The downfall of Twitter/the rise of X

[Skeever]

I still think Facebook's original idea (well, not original-original, I've heard it was a bit creepy) would have worked just fine. Stay in touch with friends and long-lost acquaintances. I mean, even with the best of intentions, it's hard to keep in touch with everyone, and it's dispersive to write a mail to every ex coworker, ex school buddy, friend that moved away, couple that got kids and are busy etc.... on Facebook you have them all there, you add only people you know and like (hence the term "friends" and not "contacts" or "followers" - take the hint, it's for friends, that's why you're meant to use your own name) and see what they're up to and share whatever you feel like sharing.

Yeah, agreed. Problem is that META care more about advertisers and using the platform to do social engineering experiments on their user base.

You expected otherwise?  I don't say that to be snarky or dismissive, but I sort of don't understand why we're not more objective - not the right word, I understand - with companies like this.  Why would we expect otherwise?

I think too many people are treating things like Facebook and Instachat and Snapgram like they are our metaphysical bedrooms, expecting a level of comfort, cooperation, and privacy that we should never ever be expectant about.

Well, I signed up for FB before I was a consenting adult. So, yes, I did expect otherwise.
I'm more seasoned now; I know that my social media profile is, basically, like a public resume. Gotta have a really vanilla presence that you use to say things like "Go 6ers!" and "I Voted!", so prospective employers, etc., can google me and see what I safe choice I am.

[XJDenton]

The joy of early social media is that it doesn't need to concern itself with being profitable.

Well, it DID or should have, concerned itself with profitability, and if it didn't, then we were really at the nascent "dot.com" period, where 95% of companies failed, and RIGHTFULLY SO.  You can't operate a company without being profitable; who pays the rent?  Who pays the salaries?  Companies are not charities!

The common trajectory of most SV companies in the last couple of decades is:

1. New, kinda cool idea gets a decent chunk of VC money.
2. Idea catches on and userbase grows exponentially.
3. Because of the rapid growth, company can draw in more VC money which they can use to subsidise the service. No-one worries because the service is still growing exponentially.
4. User growth stalls. We still aren't profitable with the subsidised prices/business model. The VC capital providers expect a return on investment.
5. Uh oh.
6. We now need to figure out how we can draw more money from the existing userbase.
7. User experience declines and prices rise due to the increased focus on monetisation and it infecting every part of the user experience.

[cramx3]

I still think Facebook's original idea (well, not original-original, I've heard it was a bit creepy) would have worked just fine. Stay in touch with friends and long-lost acquaintances. I mean, even with the best of intentions, it's hard to keep in touch with everyone, and it's dispersive to write a mail to every ex coworker, ex school buddy, friend that moved away, couple that got kids and are busy etc.... on Facebook you have them all there, you add only people you know and like (hence the term "friends" and not "contacts" or "followers" - take the hint, it's for friends, that's why you're meant to use your own name) and see what they're up to and share whatever you feel like sharing.

Yeah, agreed. Problem is that META care more about advertisers and using the platform to do social engineering experiments on their user base.

You expected otherwise?  I don't say that to be snarky or dismissive, but I sort of don't understand why we're not more objective - not the right word, I understand - with companies like this.  Why would we expect otherwise?

I think too many people are treating things like Facebook and Instachat and Snapgram like they are our metaphysical bedrooms, expecting a level of comfort, cooperation, and privacy that we should never ever be expectant about.

Well, I signed up for FB before I was a consenting adult. So, yes, I did expect otherwise.
I'm more seasoned now; I know that my social media profile is, basically, like a public resume. Gotta have a really vanilla presence that you use to say things like "Go 6ers!" and "I Voted!", so prospective employers, etc., can google me and see what I safe choice I am.

I mostly agree with Stadler's point about a company needing to make money, but Facebook changed quite a bit from when it first came out to when it started becoming an advertising business.  I get what XJ is saying too in this case because the user experience changed when the business model changed.

[XJDenton]

What do you mean "in this case"? I'm always the paragon of clarity.

[Stadler]

What do you mean "in this case"? I'm always the paragon of clarity.

...

[Stadler]

I still think Facebook's original idea (well, not original-original, I've heard it was a bit creepy) would have worked just fine. Stay in touch with friends and long-lost acquaintances. I mean, even with the best of intentions, it's hard to keep in touch with everyone, and it's dispersive to write a mail to every ex coworker, ex school buddy, friend that moved away, couple that got kids and are busy etc.... on Facebook you have them all there, you add only people you know and like (hence the term "friends" and not "contacts" or "followers" - take the hint, it's for friends, that's why you're meant to use your own name) and see what they're up to and share whatever you feel like sharing.

