6 ms·

Mr. Jones used to be the chief executive of Myspace, the once-giant social network, but he rejected any comparison between Twitter and that now vastly diminishe

Mr. Jones used to be the chief executive of Myspace, the once-giant social network, but he rejected any comparison between Twitter and that now vastly diminished network. “For me and for lots of people, Twitter has actual utility to it, and for those people, that’s what will keep it around,” he said. So instead of figuring an unorthodox way to take it private or set up a donation scheme ala Wikipedia, why not just charge the superusers with tens of thousands of followers, like Mr. Jones, who really do get some tangible benefit from the service? I also take issue with the author's opening assessment of Twitter: Twitter is the world’s most important social network. That might sound like the ravings of an addict, but look at the headlines in every morning’s newspaper and the obsessions of every evening’s cable news broadcast. Just about anything you encounter in the news media these days has some foot in the controversies and conversations occurring on the 140-character network. We live in a hyperconnected world where every tiny little twitter controversy gets blown massively out of proportion, draining people's time and energy on things that really don't matter in the face of much larger and more important problems. At the end of the day, Twitter is used mainly for entertainment purposes. The author can keep pointing to the Arab Spring, #blacklivesmatter, etc. but the fact remains that revolutions and social movements occurred long before Twitter existed, long before cell phones and computers existed, and that Twitter is not some be-all-end-all enabler that we need to rescue for the betterment of humanity. If it's really worth $5bn, someone will figure out how to get the service there. If it's really worth $100bn, someone will get it there. Let the market settle things with Twitter.

