5 ms·
Agreed. I'm sure there were many reasons it died, but my theory is that Google strategically wanted to kill it because the User was in control of the data-sour
by chrisfinne 8y ago
Agreed.
I'm sure there were many reasons it died, but my theory is that Google strategically wanted to kill it because the User was in control of the data-sources and the algorithm. Google wanted people to migrate to Google+, News, etc. where they control what you see.
This is what Facebook and Twitter did. Their feeds used to be a simple chrono sort of sources you determined, but then they slowly took control.
In my mind, all these companies have shifted from being Platforms to being Publishers. While they aren't writing the content, they are actively choosing what content you see and don't see, i.e. being the Editor.
- _nub3 8y agoThis is by far the best explanation I've read. Thx for making my day.
- rexpop 8y agoIt's a chilling distillation of the fact that making us happy is tangential to underlying corporate motives.
- wp381640 8y agoI can't figure out what I've read up to on Twitter anymore since it shuffles tweets around and inserts random "your follower also follows this person" tweets which I didn't ask for
- jpindar 8y agoHave you tried using Tweetdeck? It puts that kind of stuff in a separate column which you can show or hide as you wish. The main column is chronological.
- larkeith 8y agoThe fact that such a service is necessary is a bad sign for Twitter's UX.
- tildedave 8y agoIf you turn off the "show the best tweets first" option in your content preferences you get a chronological timeline back. (They made this change a month or two ago)
- wp381640 8y agoThat's it! Thank you
- lamby 8y ago> the User was in control of the data-sources I think this might be right, but this could be because it was an thus an awful interface for anyone who wasn't somewhat along the HN-user spectrum of technical nous.
- octygen 8y agoAmen to the above. There are alternatives... But GR was by far the best.