3 ms·

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

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
        It really depends on how you use it. Just based on your attitude it's clear you're engaging with bad stuff and then blaming that on the greater experience of the app/network as a whole. If you follow a bunch of politics stuff (which is inherently inflammatory) or seek out arguments with people you know you disagree with, yeah, you're not going to have a good time. You can only follow bible quotes and motivation accounts and not once encounter any "toxic" behavior. It's 100% up to the user. Ignoring that is just ignoring reality (which like I said earlier in the thread, most people need to take responsibility for, but won't).
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

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
      It really depends on how you use it. Just based on your attitude it's clear you're engaging with bad stuff and then blaming that on the greater experience of the app/network as a whole. If you follow a bunch of politics stuff (which is inherently inflammatory) or seek out arguments with people you know you disagree with, yeah, you're not going to have a good time. You can only follow bible quotes and motivation accounts and not once encounter any "toxic" behavior. It's 100% up to the user. Ignoring that is just ignoring reality (which like I said earlier in the thread, most people need to take responsibility for, but won't).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]