4 ms·

They've been trying to shake it off? How exactly? All I see is complete inaction from Twitter.

by atonse 9y ago

HenryTheHorse 9y ago
Twitter is really a terribly managed business on so many levels, including the one you referred to. It's a mystery as to why their institutional investors haven't staged a coup and brought in new management.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  because last time they tried that it didn't even work?
  - HenryTheHorse 9y ago
    :) I get that - and clearly the move was a failure. In which case, the blame falls squarely on the board. Twitter has a business model/product model problem, among other things.
    - metaphorm 9y ago
      I think the product is exactly what the users want, actually, though it seems to generally result in a toxic shithole of all-against-all. I think the business model problem is a direct consequence of the product succeeding at being what it is. That's not really a very good environment for "brand engagement" or whatever kind of consumerist brainslug implantation program they think they might use it for. A radical redesign of the product could probably make it a better advertising platform. The question they're facing I think is really that they are being pulled in two directions: increase (or at least retain) the number of users on the platform pulling opposite make the platform more appealing to advertisers and people who have discretionary income. They could hire me as a consultant maybe and I would instruct them that being the world's greatest engine for social strife is not an admirable product design goal.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  They actually did. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-moves-dickcostolo-idUSKBN0OR2Q020150612 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-moves-dickcostolo-... And several times more. Investors are looking at increasing revenues and/or valuation, either is a hard thing to do with Twitter no matter who is at the helm.
pluma 9y ago
Twitter created some kind of council made up almost entirely of people like @femfreq in response to #GamerGate and its aftermath. Supporters applauded it as taking responsibility and promoting a message of diversity and good things, detractors saw it as the end of Twitter-as-we-know-it. I think this happened around the time some right-wing accounts were suspended or suffering weird "glitches" (e.g. sudden massive decreases in follower counts) but I'm not sure what the relation between that and the supposed oversight council was. Other than the initial drama I don't think anything ever came from that. At some point Twitter sent promoted tweets pointing out the block feature with a nice animation about making nasty people go away but needless to say that wasn't even remotely helpful.
- gozur88 9y ago
  Twitter's Trust and Safety Council is a little bit SJW, but mostly it's there to keep celebrities from being bothered so much they stop tweeting. You can be as mean as you want to a nobody, but tweet something even a little bit derogatory to a celebrity and your account is history.
  - pluma 9y ago
    That explains the punishments. Every case I'm aware of involved a celebrity, though not always directly. There's been a lot of toxicity on Twitter recently but fewer scandals about celebrities (except Taylor Swift deleting her account).

They've been trying to shake it off? How exactly? All I see is complete inaction from Twitter.

by atonse 9y ago

They've been trying to shake it off? How exactly? All I see is complete inaction from Twitter.

Twitter is really a terribly managed business on so many levels, including the one you referred to. It's a mystery as to why their institutional investors haven't staged a coup and brought in new management.

metaphorm 9y ago
because last time they tried that it didn't even work?
- HenryTheHorse 9y ago
  :) I get that - and clearly the move was a failure. In which case, the blame falls squarely on the board. Twitter has a business model/product model problem, among other things.
  - metaphorm 9y ago
    I think the product is exactly what the users want, actually, though it seems to generally result in a toxic shithole of all-against-all. I think the business model problem is a direct consequence of the product succeeding at being what it is. That's not really a very good environment for "brand engagement" or whatever kind of consumerist brainslug implantation program they think they might use it for. A radical redesign of the product could probably make it a better advertising platform. The question they're facing I think is really that they are being pulled in two directions: increase (or at least retain) the number of users on the platform pulling opposite make the platform more appealing to advertisers and people who have discretionary income. They could hire me as a consultant maybe and I would instruct them that being the world's greatest engine for social strife is not an admirable product design goal.
jacquesm 9y ago
They actually did. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-moves-dickcostolo-idUSKBN0OR2Q020150612 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-moves-dickcostolo-... And several times more. Investors are looking at increasing revenues and/or valuation, either is a hard thing to do with Twitter no matter who is at the helm.

pluma 9y ago

Twitter created some kind of council made up almost entirely of people like @femfreq in response to #GamerGate and its aftermath. Supporters applauded it as taking responsibility and promoting a message of diversity and good things, detractors saw it as the end of Twitter-as-we-know-it. I think this happened around the time some right-wing accounts were suspended or suffering weird "glitches" (e.g. sudden massive decreases in follower counts) but I'm not sure what the relation between that and the supposed oversight council was. Other than the initial drama I don't think anything ever came from that. At some point Twitter sent promoted tweets pointing out the block feature with a nice animation about making nasty people go away but needless to say that wasn't even remotely helpful.

gozur88 9y ago
Twitter's Trust and Safety Council is a little bit SJW, but mostly it's there to keep celebrities from being bothered so much they stop tweeting. You can be as mean as you want to a nobody, but tweet something even a little bit derogatory to a celebrity and your account is history.
- pluma 9y ago
  That explains the punishments. Every case I'm aware of involved a celebrity, though not always directly. There's been a lot of toxicity on Twitter recently but fewer scandals about celebrities (except Taylor Swift deleting her account).