5 ms·

If you’ve spent any amount of time on Twitter you’ll understand just how dystopian it is to realize it’s the only funnel for writing content online. The fact th

If you’ve spent any amount of time on Twitter you’ll understand just how dystopian it is to realize it’s the only funnel for writing content online. The fact that you need to not only use Twitter, but use it in a way that works for the algorithms is nothing short of a hell world a scenario. For those that have ever posited Facebook is worse than Twitter I’ve no idea what world you live in.

Swizec 5y ago
Distribution is king and you're always pandering to someone's algorithm until your own channel is robust enough to flywheel. For tech it's twitter, for lifestyle it's instagram, for search it's google, for conspiracies it's facebook, for gen z it's tiktok, for gen x it's media. Whatever way you slice it, Other People's Audience is the fastest way to grow.
- ryanSrich 5y ago
  > until your own channel is robust enough to flywheel. This no longer exists. You need Twitter in perpetuity. If for some reason you’re banned from Twitter (often there’s no reason at all) there goes an entire career and audience you’ve built for years. If Facebook bans you because you think vaccines have microchips you don’t lose your income. If Twitter bans you because you said something mean you’re dead.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    > This no longer exists. You need Twitter in perpetuity. If for some reason you’re banned from Twitter (often there’s no reason at all) there goes an entire career and audience you’ve built for years. Tell it to Josh Rogan.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      "- Jumping over 30 cars with a motorcycle is no way to have a career" "- Tell it to Evel Knievel" As if Josh (Joe?) Rogan is representative.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Are black swans in general?
    - ovi256 5y ago
      Did you mean Josh Rogin ? He's a geopolitics writer that was, ironically, interviewed by Rogan about the lab leak hypothesis, but he's not banned from Twitter: https://twitter.com/joshrogin https://twitter.com/joshrogin Neither is Rogan, btw, but he's not posting any of his controversial takes there.
  - wyclif 5y ago
    If Twitter is the only way you engage, then yes, you do need Twitter. If all your subscribers are on a platform that you don't control, they can cancel you and then you lose everything. The good news is that there's this robust, free, and open protocol you may have heard of: email. I can hear Gen Z laughing at me already. "LOL, Gen X grandpa, why are you yelling at clouds? And what's 'email'?" Yes, email. Build your subscriber list via email. Nobody can cancel you or take that away from you.
    - esyir 5y ago
      Sure, you just no longer matter. That's the problem.
  - giansegato 5y ago
    I disagree. Podcasts and newsletter are still enough to keep you alive without platform intermediation. Not coincidentally, they're the two only media that are delivered by open protocols.
  - louisswiss 5y ago
    > This no longer exists. You need Twitter in perpetuity. If for some reason you’re banned from Twitter (often there’s no reason at all) there goes an entire career and audience you’ve built for years. For a newsletter at least, this definitely isn't true. For context, I'm the cofounder of SparkLoop — a referral platform specifically for newsletters. We see thousands of newsletters growing 5-50% monthly with referrals (and more if they do other marketing stuff). Except this doesn't work for Substack users, because Substack doesn't support tools like ours. The problem isn't that "you can't grow a newsletter without Twitter" — it's that "you can't grow a Substack without Twitter". Just choose a better email platform and the problem disappears.
makomk 5y ago
That's easy. They live in the world where Twitter feeds the careers of journalists but Facebook eats into the advertising income that funds them. Either by being one of the journalists who spend all their time on Twitter or by having their worldview formed by the reporting of those who are.
prescriptivist 5y ago
Agreed. Twitter is the Facebook for the chattering classes. The reasons it escapes the kind of pitched battles waged by the media against Facebook is beyond me. Maybe it's because the toxicity bred by Twitter is organically driven by user activity (aside from trending topics) whereas with Facebook it's the opaque "algorithm". Or maybe it's because it's a convenient platform for logrolling hot takes. In the end it seems like distinction not worth making.
- dnissley 5y ago
  > The reasons [Twitter] escapes the kind of pitched battles waged by the media against Facebook is beyond me. The answer is right here: > Twitter is the Facebook for the chattering classes [a group which includes those working in media].
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > The reasons it escapes the kind of pitched battles waged by the media against Facebook is beyond me. Because thinking of Facebook as a boogeymen that turns people into monsters requires thinking of their users not only as monstrous, but as helpless dupes, unable to resist being influenced by the medium they're using. The media's overrepresentation on Twitter means that applying the same logic would require a level of introspection and self-awareness that would be difficult for most people, let alone journalists. It's the same reason everyone overestimated early-2010s Twitter's userbase, when for a long period it had less active users than the Google+ stream alone (ie, not the auto-posting from Google products).
  - aaroninsf 5y ago
    Possible. Or perhaps it's that the company has engaged in systematic malfeasance, unethical business practices, and has profoundly amoral leadership, resulting in profoundly amoral behavior, culminating in knee jerk dishonesty, denial, and misdirection, and the systematic betrayal abuse and injury of their users, host societies, and culture at large.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago

