4 ms·

I think it’s quite smart to launch this sans-crypto to avoid headlines, ensure the feature works well and is received well, and then add additional payment meth

I think it’s quite smart to launch this sans-crypto to avoid headlines, ensure the feature works well and is received well, and then add additional payment methods weeks or months later. I do wonder if this hurts or helps twitter as a product tho - I can’t say I’ve been enjoying the recent “only so-and-sos friends can reply to this post” trend. But now we will see very popular tweets with no discussion allowed that is also earning money from sycophants? I can’t say that makes me excited to jump on twitter - although clearly this doesn’t sway a large number of users off Facebook either so maybe I’m not the target market here... it does seem strange though that after a decade of talk about social media bubbles, we seem to be reinforcing them explicitly! At what point is a read-only tweet, shown only to those who already agree and which asks for donations, any different from televangelism? It feels about as alien to discussion (presumably the purpose of twitter) as one can imagine.

djmashko2 5y ago
There are plenty of uses for Twitter unrelated to debate or discussion. Sharing news, building a community, posting about your day, etc.
- filleduchaos 5y ago
  Not just that, there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants. The people who decry changes like being able to restrict who can reply to you as "eroding discussion" don't seem to realise that what they're actually saying is "either you commit to listening to/engaging with random total strangers yelling whatever they want at you or you shouldn't say anything at all". In my opinion that silently stifles far more speech than the alternative.
  - podgaj 5y ago
    >there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants. But WHO decides that? It is just like here on Hacker News, you cannot down vote until you have 500 upvotes? I may have a new novel idea or frame of reference that could benefit the world but I get downvoted on everything I say it never gets out. So who decides? The one's in control of the platform. And that is horrible. Look at the trouble the woman who invented the mRNA vaccine went through!
    - filleduchaos 5y ago
      > But WHO decides that? The person who is talking, as is very obvious from the feature being discussed.
brown9-2 5y ago
> But now we will see very popular tweets with no discussion allowed that is also earning money from sycophants? Then unfollow those people
podgaj 5y ago
It hurts. It most certainly hurts. Everyone will evolve into the most perfect beggar. Yes, it will possibly be a slow devolution than what happened at YouTube, but it will happen. Twitter is bad enough without easy money involved. People call it public commenting, but it's not. Not if you can block some one or limit why sees your tweets. Just another curated self to expose to the world, and the money, as I said, will only make not worse.

djmashko2 5y ago

There are plenty of uses for Twitter unrelated to debate or discussion. Sharing news, building a community, posting about your day, etc.

filleduchaos 5y ago
Not just that, there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants. The people who decry changes like being able to restrict who can reply to you as "eroding discussion" don't seem to realise that what they're actually saying is "either you commit to listening to/engaging with random total strangers yelling whatever they want at you or you shouldn't say anything at all". In my opinion that silently stifles far more speech than the alternative.
- podgaj 5y ago
  >there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants. But WHO decides that? It is just like here on Hacker News, you cannot down vote until you have 500 upvotes? I may have a new novel idea or frame of reference that could benefit the world but I get downvoted on everything I say it never gets out. So who decides? The one's in control of the platform. And that is horrible. Look at the trouble the woman who invented the mRNA vaccine went through!
  - filleduchaos 5y ago
    > But WHO decides that? The person who is talking, as is very obvious from the feature being discussed.

brown9-2 5y ago

> But now we will see very popular tweets with no discussion allowed that is also earning money from sycophants? Then unfollow those people

podgaj 5y ago

It hurts. It most certainly hurts. Everyone will evolve into the most perfect beggar. Yes, it will possibly be a slow devolution than what happened at YouTube, but it will happen. Twitter is bad enough without easy money involved. People call it public commenting, but it's not. Not if you can block some one or limit why sees your tweets. Just another curated self to expose to the world, and the money, as I said, will only make not worse.