: post #38
tentacleuno wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it somewhat ironic that Twitter has only now banned Trump. They allowed him to stay on his platform so more people would sign-up, follow him and get radicalised. Now he's no longer the President, they've suddenly acquired morality. Fool me once, eh.

Didn't they ban him as a protective measure to curb additional violence after he incited the storming of the capitol? I don't think twitter's tactics are as nefarious as you make them out to be.

They banned him after his Presidency. He did greivous harm and acts of hate before that, but only now are Twitter giving it the attention it deserves. Anyone else would have been banned long before now. He has incited a great deal of violence with racist dogwhistles, and only now he's facing any sort of punishment. The argument of 'free speech' falls apart when you factor this in.
Post reply on HN