5 ms·

It's funny how things have turned. They had an open API with several 3rd party clients, and they killed them. Now they want to go even more open... Strange

by kuu 7y ago

skohan 7y ago
It seems like the heart of it is this: > He argues that Twitter’s value lies in directing your attention toward valuable tweets — not hosting all the content. If twitter can succeed in offloading their hosting costs onto this "decentralized network" and remain the authority over which tweets are relevant (and therefore remain the primary channel which can serve ads on this type of content) it could be a big win for them as far as the bottom line. At the same time, it might take some of the heat off of them as far as accusations of bias on the platform. If Twitter is the only entity deciding what is and is not acceptable in the discourse, questions can be asked about whether or not they're doing that in a wise and fair manner. If they are just one of many curators, then "the market" can decide if their method of governance is best, and they can't be accused of having a monopoly over the discourse in the same way.
- kuu 7y ago
  I get your point, but I wonder if exactly this will happen, that they will lose the monopoly (and therefore a lot of money). I'm not saying that losing it is bad or good per se. I'm just talking financially.
  - skohan 7y ago
    I understand what you’re saying, and I would venture to guess that Twitter has put a lot of time and money into determining whether this would be a good outcome for them before they would go through with it. It is curious in a way, since Twitter does seem to hold a monopoly on a certain kind of online discourse. It’s not like FB -> Instagram -> Snapchat -> TicTok where there there seems to be a generational sunrise and sunset. In that case it seems like there would be more to gain going open with the hopes of having the opportunity to exert more control over the next up-and-comer
loceng 7y ago
It's probably because he's going to launch a new crypto-"currency" - inherently structured as a Pyramid-Ponzi scheme - where he and perhaps Twitter will own the majority of the "coins" to then promote to the Twitter audience to help realize an unreasonable, unnecessary, irrational wealth transfer of the new value of the "coins." That way if anyone else plugs into "Twitter's network" then they'll be increasing the use of their "coin" and therefore inflating its artificial value further. I'd say Twitter's stockholders should understand the indoctrination Jack Dorsey has with Bitcoin et al due to his close association with USV.

It's funny how things have turned. They had an open API with several 3rd party clients, and they killed them. Now they want to go even more open... Strange

by kuu 7y ago

It's funny how things have turned. They had an open API with several 3rd party clients, and they killed them. Now they want to go even more open... Strange

skohan 7y ago

It seems like the heart of it is this: > He argues that Twitter’s value lies in directing your attention toward valuable tweets — not hosting all the content. If twitter can succeed in offloading their hosting costs onto this "decentralized network" and remain the authority over which tweets are relevant (and therefore remain the primary channel which can serve ads on this type of content) it could be a big win for them as far as the bottom line. At the same time, it might take some of the heat off of them as far as accusations of bias on the platform. If Twitter is the only entity deciding what is and is not acceptable in the discourse, questions can be asked about whether or not they're doing that in a wise and fair manner. If they are just one of many curators, then "the market" can decide if their method of governance is best, and they can't be accused of having a monopoly over the discourse in the same way.

kuu 7y ago
I get your point, but I wonder if exactly this will happen, that they will lose the monopoly (and therefore a lot of money). I'm not saying that losing it is bad or good per se. I'm just talking financially.
- skohan 7y ago
  I understand what you’re saying, and I would venture to guess that Twitter has put a lot of time and money into determining whether this would be a good outcome for them before they would go through with it. It is curious in a way, since Twitter does seem to hold a monopoly on a certain kind of online discourse. It’s not like FB -> Instagram -> Snapchat -> TicTok where there there seems to be a generational sunrise and sunset. In that case it seems like there would be more to gain going open with the hopes of having the opportunity to exert more control over the next up-and-comer

loceng 7y ago

It's probably because he's going to launch a new crypto-"currency" - inherently structured as a Pyramid-Ponzi scheme - where he and perhaps Twitter will own the majority of the "coins" to then promote to the Twitter audience to help realize an unreasonable, unnecessary, irrational wealth transfer of the new value of the "coins." That way if anyone else plugs into "Twitter's network" then they'll be increasing the use of their "coin" and therefore inflating its artificial value further. I'd say Twitter's stockholders should understand the indoctrination Jack Dorsey has with Bitcoin et al due to his close association with USV.