3 ms·

The problem is that ever since banning Trump they have less usage on the site. So they need those "exciting" world leaders. Telling Twitter to ban all world le

by ars 6y ago

The problem is that ever since banning Trump they have less usage on the site. So they need those "exciting" world leaders. Telling Twitter to ban all world leaders is the opposite of what they want. They want to be able to have all those people on there, while not being blamed for leaving "bad" content up.

toast0 6y ago
On the plus side, the lower traffic seems to have helped with links to twitter threads, which actually work now (or at least better)
jfengel 6y ago
They need those exciting leaders if their sole goal is to maximize their profits. If they also want to have a world to spend their profits in, it's worth considering that some tactics may be different. This is unusual territory, since it's not all that common for one company to be so closely involved with what could literally have been violent insurrection, even leading to outright war. It didn't, but it came far closer than the leadership of Twitter liked. They want to be ubiquitous, but not so pervasive as to be existential.
- ars 6y ago
  The capitol hill thing was planned on Facebook, not Twitter (or Gab for that matter). Twitter has an inflated sense of its own importance.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Twitter was the primary medium connecting the President with the people who believed that thy were doing "the capitol hill thing" at his behest. Whether that was his intention or not, Twitter carried messages directly from the President to people who acted on them. Twitter was without a doubt important. It wasn't the sole player, to be sure, but they were a direct intermediary between a prominent leader and his followers, bypassing all other gatekeepers. Perhaps he'd have switched to an email newsletter or Facebook or another social medium, but in the days leading up to January 6, it was very much about Twitter.

3 ms·

The problem is that ever since banning Trump they have less usage on the site. So they need those "exciting" world leaders. Telling Twitter to ban all world le

by ars 6y ago

toast0 6y ago
On the plus side, the lower traffic seems to have helped with links to twitter threads, which actually work now (or at least better)
jfengel 6y ago
They need those exciting leaders if their sole goal is to maximize their profits. If they also want to have a world to spend their profits in, it's worth considering that some tactics may be different. This is unusual territory, since it's not all that common for one company to be so closely involved with what could literally have been violent insurrection, even leading to outright war. It didn't, but it came far closer than the leadership of Twitter liked. They want to be ubiquitous, but not so pervasive as to be existential.
- ars 6y ago
  The capitol hill thing was planned on Facebook, not Twitter (or Gab for that matter). Twitter has an inflated sense of its own importance.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Twitter was the primary medium connecting the President with the people who believed that thy were doing "the capitol hill thing" at his behest. Whether that was his intention or not, Twitter carried messages directly from the President to people who acted on them. Twitter was without a doubt important. It wasn't the sole player, to be sure, but they were a direct intermediary between a prominent leader and his followers, bypassing all other gatekeepers. Perhaps he'd have switched to an email newsletter or Facebook or another social medium, but in the days leading up to January 6, it was very much about Twitter.