5 ms·

As another commenter pointed out, it actually doesn't matter too much what the users want, from a business perspective. Twitter's true customers are its advert

As another commenter pointed out, it actually doesn't matter too much what the users want, from a business perspective. Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. It's who pays. And they are even less likely then the normal person to want an "everything that isn't illegal is allowed" approach. Advertisers don't want their ads seen next to hate speech and certain other types of speech. It's been clear that Reddit and YouTube have been censoring at the behest of advertisers for years, and I don't think Twitter is or will be any different.

tested23 4y ago
Twitter literally has hookers and other sex workers on the platform. If advertisers really cared about brand safety they would have already left.
- richardwhiuk 4y ago
  Advertisers care that the market doesn't primarily see that as the point of twitter - i.e. the average user doesn't think that Twitter is primarily about that.
  - hanselot 4y ago
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Incorrect, advertisers very much care about brand safety this is like saying mathematicians don’t care about numbers. It’s the foundation of the craft
CharlesW 4y ago
> As another commenter pointed out, it actually doesn't matter too much what the users want, from a business perspective. Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. Users matter the most because if non-toxic users flee the platform, Twitter has no value to advertisers.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Do toxic users not need to buy things?
  - agentdrtran 4y ago
    What are the ads like on 4chan or truth social?
    - skrbjc 4y ago
      On 4chan it's mostly ads for other 4chan boards, lol
    - shitlord 4y ago
      I opened /g/ in incognito mode without an ad blocker, and I was actually surprised by the ads. There are no lowest common denominator "horny babes near you" ads or viagra ads. But there are ads for a crypto lottery, ads for a cryptocurrency, ads for a niche forum, etc. These aren't that different from the shitcoin ads on Twitter or reddit. Then I opened /wg/ and there were anime porn ads.
  - fundad 4y ago
    lots of Sheep drench
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- AtreidesTyrant 4y ago
  facebook disagrees with you
- dundarious 4y ago
  Sketchy pornographic websites do have advertisers, just extremely low value ones. Twitter wants to maintain a pleasant environment for the medium to high value advertisers, because advertisers are its revenue stream, and primarily it is not an ideological entity, it is a profit seeking one. Ideology is a variable in the equation, but it is primarily and significantly bound by profit seeking. So first, users are one of the major levers to keep valuable advertisers happy -- not the only one, but also not the only significant one, and they are purely instrumental. Second, Twitter does not want a negative public perception, along the lines of cable news, or much worse, 4chan. The former loses you a subset of a subset of the market and is a constant PR/lobbying headache, the latter loses most medium to high value advertisers altogether and is an existential regulatory threat. In almost no way is the worry that the toxic environment would be a subjectively bad experience for users. Before Parler was banned from the App store (and before it was re-instated after more moderation was added), its stated policy was roughly to moderate strictly to what's within the bounds of the law, albeit with some significant inconsistencies especially around pornography and nudity. I used it during this time, and it was extremely common to see a lot of seemingly intentionally hateful but legal use of the n-word, etc. P&G, Nestle, etc., don't want to associate their brands with an environment like that. Obviously Apple didn't either. It's important to always keep these realities in mind for all corporate action. Take Jack Dorsey's bluesky initiative[1], which many viewed in purely ideological or technical terms. My personal opinion is that it was either a way to counter negative PR ("Twitter is a moderated node that's profitable, but technically you can choose another node that's toxic and unprofitable but with less moderation, and good luck with that...", where Twitter gains all the "free speech" PR benefit with none of the significant costs), or a low cost self-soothing action to assuage pangs of guilt for instituting some policies he didn't personally agree with, with the important part that it is designed with a hard constraint to do nothing to negatively affect profits. So it's just an escape hatch for PR or personal angst. [1] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106
citilife 4y ago
That's simply not true. Think of a slightly different model. > We don't want our advertisements to be shown next to posts that do X, Y or Z That's effectively, the same as > We want to see our advertisements by A, B and C Just give advertisers different options. Further, Twitter advertisements aren't much different than billboards. Do you worry about the politics / optics of the drivers or even protesters beneath the the billboards in a city? No, of course not, you just want people to buy your products. Do people care, no. It's all fake outrage, trust me people will still buy Coke or Pepsi even if someone sees something distasteful while doom scrolling. In terms of general "toxicity" there's already blocking users, but allow users to "avoid topics" if they need their safe spaces. Then as a business, let users "pay to avoid topics" as it'll require some hand curation -- boom. More money for twitter, more users on the platform, everyone wins.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  You’re totally naive to how advertising works, just look at how quickly advertisers abandoned YouTube following the wall street journal reporting. From an advertiser perspective, if Twitter allows nazis, advertisers will be funding the distribution of nazi content — UI framing means nothing.
  - citilife 4y ago
    Yeah "abandoned" -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/289657/youtube-global-quarterly-advertising-revenues/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/289657/youtube-global-qu...
    - phphphphp 4y ago
      You’re proving the point: following abandonment, YouTube took a hard line against the content and advertisers returned.
      - citilife 4y ago
        > just look at how quickly advertisers abandoned YouTube following the wall street journal reporting. There's not a chart anywhere I can find that shows advertisers reducing their spending on youtube. I "articles" (potentially paid for advertisments) claiming that was happening; but as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that it made a material difference. https://www.statista.com/statistics/289658/youtube-global-net-advertising-revenues/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/289658/youtube-global-ne... Unfortunately, the data wasn't public during the controversy; so it's not really clear besides anecdotal virtue signaling by companies.
CydeWeys 4y ago
> Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. It's who pays. And they are even less likely then the normal person to want an "everything that isn't illegal is allowed" approach. Advertisers don't want their ads seen next to hate speech and certain other types of speech. Hell, advertisers don't want their ads to be seen next to Elon's current Twitter feed ( https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496 ), let alone what Twitter will look like in a year after everyone starts posting using the owner's timeline as example.
drcross 4y ago
> Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. You're basing your assumption that advertisers will be the main source of revenue in the future.
- notreallyserio 4y ago
  It's true. However, if toxic users drive out all the non-toxic users, will those toxic users pay real money for the platform? Will they even remain at all if they can't get the reactions they (seem to) thrive on?
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
> As another commenter pointed out, it actually doesn't matter too much what the users want, from a business perspective. Looking back at Tumblr, I'd say that's not a rule.
- Miner49er 4y ago
  True, but wasn't the porn ban to appease advertisers to try and actually make Tumblr profitable? Of course it probably failed, but it seems like it may have been a no-win situation.

