If in fact the most politically important social network is embracing its destiny and becoming a forum in the truest sense... status conferred by sigs and avatars... formal policies on mod sass... the richest man on earth debasing himself in a futile quest for the approval of catturd2... are you tempted to return?
Also, if Something Awful had the deliberately pugnacious ideas like defacing other people's profiles, and Reddit has the disarmingly lame joke flair like Reddit gold, what premium cosmetic features would fit with Twitter's ethos?
Honestly laziness is keeping me back as much as anything -- I got used to validation speeds at 50k followers that I don't think are possible with a small account. Can't be out there tweeting into the void, I need to build an army of reply guys again.
I don't know that they would do it but there has to be a way to build in a paid version of the thing where when a big shitty conservative account RTs you, you change your display name to something insulting. Like an all purpose way to weaponize a tweet against QTs... Twitter needs its top minds on this.
I think Musk holds both views:"Social media is a public sphere where we come together to learn and deliberate as a means for establishing and reproducing social hierarchies." So yeah, basically twitter as the biggest message board on earth.
Also something I haven't seen discussed much re: twitter is the fact that one *actual* problem the platform has is new user onboarding. Like, for the vast majority of monetizable users, twitter is going to be a passive experience... but in order for that experience to be enjoyable, you have to curate a good feed, which is neither obvious or particularly easy for new users?
For the average person, you join Twitter and... do what, exactly? Probably no one you know is on there, maybe you'll try doing some tweets for a bit to zero engagement. You'll probably try following some actually famous people, who are all awful posters. If you stick with it, eventually you figure out what you actually need to be doing is following a pretty random assortment of media types, people who are funny but not comedians because most famous comedians are terrible posters, some pro athletes but almost certainly not the ones you think, etc.
I feel like most people who would potentially be MAUs bounce off the service long before they ever get close to creating a feed they would actually enjoy, and it doesn't feel like Twitter has any strategy for solving this...
Yeah, but I also think there's a kind of tension here, insofar as part of what makes Twitter a creative/productive place is that it manages to maintain a somewhat cohesive internal culture with its own set of social practices thanks (I think) to the relative difficulty it takes to join! I mean, maybe adding a cost of entry will create the necessary friction to ensure that only people who "get it" will join and stick around (this was always the theory for Something Awful), but it's genuinely a difficult tension to navigate and almost no one has been able to strike the balance well past a certain scale.
Totally... I think it's really telling that Elon has pushed for non users going to twitter dot com to see the trending topics page--which as a feature has been absolutely broken for a while, and is usually a bunch of incomprehensible shit like "JUST ANNOUNCED (800k tweets)" and "Memphis" (2178 tweets, none of which seem to have anything to do with each other) but even when it's working as intended maybe lets you know that, sure, people are posting about the NBA Finals... but it very rarely points you to the "main character of twitter" kind of conversations that make using Twitter fun (as a lurker, which is the user base Elon actually needs to grow to increase ad revenues).
Personally I like to think of Twitter as Central Park and Mastodon to be like the US Park Services, except on a global scale and you can travel from park to part instantly. But Central Park has been sold and it's getting increasingly nasty and weird.
I deactivated my account this week after being a loyal user for 15 years. Right now I'm feeling 80% grief and 20% relief, I expect the ratio to improve significantly over time. I just miss the people.
I think his view on verification also ties into the question of monetization on the platform, and I think it's worth noting that most of the tech/VC types in Elon's circle view Twitter as a *business tool*.
I've seen some comments about how Elon is "making his biggest content creators pay for the right to create free content for his platform"... but I think how Elon and the tech guys view it is that content creation on Twitter gets monetized by creators *outside* of Twitter, by way of being more hireable for traditional media types, being in on more funding rounds/speaking at more conferences for VC types, more electable as a politician, etc. From that POV, a blue check is basically the same thing as a personal URL, it's a basic cost of doing business and of course you'll pay for it.
"The vast majority of people who are on Twitter don’t derive much or any material value from the platform, which, according to Twitter’s most recent public filings, prices their attention to advertisers at about two dollars a month. The few that do will soon be given a choice to make based on admittedly imperfect information: Is whatever they’re doing there worth it? And will it stay that way? By asking heavily invested users to pay to remain or become verified and to remain or become visible — to maintain their brand, whatever it is — Twitter is treating this group of users almost exactly the way it has treated its other most important customers for years: advertisers."
This is a case where Musk didn’t have the self awareness that a man with Asperger’s and bipolar disorder isn’t best suited to run a “social” media platform where good people & communication skills are needed with both consumers and advertisers.