Yeah, agreed. Problem is that META care more about advertisers and using the platform to do social engineering experiments on their user base.

You expected otherwise?  I don't say that to be snarky or dismissive, but I sort of don't understand why we're not more objective - not the right word, I understand - with companies like this.  Why would we expect otherwise?

I think too many people are treating things like Facebook and Instachat and Snapgram like they are our metaphysical bedrooms, expecting a level of comfort, cooperation, and privacy that we should never ever be expectant about.

Well, I signed up for FB before I was a consenting adult. So, yes, I did expect otherwise.
I'm more seasoned now; I know that my social media profile is, basically, like a public resume. Gotta have a really vanilla presence that you use to say things like "Go 6ers!" and "I Voted!", so prospective employers, etc., can google me and see what I safe choice I am.

I mostly agree with Stadler's point about a company needing to make money, but Facebook changed quite a bit from when it first came out to when it started becoming an advertising business.  I get what XJ is saying too in this case because the user experience changed when the business model changed.

But read XJ's post; that you did or didn't expect something different, that FB was or was not something different doesn't make it right.   That sequence that XJ posted is unfortunately all too accurate, but that's part of the problem.  It's not that FB changed to something bad midstream, it's that they started at a point that was unsustainable from day 0.  I suppose that's not the users fault, I understand that, but someone wishing that FB was the same today as it was when it started is like saying "I wish my kid was like they were when they were three forever!" 

[King Postwhore]

People are so triggered today.  No on can scroll right on by.  Everyone needs to let everybody there point.  I see friends who post nothing but hate from each side of politics and I just scroll on by.  Seems to be a lost art.

[cramx3]

I still think Facebook's original idea (well, not original-original, I've heard it was a bit creepy) would have worked just fine. Stay in touch with friends and long-lost acquaintances. I mean, even with the best of intentions, it's hard to keep in touch with everyone, and it's dispersive to write a mail to every ex coworker, ex school buddy, friend that moved away, couple that got kids and are busy etc.... on Facebook you have them all there, you add only people you know and like (hence the term "friends" and not "contacts" or "followers" - take the hint, it's for friends, that's why you're meant to use your own name) and see what they're up to and share whatever you feel like sharing.

Yeah, agreed. Problem is that META care more about advertisers and using the platform to do social engineering experiments on their user base.

You expected otherwise?  I don't say that to be snarky or dismissive, but I sort of don't understand why we're not more objective - not the right word, I understand - with companies like this.  Why would we expect otherwise?

I think too many people are treating things like Facebook and Instachat and Snapgram like they are our metaphysical bedrooms, expecting a level of comfort, cooperation, and privacy that we should never ever be expectant about.

Well, I signed up for FB before I was a consenting adult. So, yes, I did expect otherwise.
I'm more seasoned now; I know that my social media profile is, basically, like a public resume. Gotta have a really vanilla presence that you use to say things like "Go 6ers!" and "I Voted!", so prospective employers, etc., can google me and see what I safe choice I am.

I mostly agree with Stadler's point about a company needing to make money, but Facebook changed quite a bit from when it first came out to when it started becoming an advertising business.  I get what XJ is saying too in this case because the user experience changed when the business model changed.

But read XJ's post; that you did or didn't expect something different, that FB was or was not something different doesn't make it right.   That sequence that XJ posted is unfortunately all too accurate, but that's part of the problem.  It's not that FB changed to something bad midstream, it's that they started at a point that was unsustainable from day 0.  I suppose that's not the users fault, I understand that, but someone wishing that FB was the same today as it was when it started is like saying "I wish my kid was like they were when they were three forever!"

Of course it was unsustainable.  And I'm not entirely sure I would want it to still be the same either way.  It's more that in 2005 there was an innocence to all this.  I recall not being a fan of letting anyone use facebook and not just people with .edu emails.  It was necessary change for the company, but it felt like it was already tearing apart what was enjoyable about it. If it was the same today as it was back then, would I use it?  Honestly, probably not.  I feel like all apps need to evolve before going stale.  I just don't like the way Facebook did evolve.  To tie in to twitter, while I'm pretty strong in not letting the headlines interfere with my use of the it, I have to acknowledge there is likely change coming that may better or worsen the experience likely be driven by money.

[KevShmev]

Well, it DID or should have, concerned itself with profitability, and if it didn't, then we were really at the nascent "dot.com" period, where 95% of companies failed, and RIGHTFULLY SO.  You can't operate a company without being profitable; who pays the rent?  Who pays the salaries?  Companies are not charities!

Agreed, which is why I am chuckling at those bitching about the $8 for the blue checkmark thing.  Aw, the politicians and celebs are upset they won't get a free site to spread their massive influence anymore...for shame.  Gimme a break. 

[cramx3]

Well, it DID or should have, concerned itself with profitability, and if it didn't, then we were really at the nascent "dot.com" period, where 95% of companies failed, and RIGHTFULLY SO.  You can't operate a company without being profitable; who pays the rent?  Who pays the salaries?  Companies are not charities!

Agreed, which is why I am chuckling at those bitching about the $8 for the blue checkmark thing.  Aw, the politicians and celebs are upset they won't get a free site to spread their massive influence anymore...for shame.  Gimme a break.

I think the bigger issue with celebrity check marks were that it meant it's a verified account so people don't get scammed from fake accounts.  I also do think that some celebrities add a lot of value to twitter.  It's one of my favorite reasons to be active there.  I've interacted with quite a few of my favorite musicians for example.  Having said that, I do think celebrities are the least of the people who should complain about $8 though.  The celebs will have their following and influence regardless of the check mark.

[KevShmev]

I think the bigger issue with celebrity check marks were that it meant it's a verified account so people don't get scammed from fake accounts.  I also do think that some celebrities add a lot of value to twitter.  It's one of my favorite reasons to be active there.  I've interacted with quite a few of my favorite musicians for example.  Having said that, I do think celebrities are the least of the people who should complain about $8 though.  The celebs will have their following and influence regardless of the check mark.

True, and I think the door swings both ways.  It's an advantage for both Twitter and the celebs/politicians to have the latter there.  I can't remember who the first sitting president was to be on Twitter (feels like it had to be Obama), but I remember thinking of how powerful Twitter had gotten when even the President is on there and active.

[Implode]

Whoa. Did this get pinned on purpose?

[Anguyen92]

So I'm seeing now under the title of accounts I follow that has the blue checkmark, "Official."  Is that something Twitter put in so that we know this is their actual account?

[Implode]

And it's gone already.

[cramx3]

Whoa. Did this get pinned on purpose?

 

[XJDenton]

Whoa. Did this get pinned on purpose?

 

Apparently I did this at 9pm last night, which is odd seeing as I was 3 drinks in at the pub at that time.

In summary: no.

[cramx3]

Cheers 

[lonestar]

Seems Twitter added a gray checkmark for official govt and major brand accounts accounts, only to have Elon cancel it a few hours later. This company may have six cans, but it's definitely missing the little plastic turtle killer that holds them together. 

[XJDenton]

Elon Musk is a true alpha male, in the sense any feature he suggests is launched before leaving it.

[King Postwhore]

Whoa. Did this get pinned on purpose?

 

Apparently I did this at 9pm last night, which is odd seeing as I was 3 drinks in at the pub at that time.

In summary: no.

3?  You lightweight. 

[XJDenton]

Beer is like $10 a glass in Sweden. My phone touchscreen has been randomly registering clicks recently, I think it due to that.

[King Postwhore]

That's what I pay for a decent bourbon when I'm out.

[Implode]

ITT: Drunken modding

Still bettering than whatever Elon is doing.

[El Barto]

The official check was yanked by Elon. The fact that he's running this through realtime trial and error is fascinating. It's the same approach he and the Rooskies use in rocket engineering. And he's learning quickly. The problem still remains that he's only taking Twitter to exactly the place it was before he upended it. It seems he'll get there much quicker than originally predicted, but he's still burning a great deal of goodwill in both his and Twitter's brand. Basically, he looks like a dufus.

[ProfessorPeart]

[dparrott]

I mainly use it to get sports updates.  Instant information and highlights. It's great when used correctly.

[hefdaddy42]

[cramx3]

  At work, we have this meme for when we test in prod:

[XJDenton]

At work, we have this meme for when we test in prod:

It's older meme sir, but it checks out.

[hefdaddy42]

At work, we have this meme for when we test in prod:

Still one of the funniest things I've seen.

[jingle.boy]

So, Musk unloaded $4B of Tesla stock today.  No reason given.  Off the 2022 high by 52%.  Seems like a totally good time to sell .... if your investment strategy is buy high / sell low.

That' brings the total to $19B sold since he announced he was taking over the Twitterz.  He now only owns 14% of Tesla.

[ProfessorPeart]

This is quite the thread of verified* people on Twitter. Elon is a dope.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1590696859869536256

[T-ski]

I’ve been on the Twitter for years, best source for quick sports news around. But ya, you can tell just over the last week it’s going straight down the shitter.

[ReaperKK]

This is the story of life at my job.

[hefdaddy42]

This is quite the thread of verified* people on Twitter. Elon is a dope.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1590696859869536256

Glorious