tested23 4y ago

Twitter literally has hookers and other sex workers on the platform. If advertisers really cared about brand safety they would have already left.

richardwhiuk 4y ago
Advertisers care that the market doesn't primarily see that as the point of twitter - i.e. the average user doesn't think that Twitter is primarily about that.
- hanselot 4y ago
edgyquant 4y ago
Incorrect, advertisers very much care about brand safety this is like saying mathematicians don’t care about numbers. It’s the foundation of the craft

CharlesW 4y ago

> As another commenter pointed out, it actually doesn't matter too much what the users want, from a business perspective. Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. Users matter the most because if non-toxic users flee the platform, Twitter has no value to advertisers.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Do toxic users not need to buy things?
- agentdrtran 4y ago
  What are the ads like on 4chan or truth social?
  - skrbjc 4y ago
    On 4chan it's mostly ads for other 4chan boards, lol
  - shitlord 4y ago
    I opened /g/ in incognito mode without an ad blocker, and I was actually surprised by the ads. There are no lowest common denominator "horny babes near you" ads or viagra ads. But there are ads for a crypto lottery, ads for a cryptocurrency, ads for a niche forum, etc. These aren't that different from the shitcoin ads on Twitter or reddit. Then I opened /wg/ and there were anime porn ads.
- fundad 4y ago
  lots of Sheep drench
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
AtreidesTyrant 4y ago
facebook disagrees with you
dundarious 4y ago
Sketchy pornographic websites do have advertisers, just extremely low value ones. Twitter wants to maintain a pleasant environment for the medium to high value advertisers, because advertisers are its revenue stream, and primarily it is not an ideological entity, it is a profit seeking one. Ideology is a variable in the equation, but it is primarily and significantly bound by profit seeking. So first, users are one of the major levers to keep valuable advertisers happy -- not the only one, but also not the only significant one, and they are purely instrumental. Second, Twitter does not want a negative public perception, along the lines of cable news, or much worse, 4chan. The former loses you a subset of a subset of the market and is a constant PR/lobbying headache, the latter loses most medium to high value advertisers altogether and is an existential regulatory threat. In almost no way is the worry that the toxic environment would be a subjectively bad experience for users. Before Parler was banned from the App store (and before it was re-instated after more moderation was added), its stated policy was roughly to moderate strictly to what's within the bounds of the law, albeit with some significant inconsistencies especially around pornography and nudity. I used it during this time, and it was extremely common to see a lot of seemingly intentionally hateful but legal use of the n-word, etc. P&G, Nestle, etc., don't want to associate their brands with an environment like that. Obviously Apple didn't either. It's important to always keep these realities in mind for all corporate action. Take Jack Dorsey's bluesky initiative[1], which many viewed in purely ideological or technical terms. My personal opinion is that it was either a way to counter negative PR ("Twitter is a moderated node that's profitable, but technically you can choose another node that's toxic and unprofitable but with less moderation, and good luck with that...", where Twitter gains all the "free speech" PR benefit with none of the significant costs), or a low cost self-soothing action to assuage pangs of guilt for instituting some policies he didn't personally agree with, with the important part that it is designed with a hard constraint to do nothing to negatively affect profits. So it's just an escape hatch for PR or personal angst. [1] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106