I'm reminded of Chicago's great horn-heavy early-70s hit, "Does Anybody Really Know What Twitter Is? (Does Anybody Care?) -- and as long as I'm here dropping bad jokes, I'll mention that I've noticed almost every article I've read where the writer says "I'm not leaving Twitter" they mention having some outrageous number of followers, like 600k. If Twitter goes the way of Friendster and Myspace, it'll probably do so more slowly, like Facebook, because the "sunk cost fallacy" and the sense of the value of that "600k" is powerful. But it'll decline in value, like a dodgy crypto hoard, and the network effect being what it is, that last gasp of collapse would happen fast. Or, like the band says:
And I was walking down the street one day (people runnin' everywhere)
Being pushed and shoved by people (don't know where to go)
Trying to beat the clock, oh, no I just don't know (don't know where I am)
I don't know, I don't know, oh (don't have time to think past the last mile)
(Have no time to look around) And I said, yes I said (run around and think why)
Does anybody really know what time it is (I don't)
I think the $8 premium serves a need that hasn't been addressed yet, it creates a high value audience of known human beings with money to advertise to.
Remember your article for The Intelligencer? The internet has only gotten more fake since the inversion.
Nobody is going to drop $8 per month on an entire engagement farm's worth of accounts. That would demolish their profits.
Your logic is impeccable but one of the insane things about the advertising business is that they just ... don't really care that some huge portion of their expenditure is wasted on bots or scammers or whatever -- or, before that, people who went to the kitchen during TV ad breaks, or people who keep their eyes on the road instead of looking at billboards, or whatever. I mean, nominally, they care, but not in a way that would make them move their ad spend from a place like Facebook (which has a bigger audience, even factoring in fake accounts, better targeting tools, better attribution before Apple, etc.) to a relatively rinky-dink operation like Twitter.
I think if you could spend a decade changing Twitter to give a real-person guarantee, AND maintain an audience and content pool of elites in entertainment/politics/media, AND moderate it heavily enough that no advertiser will ever see their ad appear next to some groyper saying "actually I'm an ephebophile..." -- maybe then you could pitch advertisers. But whatever that site would look like it wouldn't look like Twitter.
If in fact the most politically important social network is embracing its destiny and becoming a forum in the truest sense... status conferred by sigs and avatars... formal policies on mod sass... the richest man on earth debasing himself in a futile quest for the approval of catturd2... are you tempted to return?
Also, if Something Awful had the deliberately pugnacious ideas like defacing other people's profiles, and Reddit has the disarmingly lame joke flair like Reddit gold, what premium cosmetic features would fit with Twitter's ethos?
Honestly laziness is keeping me back as much as anything -- I got used to validation speeds at 50k followers that I don't think are possible with a small account. Can't be out there tweeting into the void, I need to build an army of reply guys again.
I don't know that they would do it but there has to be a way to build in a paid version of the thing where when a big shitty conservative account RTs you, you change your display name to something insulting. Like an all purpose way to weaponize a tweet against QTs... Twitter needs its top minds on this.
QT ringbacks would be amazing
I'd give Elon tenbux for the privilege of replacing someone's profile banner with anatomically impossible furry erotica for a day.
I think Musk holds both views:"Social media is a public sphere where we come together to learn and deliberate as a means for establishing and reproducing social hierarchies." So yeah, basically twitter as the biggest message board on earth.
Also something I haven't seen discussed much re: twitter is the fact that one *actual* problem the platform has is new user onboarding. Like, for the vast majority of monetizable users, twitter is going to be a passive experience... but in order for that experience to be enjoyable, you have to curate a good feed, which is neither obvious or particularly easy for new users?
For the average person, you join Twitter and... do what, exactly? Probably no one you know is on there, maybe you'll try doing some tweets for a bit to zero engagement. You'll probably try following some actually famous people, who are all awful posters. If you stick with it, eventually you figure out what you actually need to be doing is following a pretty random assortment of media types, people who are funny but not comedians because most famous comedians are terrible posters, some pro athletes but almost certainly not the ones you think, etc.
I feel like most people who would potentially be MAUs bounce off the service long before they ever get close to creating a feed they would actually enjoy, and it doesn't feel like Twitter has any strategy for solving this...
Yeah, but I also think there's a kind of tension here, insofar as part of what makes Twitter a creative/productive place is that it manages to maintain a somewhat cohesive internal culture with its own set of social practices thanks (I think) to the relative difficulty it takes to join! I mean, maybe adding a cost of entry will create the necessary friction to ensure that only people who "get it" will join and stick around (this was always the theory for Something Awful), but it's genuinely a difficult tension to navigate and almost no one has been able to strike the balance well past a certain scale.
