6 ms·

1. I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. 2. It's a platform problem. If you make users do work the

1. I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. 2. It's a platform problem. If you make users do work they don't want to do in order to make the platform pleasant to use, they won't do the work, the platform will not be pleasant to use, and they'll use a different platform that doesn't make them do that work. 3. "If they can't handle it, they shouldn't advertise there." Correct! They won't advertise there. That's the point. There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms, and those platforms are niche, with small audiences, filled with low-tier/scam ads and are generally not profitable.

rglover 4y ago
> I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. A product exists with those properties, but not something like Twitter. > It's a platform problem. It's not. I don't use stuff like 4chan because it's not of interest to me but it is of interest to others. There's zero requirement for Twitter to be a universally acceptable platform (that delusion is why there continues to be issues around moderation), just like 4chan needn't cater to everyone. > There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms Right. And there's no requirement for Twitter to offer advertising. That's why I think it'd be wise for them to adopt a pay-to-play model instead of chasing that rabbit.
- etchalon 4y ago
  You seem to be demanding that Twitter adopt policies and features despite the fact the market has shown those policies and features will shrink their user base and their profit. "Pay-to-play Twitter" was already tried. It was called "App.net" and it was a failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net
  - rglover 4y ago
    Demanding? No. I think it's a smart business decision and removes a ton of overhead and stress. And no, App.net was Dalton Caldwell's halfhearted attempt (the UI was okay at best) after Twitter already had the network effect in motion (six years after Twitter launched).
    - etchalon 4y ago
      There are no successful "pay for access" social media networks, and the argument that Twitter's dominance some how held App.net back ignores all the other social networks that succeeded despite being founded after Twitter.
      - rglover 4y ago
        Yes. The reason a social network works is because of its brand, adoption, and network effects—not features (App.net sounds like a Boomer social network). Twitter is so well-established that introducing a premium paid version would be de-facto successful—if done properly, not like Twitter Blue—for producing revenue. Especially because so many people rely on it to communicate. A rough example: Twitter Basic = Free. Follow up to 50 people. Bookmark up to 100 tweets. 140 character limit. Ad supported. Twitter Pro = $5/month. Follow up to 500 people. Unlimited bookmarking. 280 character limit. Up to 10 minute videos. Customized ads. Twitter Business = $10/month. Follow up to 2500 people + all of the above. Twitter Elite = $15/month. Elite Checkmark, unlimited follows, all of the above, + 420 character limit and up to 30 minute videos. --- It can certainly be done, but it requires creativity and speed. Both of which waved bye bye to Silicon Valley about 10 years ago so it will likely be a mediocre version of the above at best.
        etchalon 4y ago
        Social networks work because people enjoy using them. As people tell their friends about the network, they use it, and network effects allow it to grow. As it grows, its brand is established. Twitter is a distant fourth or fifth place network because, as it is, most people do not enjoy using it. Its Brand is wildly seen as synonymous with toxic parts of our culture. And your plan is to make it worse and then charge people to use it. OK.

rglover 4y ago

> I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. A product exists with those properties, but not something like Twitter. > It's a platform problem. It's not. I don't use stuff like 4chan because it's not of interest to me but it is of interest to others. There's zero requirement for Twitter to be a universally acceptable platform (that delusion is why there continues to be issues around moderation), just like 4chan needn't cater to everyone. > There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms Right. And there's no requirement for Twitter to offer advertising. That's why I think it'd be wise for them to adopt a pay-to-play model instead of chasing that rabbit.

etchalon 4y ago
You seem to be demanding that Twitter adopt policies and features despite the fact the market has shown those policies and features will shrink their user base and their profit. "Pay-to-play Twitter" was already tried. It was called "App.net" and it was a failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net
- rglover 4y ago
  Demanding? No. I think it's a smart business decision and removes a ton of overhead and stress. And no, App.net was Dalton Caldwell's halfhearted attempt (the UI was okay at best) after Twitter already had the network effect in motion (six years after Twitter launched).
  - etchalon 4y ago
    There are no successful "pay for access" social media networks, and the argument that Twitter's dominance some how held App.net back ignores all the other social networks that succeeded despite being founded after Twitter.
    - rglover 4y ago
      Yes. The reason a social network works is because of its brand, adoption, and network effects—not features (App.net sounds like a Boomer social network). Twitter is so well-established that introducing a premium paid version would be de-facto successful—if done properly, not like Twitter Blue—for producing revenue. Especially because so many people rely on it to communicate. A rough example: Twitter Basic = Free. Follow up to 50 people. Bookmark up to 100 tweets. 140 character limit. Ad supported. Twitter Pro = $5/month. Follow up to 500 people. Unlimited bookmarking. 280 character limit. Up to 10 minute videos. Customized ads. Twitter Business = $10/month. Follow up to 2500 people + all of the above. Twitter Elite = $15/month. Elite Checkmark, unlimited follows, all of the above, + 420 character limit and up to 30 minute videos. --- It can certainly be done, but it requires creativity and speed. Both of which waved bye bye to Silicon Valley about 10 years ago so it will likely be a mediocre version of the above at best.
      - etchalon 4y ago
        Social networks work because people enjoy using them. As people tell their friends about the network, they use it, and network effects allow it to grow. As it grows, its brand is established. Twitter is a distant fourth or fifth place network because, as it is, most people do not enjoy using it. Its Brand is wildly seen as synonymous with toxic parts of our culture. And your plan is to make it worse and then charge people to use it. OK.