Replying with quotes slightly unordered: > Advertising classically associated with celebrities. Yep, that seems true - it makes sense that many audiences woul

Replying with quotes slightly unordered: > Advertising classically associated with celebrities. Yep, that seems true - it makes sense that many audiences would like to emulate and be like the celebrities they admire, and many celebrities would like to earn a living and/or build an audience. Some of Twitter's early community-building strategies[1] provided neatly for both sides of that environment. > Advertisers don't like brands next to controversies, sure. But ultimately they will go where users are. To some degree, yep they will - for brand exposure. But for measurable, return-on-investment style advertising -- the kind that will retain your marketing job when your company accountants begin asking questions -- I think it's less about the audience size and more about relevance. (slightly off-topic: unfortunately, well-targeted online advertising is more-or-less invisible to anyone except the publisher and recipient at the point-in-time when copy is displayed, and can be anywhere on a spectrum from genuinely valuable to manipulative. I think search is the answer here: put the relevant advertising into a search engine operated and transparent to an independent operator, and allow people to dip into that -- using their own chosen search criteria -- when they want something. but I digress) > It probably isn't a good strategy to concentrate on advertisers and their wishes for content. Sure, agreed - however in the context of Twitter's post-takeover strategy, future revenue sources are relevant. Both revenue and user metrics are claimed to have fairly dramatic potential for increase - so is there an implication that free speech is going to help to achieve that? And/or will paying to maintain business accounts on Twitter be measurably worthwhile -- or, similarly, measurably not worthwhile? And what will happen to advertising revenue? There may be an answer (and, ideally supporting information) that fits the claims, but I don't see it currently. >> free-speech advocates > Absolutely nothing wrong with that and most social media platforms were successful because this was a main focus. That seems unclear to me. I think most platform entrants develop successfully if they identify and correctly-time launch of a technology or medium that makes it {easier/cheaper} for people to communicate to each other, and not because they claim to provide an uncensored environment. Examples could include the practical realization that data access is cheaper and more universal than {SMS/telephony} in many places (consumer-side) or that the infrastructure to provide internet-based messaging can be provisioned far more cheaply as computing and network hardware scales up (provider-side)[2]. However I would agree that most new platforms will do their best to appear private and unfiltered to new users -- they don't want to distract from the ability for people to communicate with each other, which is intended to feel fresh, authentic and intimate. [1] - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/twitter-beyond-140-the-social-networks-new-growth-plan/article21712037/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/twitter-beyond-14... [2] - https://www.infoq.com/presentations/whatsapp-scalability/ https://www.infoq.com/presentations/whatsapp-scalability/