Totally... I think it's really telling that Elon has pushed for non users going to twitter dot com to see the trending topics page--which as a feature has been absolutely broken for a while, and is usually a bunch of incomprehensible shit like "JUST ANNOUNCED (800k tweets)" and "Memphis" (2178 tweets, none of which seem to have anything to do with each other) but even when it's working as intended maybe lets you know that, sure, people are posting about the NBA Finals... but it very rarely points you to the "main character of twitter" kind of conversations that make using Twitter fun (as a lurker, which is the user base Elon actually needs to grow to increase ad revenues).
Personally I like to think of Twitter as Central Park and Mastodon to be like the US Park Services, except on a global scale and you can travel from park to part instantly. But Central Park has been sold and it's getting increasingly nasty and weird.
I deactivated my account this week after being a loyal user for 15 years. Right now I'm feeling 80% grief and 20% relief, I expect the ratio to improve significantly over time. I just miss the people.
I think his view on verification also ties into the question of monetization on the platform, and I think it's worth noting that most of the tech/VC types in Elon's circle view Twitter as a *business tool*.
I've seen some comments about how Elon is "making his biggest content creators pay for the right to create free content for his platform"... but I think how Elon and the tech guys view it is that content creation on Twitter gets monetized by creators *outside* of Twitter, by way of being more hireable for traditional media types, being in on more funding rounds/speaking at more conferences for VC types, more electable as a politician, etc. From that POV, a blue check is basically the same thing as a personal URL, it's a basic cost of doing business and of course you'll pay for it.
Yeah, this is totally correct, and John Herrman makes a version of the same point in his great NYMag column today (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/why-elon-musk-wants-to-make-twitter-users-pay.html):
"The vast majority of people who are on Twitter don’t derive much or any material value from the platform, which, according to Twitter’s most recent public filings, prices their attention to advertisers at about two dollars a month. The few that do will soon be given a choice to make based on admittedly imperfect information: Is whatever they’re doing there worth it? And will it stay that way? By asking heavily invested users to pay to remain or become verified and to remain or become visible — to maintain their brand, whatever it is — Twitter is treating this group of users almost exactly the way it has treated its other most important customers for years: advertisers."
This is a case where Musk didn’t have the self awareness that a man with Asperger’s and bipolar disorder isn’t best suited to run a “social” media platform where good people & communication skills are needed with both consumers and advertisers.
I'm reminded of Chicago's great horn-heavy early-70s hit, "Does Anybody Really Know What Twitter Is? (Does Anybody Care?) -- and as long as I'm here dropping bad jokes, I'll mention that I've noticed almost every article I've read where the writer says "I'm not leaving Twitter" they mention having some outrageous number of followers, like 600k. If Twitter goes the way of Friendster and Myspace, it'll probably do so more slowly, like Facebook, because the "sunk cost fallacy" and the sense of the value of that "600k" is powerful. But it'll decline in value, like a dodgy crypto hoard, and the network effect being what it is, that last gasp of collapse would happen fast. Or, like the band says:
And I was walking down the street one day (people runnin' everywhere)
Being pushed and shoved by people (don't know where to go)
Trying to beat the clock, oh, no I just don't know (don't know where I am)
I don't know, I don't know, oh (don't have time to think past the last mile)
(Have no time to look around) And I said, yes I said (run around and think why)
Does anybody really know what time it is (I don't)
Does anybody really care (care about time)
If so I can't imagine why (no, no)
We've all got time enough to die
Everybody's working (I don't care)
I don't care (about time)
About time (no, no)
I don't care
I think the $8 premium serves a need that hasn't been addressed yet, it creates a high value audience of known human beings with money to advertise to.
Remember your article for The Intelligencer? The internet has only gotten more fake since the inversion.
Nobody is going to drop $8 per month on an entire engagement farm's worth of accounts. That would demolish their profits.
Your logic is impeccable but one of the insane things about the advertising business is that they just ... don't really care that some huge portion of their expenditure is wasted on bots or scammers or whatever -- or, before that, people who went to the kitchen during TV ad breaks, or people who keep their eyes on the road instead of looking at billboards, or whatever. I mean, nominally, they care, but not in a way that would make them move their ad spend from a place like Facebook (which has a bigger audience, even factoring in fake accounts, better targeting tools, better attribution before Apple, etc.) to a relatively rinky-dink operation like Twitter.
I think if you could spend a decade changing Twitter to give a real-person guarantee, AND maintain an audience and content pool of elites in entertainment/politics/media, AND moderate it heavily enough that no advertiser will ever see their ad appear next to some groyper saying "actually I'm an ephebophile..." -- maybe then you could pitch advertisers. But whatever that site would look like it wouldn't look like Twitter.