4 ms·

>> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds. >> Nobody says it is. I would say the choice of wording by the OP suggests otherwise. From the OP: >

>> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds. >> Nobody says it is. I would say the choice of wording by the OP suggests otherwise. From the OP: >> Twitter has the power to topple regimes, but by following advertising dollars they are building a walled garden and making anti-competative (link to: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/08/17/twitter-4/ http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/08/17/twitter-4/) decisions. If I'm not mistaken, the OP characterizes Twitter's imposing of developer unfriendly guidelines as anti-competitive, which it is not. If Twitter was being anti-competitive, they would be preventing competing platforms like App.Net from existing - and that's not what's happening. Limiting what is essentially a "free ride" is not anticompetitive. From the same paragraph: >> It does not bode well for our world that such a commercially driven company should wield so much power and be the epicenter of global conversation. As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven. Twitter wields power because people like to use it. But so does Facebook. That the author tried to "build a business on Twitter’s platform for the past 3 years" and then be upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little sour grapes on his part. Further: >> Dalton Caldwell has an interesting idea, but I don’t think it will end the Twitter monopoly While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a monopoly on "status updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+ is also a well funded competitor to Twitter.

icebraining 14y ago
the OP characterizes Twitter's imposing of developer unfriendly guidelines as anti-competitive, which it is not I don't see how such characterization, accurate or not, mean that OP says the world is entitled to what Twitter builds. As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven. Firstly, I still don't see how does that tie to my post. I wasn't making an apology of the article. That said, OP did use a qualifier ("such"). I'd claim that there are less commercially driven companies, e.g. Canonical. Twitter wields power because people like to use it. People like to use Gmail too, but if they kick you out, you can still communicate with everyone there. Twitter wields power because it's a locked-in system. But so does Facebook. So? That the author tried to "build a business on Twitter’s platform for the past 3 years" and then be upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little sour grapes on his part. That's called an ad-hominem fallacy. The fact that he may be pissed does not make him wrong. While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a monopoly on "status updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+ is also a well funded competitor to Twitter. Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post. So to requote your original post. >> >> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds. >> Nobody says it is. Let me put it more succinctly. My interpretation is that the OP is basically saying that the world is entitled to anything Twitter builds. My subsequent quotes weren't so much related to rebutting you but to highlight the parts of the OP that I felt supported my point.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I understand your interpretation; I just don't see how is it supported by the article, particularly by the points you've quoted.

icebraining 14y ago

the OP characterizes Twitter's imposing of developer unfriendly guidelines as anti-competitive, which it is not I don't see how such characterization, accurate or not, mean that OP says the world is entitled to what Twitter builds. As far as I know, all companies are commercially driven. Firstly, I still don't see how does that tie to my post. I wasn't making an apology of the article. That said, OP did use a qualifier ("such"). I'd claim that there are less commercially driven companies, e.g. Canonical. Twitter wields power because people like to use it. People like to use Gmail too, but if they kick you out, you can still communicate with everyone there. Twitter wields power because it's a locked-in system. But so does Facebook. So? That the author tried to "build a business on Twitter’s platform for the past 3 years" and then be upset by Twitter's change of heart suggests a little sour grapes on his part. That's called an ad-hominem fallacy. The fact that he may be pissed does not make him wrong. While Twitter is the market leader, it does not have a monopoly on "status updates". The last time I checked my Facebook feed, it was full of the same type of updates that Twitter provides, and Facebook is pretty popular. Google+ is also a well funded competitor to Twitter. Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post.

slantyyz 14y ago
>> Again, I fail to see how is this related to my post. So to requote your original post. >> >> The world isn't entitled to anything Twitter builds. >> Nobody says it is. Let me put it more succinctly. My interpretation is that the OP is basically saying that the world is entitled to anything Twitter builds. My subsequent quotes weren't so much related to rebutting you but to highlight the parts of the OP that I felt supported my point.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I understand your interpretation; I just don't see how is it supported by the article, particularly by the points you've quoted.