4 ms·

I think it's all in the algorithm and software implementation. Maybe you use #news, or maybe you implement a voting system, maybe there is some kind of revenue

I think it's all in the algorithm and software implementation. Maybe you use #news, or maybe you implement a voting system, maybe there is some kind of revenue sharing or identity/trust model.. something... Realtime photo/video/text is where it's going, the question is how we get there. You're right that it's scary if that is our only news source, but that doesn't mean "real journalists" won't come in and back-fill relevant events with more details. How the heck they will make money is the big question to me.

natrius 17y ago
Photos and videos of events before news crews get there are definitely very valuable. Getting those things in real time isn't very valuable in my opinion. After all these years of spam filter development, I still get spam regularly. I don't think there's a way to deliver news from Twitter to people in real time with more accuracy than spam filters, and that would be annoying. Again, I don't think that many people use the breaking news text messaging services that already exist and are curated by human beings. The Twitter messages and pictures when the plane landed in the Hudson River were awesome. I didn't care that I only saw them hours after the fact. I don't think anyone else cared either. It might have been nice to get them in real time, but not at the cost of noise. Noise is impossible to reduce to a manageable level when you're text messaging people because it interrupts whatever they're doing. You could send emails instead, but then you either are still interrupting people who check their email constantly, or you're losing the real time aspect.