dmethvin 11y ago
> why not just charge the superusers with tens of thousands of followers, like Mr. Jones, who really do get some tangible benefit from the service? The big users with lots of followers are the ones who create the large audience for Twitter to reach. Right now those people create content for free, if you start charging them they are likely to leave. If Twitter could create a model like Youtube where big content creators with lots of followers shared revenue, that would straighten out the incentives. There's a model here, it just may not be as big as Twitter thought it was a few years ago.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  I disagree. I do not think Kanye/Reuters/Trump/Chipotle/Intel would bat an eye to pay for the privilege to get a message out to millions of users. These individuals and companies are not looking for direct ad revenue from their tweets, as most Youtubers are from their content. Twitter power users are looking for indirect returns on their fame/infamy in the form of increased brand awareness and the ability to have highly visible, public conversations. In the case of the large corporations, they are also able to provide better customer feedback and support. Reuters perhaps is looking to drive traffic to its website, but it will have to spend on Twitter if it wants to compete w/ other news outlets. Twitter has the ecosystem, and now the ecosystem is as big as it will ever get with no added users over the last quarter. Charge the influencers and brand managers for the privilege of using the communication channel, just as a TV network charges companies for ad slots.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    I'm not a twitter user, but do/could they have a "advanced features for power-users" setup where they charge? Basically, if you have > 10,000 followers, you get a set of features that not everyone has if you pay up? That would incentives them not to leave, while also asking them to pay up
    - ericras 11y ago
      They essentially have that already - verified accounts have special features but Twitter gives those away for free.
      - MollyR 11y ago
        Seems weird its free, verified/verifying users could be a great service for lots of people. It could be a good way to make money too.
      - striking 11y ago
        http://www.thewire.com/business/2012/01/twitter-verification-has-pricetag-15000/47210/ http://www.thewire.com/business/2012/01/twitter-verification... says: > When he asked a Twitter sales rep who had been in contact with him how to go about it, she replied that the only paths to verification are if an account has had impersonation issues or is an advertiser who's spent at least $15,000 over three months.
artpepper 11y ago
look at the headlines in every morning’s newspaper and the obsessions of every evening’s cable news broadcast That may say a lot more about the media than it does about Twitter...
pjc50 11y ago
Again, directly charging popular users is detrimental to the service and ensures that only commercial users can safely become popular. Charging horse_ebooks for having 200k followers ruins the fun. I'm still a fan of "payment, but optional and decoupled from account holdership" (like reddit gold that users are encouraged to buy for others) and "payment for the privilege of having abuse complaints investigated by a real human".
- jackmoore 11y ago
  Maybe build in some system for followers to sponsor the accounts they like.
scott_s 11y ago
"If it's really worth $5bn, someone will figure out how to get the service there. If it's really worth $100bn, someone will get it there. Let the market settle things with Twitter." I don't agree with this kind of market-determinism. If a small-message broadcast-based social media service is "really worth $5bn" or "really worth $100bn" is a different question from if Twitter will be that service. Sometimes in order to discover their true utility, services need to change in fundamental ways. I think Facebook is a good example of that; Facebook in 2016 is a different beast than Facebook in 2006. That takes deliberate innovation. But sometimes, when trying to do that, the transformed version has less utility, and the service dies. That's the risk here. Perhaps you're saying that Twitter should not change at all, and it should continue on its current path?
- hayd 11y ago
  > That takes deliberate innovation. But sometimes, when trying to do that, the transformed version has less utility, and the service dies. That's the risk here. Without deliberate innovation the service dies. They're not sitting on their hands here: they spent $800M on R&D last year... and a $500M loss.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    I agree. Do you think we're in disagreement?
- oblio 11y ago
  > Facebook in 2016 is a different beast than Facebook in 2006 I'm not a big Facebook user. Is Facebook 2016 really that different to Facebook 2006? To my untrained eyes it still looks like: * blogging for normal people, restricted to friends and family * free photo photo storage
  - doyoulikeworms 11y ago
    In 2006 Facebook was all about college. I remember you could even list your classes right on your profile and get grouped with people taking your same classes. But you're right, "blogging for normal people, restricted to friends and family" sounds like it will always be Facebook's core offering.
gist 11y ago
> That might sound like the ravings of an addict, but look at the headlines in every morning’s newspaper and the obsessions of every evening’s cable news broadcast. The reason for that is simple. Twitter is a tremendous resource for (hate to use this phrase) lazy journalists. It gives them content and material and does their work for them. What's there not to like? It's important for journalists, bloggers, tv newspeople really anyone in the media. Of course they like it and see it as essential.
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  It's free AAA content. Ask Any Asshole.
- mason240 11y ago
  Twitter Mining. No matter what subject you writing about, you can quickly find a tweet from someone who said something stupid about that topic.
SFjulie1 11y ago
164 chars to carry complex things you amplify seems like a drama generator by design. For me it generates noise and misunderstanding more than signal.
sandworm101 11y ago
>>> why not just charge the superusers with tens of thousands of followers, like Mr. Jones, who really do get some tangible benefit from the service? I'd go the other way. I don't think the concept of charging people for being successful on a social media platform has legs. I'd instead attach micropayments to all the fish who want to follow various celebs and such. Say 1c/month to follow Lady Gaga. Then we'll see exactly how much use these feeds are to consumers. Or this could be done through a premium concept, such as delaying tweets to/from non-premium subscribers by a few minutes.
HappyTypist 11y ago
To be fair, important is not the same as significant.

dmethvin 11y ago

> why not just charge the superusers with tens of thousands of followers, like Mr. Jones, who really do get some tangible benefit from the service? The big users with lots of followers are the ones who create the large audience for Twitter to reach. Right now those people create content for free, if you start charging them they are likely to leave. If Twitter could create a model like Youtube where big content creators with lots of followers shared revenue, that would straighten out the incentives. There's a model here, it just may not be as big as Twitter thought it was a few years ago.

roymurdock 11y ago
I disagree. I do not think Kanye/Reuters/Trump/Chipotle/Intel would bat an eye to pay for the privilege to get a message out to millions of users. These individuals and companies are not looking for direct ad revenue from their tweets, as most Youtubers are from their content. Twitter power users are looking for indirect returns on their fame/infamy in the form of increased brand awareness and the ability to have highly visible, public conversations. In the case of the large corporations, they are also able to provide better customer feedback and support. Reuters perhaps is looking to drive traffic to its website, but it will have to spend on Twitter if it wants to compete w/ other news outlets. Twitter has the ecosystem, and now the ecosystem is as big as it will ever get with no added users over the last quarter. Charge the influencers and brand managers for the privilege of using the communication channel, just as a TV network charges companies for ad slots.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  I'm not a twitter user, but do/could they have a "advanced features for power-users" setup where they charge? Basically, if you have > 10,000 followers, you get a set of features that not everyone has if you pay up? That would incentives them not to leave, while also asking them to pay up
  - ericras 11y ago
    They essentially have that already - verified accounts have special features but Twitter gives those away for free.
    - MollyR 11y ago
      Seems weird its free, verified/verifying users could be a great service for lots of people. It could be a good way to make money too.
    - striking 11y ago
      http://www.thewire.com/business/2012/01/twitter-verification-has-pricetag-15000/47210/ http://www.thewire.com/business/2012/01/twitter-verification... says: > When he asked a Twitter sales rep who had been in contact with him how to go about it, she replied that the only paths to verification are if an account has had impersonation issues or is an advertiser who's spent at least $15,000 over three months.

