35 ms·

I'm endlessly amused by the attitude people get over websites they like. I'm not sure what your personal argument for forcing twitter to be a utility is, but I'

I'm endlessly amused by the attitude people get over websites they like. I'm not sure what your personal argument for forcing twitter to be a utility is, but I'm sure it would make me laugh. Care to let me know?

jimmytidey 10y ago
It doesn't sound like you have a particularly open mind on this one, but I always address this question when it comes up on Hackner News because it's something I have strong feelings about. I'm not going to defend Twitter being a utility (which the parent comment also doesn't mention) but I will say that in general, it's very clear to me we haven't worked out what kind of institutions can best deliver services in the digital age. It's profoundly dubious that Twitter - a defacto 'town square' for public discussion - is owned by an institution that, at best, has few incentives to make it effective for the purpose which it is widely used. This is significant in democracies, where the quality of national decision making will be directly linked to the design of the channels in which public debate happens. The idea that we can take full and fair advantage of the opportunities the web offers exclusively through profit-motivated corporations is flatly wrong. The fact that as Twitter users we agreed to some T&Cs doesn't mean we can't also wish for a more democratic digital public space - which I assume is what the parent comment is really getting at.
- taurath 10y ago
  I think its a great idea, if a model could be found that would work (with a person at the top with the vision for such a model). Government run just screams surveillance to me, and is a non-starter for a huge percentage of the population. A non-profit wikipedia-like model could work I suppose, but I'm not sure what the problems would be with such a prolific service.
- tootie 10y ago
  I would strongly dispute that. Twitter has that much public value. Relativley few people use for critical information. It's a default option for broad communication, but it's hardly the only one.
  - jimmytidey 10y ago
    It was the key source of info for me during brexit. I'm told that in Afghanistan it played (plays?) a key role in for aid agencies.
Nadya 10y ago
My issue with Twitter is people need to learn how to take things into their own hands - even if it means at their own expense. Realistically, this is impractical for most people, especially the technically illiterate or those too poor to pay for hosting (even if it is only for personal use, instead of being open to a public) Twitter will never realistically be a utility. But there can be an open and distributed replacement for it that will meet the same goals, with fewer corporate restrictions and a more fractured government intervention. GNUSocial is a great replacement for Twitter. With multiple hosts, your data is yours, you can move data between hosts and you can even choose to host it for yourself to control your own data. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social
- jimmytidey 10y ago
  Wasn't aware of this - will check out...

jimmytidey 10y ago

It doesn't sound like you have a particularly open mind on this one, but I always address this question when it comes up on Hackner News because it's something I have strong feelings about. I'm not going to defend Twitter being a utility (which the parent comment also doesn't mention) but I will say that in general, it's very clear to me we haven't worked out what kind of institutions can best deliver services in the digital age. It's profoundly dubious that Twitter - a defacto 'town square' for public discussion - is owned by an institution that, at best, has few incentives to make it effective for the purpose which it is widely used. This is significant in democracies, where the quality of national decision making will be directly linked to the design of the channels in which public debate happens. The idea that we can take full and fair advantage of the opportunities the web offers exclusively through profit-motivated corporations is flatly wrong. The fact that as Twitter users we agreed to some T&Cs doesn't mean we can't also wish for a more democratic digital public space - which I assume is what the parent comment is really getting at.

taurath 10y ago
I think its a great idea, if a model could be found that would work (with a person at the top with the vision for such a model). Government run just screams surveillance to me, and is a non-starter for a huge percentage of the population. A non-profit wikipedia-like model could work I suppose, but I'm not sure what the problems would be with such a prolific service.
tootie 10y ago
I would strongly dispute that. Twitter has that much public value. Relativley few people use for critical information. It's a default option for broad communication, but it's hardly the only one.
- jimmytidey 10y ago
  It was the key source of info for me during brexit. I'm told that in Afghanistan it played (plays?) a key role in for aid agencies.

Nadya 10y ago

My issue with Twitter is people need to learn how to take things into their own hands - even if it means at their own expense. Realistically, this is impractical for most people, especially the technically illiterate or those too poor to pay for hosting (even if it is only for personal use, instead of being open to a public) Twitter will never realistically be a utility. But there can be an open and distributed replacement for it that will meet the same goals, with fewer corporate restrictions and a more fractured government intervention. GNUSocial is a great replacement for Twitter. With multiple hosts, your data is yours, you can move data between hosts and you can even choose to host it for yourself to control your own data. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social

jimmytidey 10y ago
Wasn't aware of this - will check out...