4 ms·
http://cdevroe.com/2021/10/26/bluesky-status/ http://cdevroe.com/2021/10/26/bluesky-status/ love this bit: "The truth is that Twitter could become decentraliz
by riffic 5y ago
http://cdevroe.com/2021/10/26/bluesky-status/ http://cdevroe.com/2021/10/26/bluesky-status/
love this bit:
"The truth is that Twitter could become decentralized almost overnight by simply adding some JSON-LD serializers, an inbox endpoint and maybe tweaking their storage schema slightly to become part of the fediverse – anyone who wouldn’t want to use twitter.com could follow twitter.com users from their own server and so on. That does not require 2 years of making people who don’t work for you talk to each other."
- gojomo 5y agoIndeed. If Dorsey wanted Twitter to be "open", he'd open it. Instead he's closed it & started a sideshow to further distract those who could create credible challenges to Twitter.
- standardly 5y agoDid anyone tell them? Maybe they just didn't know how
- aerosmile 5y agoThe truth is that someone's gotta pay the bills. Pleasing the crowd by giving the content away is easy; finding a way to pay the bills while upsetting the least amount of people who are strategically important for the next month's bills is the hard part. We can speculate why Jack left, but the lagging stock price certainly didn't help him. So if anything, rather than criticizing him for not giving away the content for free, it seems the guy should have done more of the opposite (to prevent someone else taking his job who will do all that and then some).
- jessaustin 5y agoThe truth is that someone's gotta pay the bills. Pleasing the crowd by giving the content away is easy; finding a way to pay the bills while upsetting the least amount of people who are strategically important for the next month's bills is the hard part. Twitter never "paid the bills" under his leadership. That's what added insult to the injury of removing previous open functionality: they pissed everybody off and didn't even make money as a result. A better idea has been obvious for more than a decade. Twitter is most valuable to the "influencers" who have lots of monetizable followers, e.g. the various Kardashians with their beauty tips. Therefore, those influencers should be charged for the value that Twitter represents to them. They would gladly pay a percentage of the fees they receive for marketing the various products they recommend, for a Twitter experience that made that marketing more effective. It's hard to imagine why Twitter executives have missed this.
- riffic 5y agoholy crap, yes, this is exactly how Twitter can monetize decentralization. Charge the kardashian clan x amount of dollars to run a managed version of Twitter's software on kardashian.com and allow for full interoperability with other services that speak a common protocol (the w3c has a protocol. use it!) you can also have governments and other institutional actors running the hosted software (then you can have @AOC@HOUSE.gov and @Biden@Whitehouse.gov and @x@doj.gov and @professor@mit.edu and @talkinghead@nbc.com) these all can operate as white-labeled instances of the managed Twitter service (basically, how Google Apps worked but with Twitter's software).
- eclipxe 5y agoYeah, this won't work.
- akhosravian 5y agoParent post reads as very sarcastic to me
- riffic 5y agounfortunately, I'm making a serious pitch.
- dmonitor 5y agoAre you just reinventing email?
- montroser 5y agoEmail is not public
- FormerBandmate 5y agoThat would probably only be used by donald@trump.com, and also make them substantially less able to target ads if adopted