6 ms·

Twitter should be a public utility.

by nvk 10y ago

overcast 10y ago
It is a public utility.
- nvk 10y ago
  it's a "private" utility. But I take your point. If they remove all the fat making a tweet page 5mb it could be hosted for nearly nothing by some FOSS org.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Except for all the backend connecting each user's messages to their followers. That's no mean feat. And certainly would cost more than "nearly nothing".
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      Yes, Twitter's backend is actually quite sophisticated. It's one thing to build a very small Twitter clone for you and your friends, it's quite another to scale that up to hundreds of millions of users and keep everything running smoothly.
      - overcast 10y ago
        But that's exactly what is what as the beginning. Twitter spent a significant amount of its early days sitting on the Fail Whale screen. Sure, now it's stable, when you throw a complete rewrite, and millions of dollars at it.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
athenot 10y ago
That would be nice but who would pay for servers? I would love an "Open Twitter" built on standard protocols and implementable by anyone, however if SMTP and NNTP are any indication, most people prefer convenient silos over open solutions. And the reality of a hostile internet mean that there is a need for active resources devoted to protecting any service from abuse.
- redial 10y ago
  > most people prefer convenient silos over open solutions. Most people don't care one way or the other. They just want it to do what they want/need.
  - CM30 10y ago
    And they also want their friends to be on the service. That's what's really important, and why a lot of open solutions didn't take off. No one they cared about was using them.
- _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
  Something like wikipedia would be nice.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Isn't the problem with NNTP that people are being pushed away from it rather than not wanting to use it?
- ultramancool 10y ago
  I've been thinking about how something like this could be done in a completely distributed way, I think I've even seen some research implementation of it. In any case, it'd be interesting... Hmm... http://twister.net.co/ http://twister.net.co/ maybe? The biggest issue is going to be mobile, but if you have enough people firing it up on servers and stuff, you'd probably be okay. And then of course you realize that there's also the even bigger issue of actually getting people to use it. You're fucked there unless you have some serious marketing talent, which most people capable of writing such a thing in the first place lack.
reitanqild 10y ago
Why? The only thing twitter does better than basically anything is: Has a giant userbase containing many influential Internet celebrities. Except for that it is inferior in almost every single way, starting with the ridiculously low character limit, continuing with the spam everyone all the time etc the list goes on. Hey, even google+ is better in several ways, except for the part about Internet celebrities.
- bad_user 10y ago
  That ridiculously low character limit is one of the reasons I'm active on Twitter much more than anywhere else, as it forces people to be concise. And for everything else, like complex thoughts that can't be expressed as tweets, there are always blogs, whose URLs you can also distribute via Twitter. Twitter basically works like your personal aggregator of interesting stuff. And I freaking hate people using Facebook or Google+ for blogging, because these services suck for blogging. On spam, I don't know what you're talking about, because I get no spam. I'm @alexelcu on Twitter, my account is from 2008 and I'm counting about 20 blocked accounts corresponding to about 20 spams I got in 8 years, which is actually rather impressive. I think people complaining about the char limit don't understand the value of Twitter. And no, Google+ seriously sucks, I could rant all day about how much Google+ sucks. And you know what? Google+ wouldn't need Internet celebrities if it would be compatible with the open Internet, but it isn't ;-)
  - kemayo 10y ago
    Counterpoint on the spam thing: I get a noticeable amount -- one a day or so -- of spam followers. That is, accounts that follow me entirely so I'll see their name in the notification email, and then unfollow me within a day. It's an interesting form of spam, which isn't trackable by observing Twitter message traffic as it lives entirely in account metadata.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Eh by spam-everyone-all-the-time I mean that any message I post will be "spammed" out to all my followers even if they just follow me for my Java interest or because I sometimes tweet about local politics.
SixSigma 10y ago
Not with these guys in charge I hope : “I believe we need to build a platform that respects and amplifies every voice in a way that the world needs to hear it. I trust that the world will amplify and retweet and have conversations where appropriate.” [1] Which means "Kill the cops" is ok but "#StopEnslavingSaudiWomen" gets your account banned. [2] [1] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/02/jack-dorsey-blms-deray-mckesson-claim-they-want-twitter-to-represent-every-voice/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/02/jack-dorsey-blms-de... [2] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/21/twitter-suspends-womens-rights-group-after-criticizing-saudi-arabia/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/21/twitter-suspends-wo...
- jshevek 10y ago
  You are not wrong, but linking to Breitbart probably damages your credibility.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    When most media is paying Clinton [1] calling doubts on credibility is laughable tbh. especially in an age where if one is piqued one can right click ... search and go look at places you trust. [1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
    - jshevek 10y ago
      I agree with your disapproval of twitter's leadership, and recognize the factual basis for it. I am only suggesting that some of your audience might be biased against you and your comments depending on who you cite - even when the facts are simple and easily confirmed. It's not rational, but its common. For example, I might (unfortunately) unconsciously question the intelligence of someone who linked to buzzfeed, even if buzzfeed accurately reported relevant facts in that instance.