Swizec 5y ago

Distribution is king and you're always pandering to someone's algorithm until your own channel is robust enough to flywheel. For tech it's twitter, for lifestyle it's instagram, for search it's google, for conspiracies it's facebook, for gen z it's tiktok, for gen x it's media. Whatever way you slice it, Other People's Audience is the fastest way to grow.

ryanSrich 5y ago
> until your own channel is robust enough to flywheel. This no longer exists. You need Twitter in perpetuity. If for some reason you’re banned from Twitter (often there’s no reason at all) there goes an entire career and audience you’ve built for years. If Facebook bans you because you think vaccines have microchips you don’t lose your income. If Twitter bans you because you said something mean you’re dead.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > This no longer exists. You need Twitter in perpetuity. If for some reason you’re banned from Twitter (often there’s no reason at all) there goes an entire career and audience you’ve built for years. Tell it to Josh Rogan.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    "- Jumping over 30 cars with a motorcycle is no way to have a career" "- Tell it to Evel Knievel" As if Josh (Joe?) Rogan is representative.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Are black swans in general?
  - ovi256 5y ago
    Did you mean Josh Rogin ? He's a geopolitics writer that was, ironically, interviewed by Rogan about the lab leak hypothesis, but he's not banned from Twitter: https://twitter.com/joshrogin https://twitter.com/joshrogin Neither is Rogan, btw, but he's not posting any of his controversial takes there.
- wyclif 5y ago
  If Twitter is the only way you engage, then yes, you do need Twitter. If all your subscribers are on a platform that you don't control, they can cancel you and then you lose everything. The good news is that there's this robust, free, and open protocol you may have heard of: email. I can hear Gen Z laughing at me already. "LOL, Gen X grandpa, why are you yelling at clouds? And what's 'email'?" Yes, email. Build your subscriber list via email. Nobody can cancel you or take that away from you.
  - esyir 5y ago
    Sure, you just no longer matter. That's the problem.
- giansegato 5y ago
  I disagree. Podcasts and newsletter are still enough to keep you alive without platform intermediation. Not coincidentally, they're the two only media that are delivered by open protocols.
- louisswiss 5y ago
  > This no longer exists. You need Twitter in perpetuity. If for some reason you’re banned from Twitter (often there’s no reason at all) there goes an entire career and audience you’ve built for years. For a newsletter at least, this definitely isn't true. For context, I'm the cofounder of SparkLoop — a referral platform specifically for newsletters. We see thousands of newsletters growing 5-50% monthly with referrals (and more if they do other marketing stuff). Except this doesn't work for Substack users, because Substack doesn't support tools like ours. The problem isn't that "you can't grow a newsletter without Twitter" — it's that "you can't grow a Substack without Twitter". Just choose a better email platform and the problem disappears.

makomk 5y ago

That's easy. They live in the world where Twitter feeds the careers of journalists but Facebook eats into the advertising income that funds them. Either by being one of the journalists who spend all their time on Twitter or by having their worldview formed by the reporting of those who are.

prescriptivist 5y ago

Agreed. Twitter is the Facebook for the chattering classes. The reasons it escapes the kind of pitched battles waged by the media against Facebook is beyond me. Maybe it's because the toxicity bred by Twitter is organically driven by user activity (aside from trending topics) whereas with Facebook it's the opaque "algorithm". Or maybe it's because it's a convenient platform for logrolling hot takes. In the end it seems like distinction not worth making.

dnissley 5y ago
> The reasons [Twitter] escapes the kind of pitched battles waged by the media against Facebook is beyond me. The answer is right here: > Twitter is the Facebook for the chattering classes [a group which includes those working in media].
wutbrodo 5y ago
> The reasons it escapes the kind of pitched battles waged by the media against Facebook is beyond me. Because thinking of Facebook as a boogeymen that turns people into monsters requires thinking of their users not only as monstrous, but as helpless dupes, unable to resist being influenced by the medium they're using. The media's overrepresentation on Twitter means that applying the same logic would require a level of introspection and self-awareness that would be difficult for most people, let alone journalists. It's the same reason everyone overestimated early-2010s Twitter's userbase, when for a long period it had less active users than the Google+ stream alone (ie, not the auto-posting from Google products).
- aaroninsf 5y ago
  Possible. Or perhaps it's that the company has engaged in systematic malfeasance, unethical business practices, and has profoundly amoral leadership, resulting in profoundly amoral behavior, culminating in knee jerk dishonesty, denial, and misdirection, and the systematic betrayal abuse and injury of their users, host societies, and culture at large.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago