4 ms·

> if someone doesn't like how twitter operates, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to another platform. This statement is weirdly detached from reality. Th

by chc 10y ago

> if someone doesn't like how twitter operates, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to another platform. This statement is weirdly detached from reality. The value of a social network is the ability to connect to people. Unless you're, like, Oprah, you cannot unilaterally decree that everyone you follow and everyone who follows you is going to move to another social network. So yes, there is a huge thing stopping most Twitter users from moving to another platform. This is kind of like saying, "There's nothing stopping you from eating sand." It's technically true, but eating sand will not yield the same results as eating food.

root_axis 10y ago
> This statement is so detached from reality that it's almost like you don't know what Twitter is. I think that statement is the one that is detached from reality; the reality where twitter is of negligible importance beyond shitposting with famous people. > This is kind of like saying, "There's nothing stopping you from eating sand." It's technically true, but eating sand will not yield the same results as eating food. You're comparing a choice between messaging apps with the choice between eating food (necessary to survive) and dirt, and I'm the one that is detached from reality? Nobody needs to use twitter. Let me repeat that again because it is the fundamental point that you and many others in this thread seem to be missing Nobody needs to use twitter. You won't die if you won't don't use it. You won't lose your job if you don't use it. You will still be able to communicate with your family, friends, and everyone you care to know online if you don't use it. There are tons of other social networking apps and websites out there. People use twitter because they like it. If the twitter userbase has a problem, they can start a trending hashtag or an internet petition or something else to get twitter to change its behavior, but twitter has no obligation to listen besides the obligation they have to corporate shareholders, because they provide their services for free and nothing prevents those users from moving to another platform.
- chc 10y ago
  The value of a social network is largely derived from the people in it. You can't take one of the people I follow and substitute an arbitrary person and assume I'll get equal value. The people I follow are on Twitter, and are mostly not on "other social networking apps and websites out there." You may be assigning zero value to everything because you personally don't get anything from it, but surely you can see why that is not a reasonable way to evaluate something.
  - root_axis 10y ago
    > You may be assigning zero value to everything because you personally don't get anything from it How much value I personally assign to it is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it is not a necessity. > You can't take one of the people I follow and substitute an arbitrary person and assume I'll get equal value. The people I follow are on Twitter, and are mostly not on "other social networking apps and websites out there. Great. It sounds to me like you use twitter because you like to read posts from certain individuals who also prefer to post on twitter (and not some other site). Those people aren't forced to use twitter, and it isn't anything more than an inconvenience if YOU decided not to use twitter because YOU have objections to how twitter operates their core business. You want to use twitter because you want to stay up to date on "the people you follow". That is not a description of a dystopia. Being able to follow your favorite celebrities is not important (except to you personally). Maybe we should get the government involved in regulating League of Legends balance changes since they have 100 million+ customers most of which actually spend money to use the service. No matter how much value you derive from the specific individuals that compose your twitter feed, you are not entitled to any of it because you never entered into an agreement with twitter where you compensated them in exchange for certain guarantees, barring that or something illegal, the government has reason to get involved in what kind of content twitter choose to allow on their site, period.

by chc 10y ago

root_axis 10y ago

> This statement is so detached from reality that it's almost like you don't know what Twitter is. I think that statement is the one that is detached from reality; the reality where twitter is of negligible importance beyond shitposting with famous people. > This is kind of like saying, "There's nothing stopping you from eating sand." It's technically true, but eating sand will not yield the same results as eating food. You're comparing a choice between messaging apps with the choice between eating food (necessary to survive) and dirt, and I'm the one that is detached from reality? Nobody needs to use twitter. Let me repeat that again because it is the fundamental point that you and many others in this thread seem to be missing Nobody needs to use twitter. You won't die if you won't don't use it. You won't lose your job if you don't use it. You will still be able to communicate with your family, friends, and everyone you care to know online if you don't use it. There are tons of other social networking apps and websites out there. People use twitter because they like it. If the twitter userbase has a problem, they can start a trending hashtag or an internet petition or something else to get twitter to change its behavior, but twitter has no obligation to listen besides the obligation they have to corporate shareholders, because they provide their services for free and nothing prevents those users from moving to another platform.

chc 10y ago
The value of a social network is largely derived from the people in it. You can't take one of the people I follow and substitute an arbitrary person and assume I'll get equal value. The people I follow are on Twitter, and are mostly not on "other social networking apps and websites out there." You may be assigning zero value to everything because you personally don't get anything from it, but surely you can see why that is not a reasonable way to evaluate something.
- root_axis 10y ago
  > You may be assigning zero value to everything because you personally don't get anything from it How much value I personally assign to it is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it is not a necessity. > You can't take one of the people I follow and substitute an arbitrary person and assume I'll get equal value. The people I follow are on Twitter, and are mostly not on "other social networking apps and websites out there. Great. It sounds to me like you use twitter because you like to read posts from certain individuals who also prefer to post on twitter (and not some other site). Those people aren't forced to use twitter, and it isn't anything more than an inconvenience if YOU decided not to use twitter because YOU have objections to how twitter operates their core business. You want to use twitter because you want to stay up to date on "the people you follow". That is not a description of a dystopia. Being able to follow your favorite celebrities is not important (except to you personally). Maybe we should get the government involved in regulating League of Legends balance changes since they have 100 million+ customers most of which actually spend money to use the service. No matter how much value you derive from the specific individuals that compose your twitter feed, you are not entitled to any of it because you never entered into an agreement with twitter where you compensated them in exchange for certain guarantees, barring that or something illegal, the government has reason to get involved in what kind of content twitter choose to allow on their site, period.