artpepper 11y ago

look at the headlines in every morning’s newspaper and the obsessions of every evening’s cable news broadcast That may say a lot more about the media than it does about Twitter...

pjc50 11y ago

Again, directly charging popular users is detrimental to the service and ensures that only commercial users can safely become popular. Charging horse_ebooks for having 200k followers ruins the fun. I'm still a fan of "payment, but optional and decoupled from account holdership" (like reddit gold that users are encouraged to buy for others) and "payment for the privilege of having abuse complaints investigated by a real human".

jackmoore 11y ago
Maybe build in some system for followers to sponsor the accounts they like.

scott_s 11y ago

"If it's really worth $5bn, someone will figure out how to get the service there. If it's really worth $100bn, someone will get it there. Let the market settle things with Twitter." I don't agree with this kind of market-determinism. If a small-message broadcast-based social media service is "really worth $5bn" or "really worth $100bn" is a different question from if Twitter will be that service. Sometimes in order to discover their true utility, services need to change in fundamental ways. I think Facebook is a good example of that; Facebook in 2016 is a different beast than Facebook in 2006. That takes deliberate innovation. But sometimes, when trying to do that, the transformed version has less utility, and the service dies. That's the risk here. Perhaps you're saying that Twitter should not change at all, and it should continue on its current path?

hayd 11y ago
> That takes deliberate innovation. But sometimes, when trying to do that, the transformed version has less utility, and the service dies. That's the risk here. Without deliberate innovation the service dies. They're not sitting on their hands here: they spent $800M on R&D last year... and a $500M loss.
- scott_s 11y ago
  I agree. Do you think we're in disagreement?
oblio 11y ago
> Facebook in 2016 is a different beast than Facebook in 2006 I'm not a big Facebook user. Is Facebook 2016 really that different to Facebook 2006? To my untrained eyes it still looks like: * blogging for normal people, restricted to friends and family * free photo photo storage
- doyoulikeworms 11y ago
  In 2006 Facebook was all about college. I remember you could even list your classes right on your profile and get grouped with people taking your same classes. But you're right, "blogging for normal people, restricted to friends and family" sounds like it will always be Facebook's core offering.

gist 11y ago

> That might sound like the ravings of an addict, but look at the headlines in every morning’s newspaper and the obsessions of every evening’s cable news broadcast. The reason for that is simple. Twitter is a tremendous resource for (hate to use this phrase) lazy journalists. It gives them content and material and does their work for them. What's there not to like? It's important for journalists, bloggers, tv newspeople really anyone in the media. Of course they like it and see it as essential.

henrikschroder 11y ago
It's free AAA content. Ask Any Asshole.
mason240 11y ago
Twitter Mining. No matter what subject you writing about, you can quickly find a tweet from someone who said something stupid about that topic.

SFjulie1 11y ago

164 chars to carry complex things you amplify seems like a drama generator by design. For me it generates noise and misunderstanding more than signal.

sandworm101 11y ago

>>> why not just charge the superusers with tens of thousands of followers, like Mr. Jones, who really do get some tangible benefit from the service? I'd go the other way. I don't think the concept of charging people for being successful on a social media platform has legs. I'd instead attach micropayments to all the fish who want to follow various celebs and such. Say 1c/month to follow Lady Gaga. Then we'll see exactly how much use these feeds are to consumers. Or this could be done through a premium concept, such as delaying tweets to/from non-premium subscribers by a few minutes.

HappyTypist 11y ago

To be fair, important is not the same as significant.