Twitter should be a public utility.

by nvk 10y ago

Twitter should be a public utility.

overcast 10y ago

It is a public utility.

nvk 10y ago
it's a "private" utility. But I take your point. If they remove all the fat making a tweet page 5mb it could be hosted for nearly nothing by some FOSS org.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Except for all the backend connecting each user's messages to their followers. That's no mean feat. And certainly would cost more than "nearly nothing".
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    Yes, Twitter's backend is actually quite sophisticated. It's one thing to build a very small Twitter clone for you and your friends, it's quite another to scale that up to hundreds of millions of users and keep everything running smoothly.
    - overcast 10y ago
      But that's exactly what is what as the beginning. Twitter spent a significant amount of its early days sitting on the Fail Whale screen. Sure, now it's stable, when you throw a complete rewrite, and millions of dollars at it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

athenot 10y ago

That would be nice but who would pay for servers? I would love an "Open Twitter" built on standard protocols and implementable by anyone, however if SMTP and NNTP are any indication, most people prefer convenient silos over open solutions. And the reality of a hostile internet mean that there is a need for active resources devoted to protecting any service from abuse.

redial 10y ago
> most people prefer convenient silos over open solutions. Most people don't care one way or the other. They just want it to do what they want/need.
- CM30 10y ago
  And they also want their friends to be on the service. That's what's really important, and why a lot of open solutions didn't take off. No one they cared about was using them.
_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
Something like wikipedia would be nice.
reitanqild 10y ago
Isn't the problem with NNTP that people are being pushed away from it rather than not wanting to use it?
ultramancool 10y ago
I've been thinking about how something like this could be done in a completely distributed way, I think I've even seen some research implementation of it. In any case, it'd be interesting... Hmm... http://twister.net.co/ http://twister.net.co/ maybe? The biggest issue is going to be mobile, but if you have enough people firing it up on servers and stuff, you'd probably be okay. And then of course you realize that there's also the even bigger issue of actually getting people to use it. You're fucked there unless you have some serious marketing talent, which most people capable of writing such a thing in the first place lack.

reitanqild 10y ago

Why? The only thing twitter does better than basically anything is: Has a giant userbase containing many influential Internet celebrities. Except for that it is inferior in almost every single way, starting with the ridiculously low character limit, continuing with the spam everyone all the time etc the list goes on. Hey, even google+ is better in several ways, except for the part about Internet celebrities.

bad_user 10y ago
That ridiculously low character limit is one of the reasons I'm active on Twitter much more than anywhere else, as it forces people to be concise. And for everything else, like complex thoughts that can't be expressed as tweets, there are always blogs, whose URLs you can also distribute via Twitter. Twitter basically works like your personal aggregator of interesting stuff. And I freaking hate people using Facebook or Google+ for blogging, because these services suck for blogging. On spam, I don't know what you're talking about, because I get no spam. I'm @alexelcu on Twitter, my account is from 2008 and I'm counting about 20 blocked accounts corresponding to about 20 spams I got in 8 years, which is actually rather impressive. I think people complaining about the char limit don't understand the value of Twitter. And no, Google+ seriously sucks, I could rant all day about how much Google+ sucks. And you know what? Google+ wouldn't need Internet celebrities if it would be compatible with the open Internet, but it isn't ;-)
- kemayo 10y ago
  Counterpoint on the spam thing: I get a noticeable amount -- one a day or so -- of spam followers. That is, accounts that follow me entirely so I'll see their name in the notification email, and then unfollow me within a day. It's an interesting form of spam, which isn't trackable by observing Twitter message traffic as it lives entirely in account metadata.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Eh by spam-everyone-all-the-time I mean that any message I post will be "spammed" out to all my followers even if they just follow me for my Java interest or because I sometimes tweet about local politics.

SixSigma 10y ago

Not with these guys in charge I hope : “I believe we need to build a platform that respects and amplifies every voice in a way that the world needs to hear it. I trust that the world will amplify and retweet and have conversations where appropriate.” [1] Which means "Kill the cops" is ok but "#StopEnslavingSaudiWomen" gets your account banned. [2] [1] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/02/jack-dorsey-blms-deray-mckesson-claim-they-want-twitter-to-represent-every-voice/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/02/jack-dorsey-blms-de... [2] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/21/twitter-suspends-womens-rights-group-after-criticizing-saudi-arabia/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/21/twitter-suspends-wo...

jshevek 10y ago
You are not wrong, but linking to Breitbart probably damages your credibility.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  When most media is paying Clinton [1] calling doubts on credibility is laughable tbh. especially in an age where if one is piqued one can right click ... search and go look at places you trust. [1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
  - jshevek 10y ago
    I agree with your disapproval of twitter's leadership, and recognize the factual basis for it. I am only suggesting that some of your audience might be biased against you and your comments depending on who you cite - even when the facts are simple and easily confirmed. It's not rational, but its common. For example, I might (unfortunately) unconsciously question the intelligence of someone who linked to buzzfeed, even if buzzfeed accurately reported relevant facts in that instance.