citilife 4y ago

That's simply not true. Think of a slightly different model. > We don't want our advertisements to be shown next to posts that do X, Y or Z That's effectively, the same as > We want to see our advertisements by A, B and C Just give advertisers different options. Further, Twitter advertisements aren't much different than billboards. Do you worry about the politics / optics of the drivers or even protesters beneath the the billboards in a city? No, of course not, you just want people to buy your products. Do people care, no. It's all fake outrage, trust me people will still buy Coke or Pepsi even if someone sees something distasteful while doom scrolling. In terms of general "toxicity" there's already blocking users, but allow users to "avoid topics" if they need their safe spaces. Then as a business, let users "pay to avoid topics" as it'll require some hand curation -- boom. More money for twitter, more users on the platform, everyone wins.

phphphphp 4y ago
You’re totally naive to how advertising works, just look at how quickly advertisers abandoned YouTube following the wall street journal reporting. From an advertiser perspective, if Twitter allows nazis, advertisers will be funding the distribution of nazi content — UI framing means nothing.
- citilife 4y ago
  Yeah "abandoned" -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/289657/youtube-global-quarterly-advertising-revenues/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/289657/youtube-global-qu...
  - phphphphp 4y ago
    You’re proving the point: following abandonment, YouTube took a hard line against the content and advertisers returned.
    - citilife 4y ago
      > just look at how quickly advertisers abandoned YouTube following the wall street journal reporting. There's not a chart anywhere I can find that shows advertisers reducing their spending on youtube. I "articles" (potentially paid for advertisments) claiming that was happening; but as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that it made a material difference. https://www.statista.com/statistics/289658/youtube-global-net-advertising-revenues/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/289658/youtube-global-ne... Unfortunately, the data wasn't public during the controversy; so it's not really clear besides anecdotal virtue signaling by companies.

CydeWeys 4y ago

> Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. It's who pays. And they are even less likely then the normal person to want an "everything that isn't illegal is allowed" approach. Advertisers don't want their ads seen next to hate speech and certain other types of speech. Hell, advertisers don't want their ads to be seen next to Elon's current Twitter feed ( https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496 ), let alone what Twitter will look like in a year after everyone starts posting using the owner's timeline as example.

drcross 4y ago

> Twitter's true customers are its advertisers. You're basing your assumption that advertisers will be the main source of revenue in the future.

notreallyserio 4y ago
It's true. However, if toxic users drive out all the non-toxic users, will those toxic users pay real money for the platform? Will they even remain at all if they can't get the reactions they (seem to) thrive on?

Karawebnetwork 4y ago

> As another commenter pointed out, it actually doesn't matter too much what the users want, from a business perspective. Looking back at Tumblr, I'd say that's not a rule.

Miner49er 4y ago
True, but wasn't the porn ban to appease advertisers to try and actually make Tumblr profitable? Of course it probably failed, but it seems like it may have been a no-win situation.