I just disabled my Twitter account this morning - I've been an active and faithful user for 15 years. I've no faith in the new owner's capability to implement any good change. In fact, I think that team will ultimately make things much worse and then discard it like a very expensive toy.
Isn't it the job of the media company to ensure integrity? One could argue that every single user deserves a blue check.
Really well researched with arguments I support. Thank you. I guess we have to make other platforms work, or create the platforms. Thanks to Anna for suggesting Spaces. I have a friend formerly of Bloomberg working on his own app design. This is difficult to do though -- he's well connected but facing tons of hurdles. We can still use big platforms to move people to the ones where the true content is I guess. I wouldn't be sad if somehow people start reading longer text again...but I'm not holding my breath :)
This can't be emphasized enough. I think Twitter is making a huge mistake by not aggressively trying to verify more of its user base. Verification would help reduce spam and ensure the network isn't manipulated by bad actors. But beyond that, it would help with their advertising problems. They could require verified users to provide more demographic information (industry, earnings, etc.) so they could better target ads. Such a shame that Elon is in a defensive posture after over spending. I'm sure the purchase price and his debt burden has warped his ability to do right by the users.
The “verified” checkmark was always BS. Supposed to be “Content creators & influential individuals” (who “consistently publish original content regardless of platform”). Me: since June 1994 — before Twitter existed (not to mention Google!) My verification was rejected by machine. Didn’t even get the decency of eyeballs on my request. Their support for "creators" is bogus or, at the very least, arbitrary and inconsistent. Not many have been doing online content for 28-1/2 years. So NOW they want to sell the verification? Then it's meaningless and, as you point out, we're paying THEM to monetize our content ...for THEM. Nope: ain't gonna play that game.
Thank you for such an interesting and well -researched article. I gave Revue a go before Substack, and apart from several messages from (I think) their PR person, absolutely nothing happened. It was the social media equivalent of an Edward Hopper painting (e.g. Nighthawks) but not as vibrant.
I just disabled my Twitter account this morning - I've been an active and faithful user for 15 years. I've no faith in the new owner's capability to implement any good change. In fact, I think that team will ultimately make things much worse and then discard it like a very expensive toy.
But what do I know?
I fear you’re right. I’ve not deleted mine I’ve decided to take an “indefinite break” from it much like Meta with the exception of WhatsApp
Isn't it the job of the media company to ensure integrity? One could argue that every single user deserves a blue check.
Really well researched with arguments I support. Thank you. I guess we have to make other platforms work, or create the platforms. Thanks to Anna for suggesting Spaces. I have a friend formerly of Bloomberg working on his own app design. This is difficult to do though -- he's well connected but facing tons of hurdles. We can still use big platforms to move people to the ones where the true content is I guess. I wouldn't be sad if somehow people start reading longer text again...but I'm not holding my breath :)
This can't be emphasized enough. I think Twitter is making a huge mistake by not aggressively trying to verify more of its user base. Verification would help reduce spam and ensure the network isn't manipulated by bad actors. But beyond that, it would help with their advertising problems. They could require verified users to provide more demographic information (industry, earnings, etc.) so they could better target ads. Such a shame that Elon is in a defensive posture after over spending. I'm sure the purchase price and his debt burden has warped his ability to do right by the users.
The “verified” checkmark was always BS. Supposed to be “Content creators & influential individuals” (who “consistently publish original content regardless of platform”). Me: since June 1994 — before Twitter existed (not to mention Google!) My verification was rejected by machine. Didn’t even get the decency of eyeballs on my request. Their support for "creators" is bogus or, at the very least, arbitrary and inconsistent. Not many have been doing online content for 28-1/2 years. So NOW they want to sell the verification? Then it's meaningless and, as you point out, we're paying THEM to monetize our content ...for THEM. Nope: ain't gonna play that game.
Yes, to all of this. But what about Spaces? Seems like they are used by people and it's a potential success??
Thank you for such an interesting and well -researched article. I gave Revue a go before Substack, and apart from several messages from (I think) their PR person, absolutely nothing happened. It was the social media equivalent of an Edward Hopper painting (e.g. Nighthawks) but not as vibrant.