4 ms·
Does it? Social media doesn't age well. Look at myspace. This will be controversial, but Google didn't get where it wanted/needed to be with Google+ and they
by TheCondor 3y ago
Does it?
Social media doesn't age well. Look at myspace. This will be controversial, but Google didn't get where it wanted/needed to be with Google+ and they ripped the cord out of the wall; it seemed like it was just google being google but it may have been genius.
I was also critical of FB/Meta buying Insta, I figured it was all going to somehow be Facebookgram but they kept it separate. FB is now for old people and Insta is probably at its peak. I will not be shocked when Meta launches a new video oriented application similar to TikTok or YouTube but somehow different.
Twitter has been toxic from day one, in fact I think the very idea of reducing discourse to something the size of a tweet is bad for the world. Lately it has been a cesspool, I get targeted political content that I absolutely never sought out, very obviously biased. That aside, do you somehow "rehabilitate" twitter? Or do you scuttle it and have a newness? Rebranding seems like the most realistic Hail Mary option, it can possibly be new without rebuilding everything. I don't think it will work and I don't really want it to, personally, but it's a bold play that is way better than continuing to watch it erode. I've heard 2 or 3 different media sources talking about twitter in the last week, partially about the "X" but also very openly about how it isn't the same thing and they don't like it. It might be too late when NYTimes podcasts are openly talking about how the reporters dislike using it anymore.
I'm not a super active participant in or consumer of "social media" but I can't remember one having a second act, once it was no longer "cool" it seemed like the party was over, did I miss one that reinvented itself? Twitter is not cool anymore.
- ipaddr 3y agoGenius would have been not creating Google+. Which makes Microsoft a genius for not going down that path. I'm a genius for not launch a site either. You probably are too.
- danudey 3y ago> I figured it was all going to somehow be Facebookgram but they kept it separate I'm still salty that they pulled out the Foursquare location backend and replaced it with Facebook's... whatever it is they replaced it with. Eleven years later and it's still less often correct than it was when Foursquare was providing the data.
- aaronsimpson 3y agoI've been on a Twitter break the past two weeks and it's been pretty glorious all things considered. The only thing I really do miss - and will miss if the platform dies - is that ability to be connected to the thoughts of people I want. The question of what happens to the blogosphere types if/when Twitter explodes matters a lot to me. Idk if Substack is the right answer.
- postmodest 3y agoAs a Twitter-skeptic for nearly fifteen years now, the single useful feature of Twitter was as a "global PA system", not a means of discourse. It was a way for people to announce events that might have otherwise gone unnoticed, or engage in public PR battles with monopolies and oligarchies. Which is a threat to the kinds of people Musk wants to be. Sure, sometimes those public announcements of events were "I hate minorities" or "yo look at my dick", but the platform was a global notice board that served a positive purpose in that narrow definition.
- mecha_ghidorah 3y agoAgreed, if I were to make a "good" Twitter (as in, one that isn't a hellish place) I'd make it so you couldn't comment on any tweets. People could post a tweet, people following that account could view that tweet in their feeds. Would it have significantly less engagement and be "less successful" than Twitter? Absolutely no question. But it wouldn't be as much of a ridiculous hell of shitflinging and people arguing about stuff with a small character limit and less than ideal amounts of context
- throwawaylinux 3y agoTwitter has not been some revolutionary (in the political sense) device since long before Musk bought it, if it ever was. Actually the opposite, it was shown to act as an arm of the states that support the status quo.
- justcool393 3y agonot sure it was revolutionary, but it sure was helpful for example for getting alerts to breaking news stories and such
- throwawaylinux 3y ago> not sure it was revolutionary, I'm sure it was not. > but it sure was helpful for example for getting alerts to breaking news stories and such Yes, presumably the breaking news that the government-corporate propaganda machine wanted us to see. Seeing earthquakes and mass shootings and the like a few minutes before legacy media was an interesting novelty but not much actual practical value and not something that will bring down capitalism/billionaires/fascists/etc.
- eric_cc 3y ago> It might be too late when NYTimes podcasts are openly talking about how the reporters dislike using it anymore. Nytimes is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They pretend to be better than something like Fox News but they’re the same thing. Their css and layout plus their history would have fools believe they are a good source of unbiased news. But they’re just as fake as the other news and cater to the left instead, which is anti-Musk for reasons. Also with twitter and AI threatening to displace journalists I can’t imagine they’d like it much. Not necessarily disagreeing with any predictions about what becomes of twitter/X though..
- rumblerock 3y agoThat is one hell of a false equivalence after we just saw what came out of the Dominion lawsuit / settlement.
- eric_cc 3y agoNo it is absolutely not. The dominion lawsuit does not have anything to do with how utterly biased the NY Times is.