Twitter has a unique position as a key point in culture and media. It's played key roles in BLM and the Arab Spring. It astounds me that they couldn't focus in on that and make revenue from that reliable core of people that, like me, turn to Twitter before anywhere else when something is happening. But I guess that didn't raise growth numbers, and that's what Wall Street wants to see. So instead they're making all these desperate moves, messing with the timeline and even considering removing the character limit - things that made Twitter special in the first place.
I can't help but think that Twitter could've gotten to where it is today without needing to shut down Vine, if it weren't so hell bent on being the next Facebook sized Internet giant.
> It astounds me that they couldn't focus in on that and make revenue from that reliable core of people that, like me, turn to Twitter before anywhere else when something is happening.
Yes, Twitter's role in BLM and Arab spring were invaluable contributions to history, but how much did they really add to the bottom line?
Even if it was a significant chunk, how much can random external events like that be relied on to provide recurring revenue in the future?
> how much can random external events like that be relied on to provide recurring revenue in the future?
That's the entire function of a newspaper, to transform random events into revenue via an engaged readership.
It worked on me. In my case, BLM was what turned me into a never-miss-a-day Twitter user. There was a whole set of American voices I wasn't hearing through my normal sources. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Exactly. Missing out on Twitter means missing out on an irreplaceable segment of current events. That is what makes Twitter the platform valuable.
To keep its current users, let alone grow, Twitter needs to focus on being the best possible place for people to find and post that kind of information.
Traditional newspapers aren't. But news as a category is doing extremely well. People read much more of it now than they did 20 years ago, and what they get is much more tuned to their interests.
Twitter in many ways replaces the editorial selection function of a newspaper. It doesn't write the articles, but it does let people get a personally tuned stream of news. It also in some ways replaces the opinion page; commentary on current news is a major source of tweets.
So yeah, they can't be a newspaper. But they could be part of what comes after it.
I think this is just more evidence that Twitter shouldn't have been a company.
I'm not saying that Twitter shouldn't exist or that it's not a valuable service, just that Twitter, Inc. is the wrong model for what Twitter is.
Twitter should've been like email: an open, interoperable standard where ISPs and other companies operate Twitter servers that federate with each other. Actually, Usenet is an even better comparison, as Twitter serves the same role in the 2010s that Usenet did in the 1990s. Back in the day, every ISP had an NNTP server, as did other companies like Forte and DejaNews/Google. Twitter should have used that model.
Twitter has a unique position as a key point in culture and media. It's played key roles in BLM and the Arab Spring. It astounds me that they couldn't focus in on that and make revenue from that reliable core of people that, like me, turn to Twitter before anywhere else when something is happening. But I guess that didn't raise growth numbers, and that's what Wall Street wants to see. So instead they're making all these desperate moves, messing with the timeline and even considering removing the character limit - things that made Twitter special in the first place.
I can't help but think that Twitter could've gotten to where it is today without needing to shut down Vine, if it weren't so hell bent on being the next Facebook sized Internet giant.
Not every kingdom has to be an empire.