4 ms·

> Why are native creators who bet your platform on day one not getting financially incentivized I really hope this never happens. It was one of the key decisi

> Why are native creators who bet your platform on day one not getting financially incentivized I really hope this never happens. It was one of the key decisions that ruined Twitter as it motivated people towards engagement above all else. Which is why even in sub-communities like startups or tech everyone is posting clickbait and controversial takes. One of the smartest things Threads has done that is unique is that it rewards users who reply and engage with the community versus posting popular content. It means all of the Instagram influencers have not been able to get much traction.

dukeyukey 2y ago
This is what finally drove me off Twitter. Not the acquisition, not the bots, not even the crypto-spam. It was the monetisation destroying any sense of good faith or genuine opinion. Just self-serving hot takes and engagement bait.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  I still do not understand why people feel that they are subjected to voodoo algorithms forced on them by Twitter. The only things I see on Twitter are written by, reposted by, or replied to by people I actually know in real life. You do not have to be subject to random content on Twitter! The only things that appear unbidden in my feed are ads, and in 2024 their inventory is so thin that there's hardly any of those.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Vanishingly few people I know in real life use Twitter. The issue I had mostly wasn't random algorithm stuff - I used the mute button a _lot_ - it's people I previously respected and enjoyed reading the content of falling further and further into the "post hot takes and controversial opinions for engagement" trap.
  - kristiandupont 2y ago
    It might not be a lot but I certainly saw tweets from Elon frequently until I muted him. I didn't follow him. I noticed this explicitly because he is so prominent but I feel that my feed has plenty of tweets from people I don't follow.
    - admax88qqq 2y ago
      There’s two explicit feeds on Twitter. “For you” and “following” One is theoretically good for discovery of content that “the algorithm” thinks is suitable for you The other is what you are asking for a stream of content _only_ from people you follow
  - jen20 2y ago
    For many years, Twitter would revert the setting to see a timeline made up of tweets only from those you followed, preferring to reset you to their algorithmic feed (“For you”). They stopped this at some point (pre-acquisition) but the damage to perception was done by then.
quillmatiq 2y ago
Author of the article here! I think you misunderstood the point I was making there - the "creators" I'm referencing here are the community builders who reply and engage, not the creators they're currently financially incentivizng from IG to post on Threads who "spam and scram." I completely agree with you - incentivizng posting is a terrible method to push good practices. But incentivizng those who are already invigorating the community (like helping with events, promoting other community member work etc.) is what I'm pointing at here.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  Twitter rewards replies and engagement, and all that happened is people starting posting stuff that made other people angry, and then fanned the flames in the comments. It's what got me to leave Twitter permanently.
jsemrau 2y ago
i am with you on this. A lessons learned from working on a web3 platform where people could earn to moderate posts, it doesn't bring the right incentives into a social graph.
CM30 2y ago
Monetisation in general is a double-edged sword for any and all platforms and communities. Letting users make money from their work is great in theory, but the end result is that everyone becomes significantly more greedy and selfish, hucksters and spammers run rampant, and the changed incentive structure destroys whatever value the platform might have. It happened with every forum that attempted revenue sharing, it happened with YouTube and Twitter and Instagram and TikTok, and this rate it'll probably happen with Threads too.

dukeyukey 2y ago

This is what finally drove me off Twitter. Not the acquisition, not the bots, not even the crypto-spam. It was the monetisation destroying any sense of good faith or genuine opinion. Just self-serving hot takes and engagement bait.

jeffbee 2y ago
I still do not understand why people feel that they are subjected to voodoo algorithms forced on them by Twitter. The only things I see on Twitter are written by, reposted by, or replied to by people I actually know in real life. You do not have to be subject to random content on Twitter! The only things that appear unbidden in my feed are ads, and in 2024 their inventory is so thin that there's hardly any of those.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  Vanishingly few people I know in real life use Twitter. The issue I had mostly wasn't random algorithm stuff - I used the mute button a _lot_ - it's people I previously respected and enjoyed reading the content of falling further and further into the "post hot takes and controversial opinions for engagement" trap.
- kristiandupont 2y ago
  It might not be a lot but I certainly saw tweets from Elon frequently until I muted him. I didn't follow him. I noticed this explicitly because he is so prominent but I feel that my feed has plenty of tweets from people I don't follow.
  - admax88qqq 2y ago
    There’s two explicit feeds on Twitter. “For you” and “following” One is theoretically good for discovery of content that “the algorithm” thinks is suitable for you The other is what you are asking for a stream of content _only_ from people you follow
- jen20 2y ago
  For many years, Twitter would revert the setting to see a timeline made up of tweets only from those you followed, preferring to reset you to their algorithmic feed (“For you”). They stopped this at some point (pre-acquisition) but the damage to perception was done by then.

quillmatiq 2y ago

Author of the article here! I think you misunderstood the point I was making there - the "creators" I'm referencing here are the community builders who reply and engage, not the creators they're currently financially incentivizng from IG to post on Threads who "spam and scram." I completely agree with you - incentivizng posting is a terrible method to push good practices. But incentivizng those who are already invigorating the community (like helping with events, promoting other community member work etc.) is what I'm pointing at here.

dukeyukey 2y ago
Twitter rewards replies and engagement, and all that happened is people starting posting stuff that made other people angry, and then fanned the flames in the comments. It's what got me to leave Twitter permanently.

jsemrau 2y ago

i am with you on this. A lessons learned from working on a web3 platform where people could earn to moderate posts, it doesn't bring the right incentives into a social graph.

CM30 2y ago

Monetisation in general is a double-edged sword for any and all platforms and communities. Letting users make money from their work is great in theory, but the end result is that everyone becomes significantly more greedy and selfish, hucksters and spammers run rampant, and the changed incentive structure destroys whatever value the platform might have. It happened with every forum that attempted revenue sharing, it happened with YouTube and Twitter and Instagram and TikTok, and this rate it'll probably happen with Threads too.