0
19

[–] Crashmarik 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

What do you know censorship and a chat platform don't mix.

0
5

[–] Vhaine 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The article suggested further declines in revenue are the result of not enough censorship. I had hope right up until that point.

0
4

[–] Crashmarik 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Hop on GAB.

0
14

[–] the_sharpest_knife 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Everyone who has ever paid for ads on twitter should get together and sue for every bot that counted as a view or click. It would get rid of the bot problem on every platform that sells ads.

0
8

[–] Atroce 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

This prick turned Twitter into a hugh box for verified accounts.

Hope he gets booted.

0
5

[–] peacegnome 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

naw, the company should die so that something else can do it right for a while.

0
7

[–] RamblinRambo 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

There's reason to think that they also fiddled with their user count when they did their IPO and that the giant botnet found of twitter was their own creation.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603404/cybersecurity-experts-uncover-dormant-botnet-of-350000-twitter-accounts/

They were all created the same year as the Twitter IPO. The first day trading started was November 7, 2013. Twitter announced on September 12, 2013 that it had filed with the SEC. The creation of new accounts to this "botnet" stopped July 14, 2013. Conveniently a few months before the filing was made.

It begs the question if it wasn't just Twitter themselves creating these accounts to show growth. As number of accounts was one of the things they mentioned in their filing.

Looking at the parameters investors look at when it comes to Twitter and other social media companies, it's the growth in user base that's important. As well as their activity. But usually it tends to be new users that's the important bit until a company reaches levels such as facebook and where activity becomes a key factor as it ties into monetisation.

It is very possible that they created their own accounts by the millions just to boost the books. Something smells here and badly. The timing is just too much of a coincidence. If that's the case then someone's in trouble.

0
7

[–] aaronC 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Twitter is flawed from the inside. There is no negative reinforcement for bad behavior on the site, besides being banned or blocked. On places like reddit and voat, you're expected to behave and fit in, or else you'll get bombarded with downvotes. Twitter has no mechanisms like that, which makes it an absolute haven for trolling and pissing people off. And their answer to this problem isn't to create something that tries to inhibit that behavior, but to completely shut it down via censorship.

The other problem is the platform itself. It's designed as a chat platform, yet anyone can join in on an conversation. Coupled with no negative reinforcement for bad behavior, and there's no reason on Twitter to not barge into people's conversations and fuck shit up.

There is no fixing it, it's a problem with the core of Twitter. You can't fix it without changing how twitter works.

1
5

[–] RamblinRambo 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

which makes it an absolute haven for trolling and pissing people off.

Which is perfect. We need to get past this fucking safe space mentality. If you can't handle trolls, stay off the internet.

0
0

[–] aaronC 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's not even that. Consider a version of Voat where you could submit the worst clickbait that's unrelated to /v/politics, and nothing bad would happen other than people disagreeing with you in the comments.

Twitter was designed by people who don't believe in negative reinforcement to stop certain behavior, and the absolute chaos and shit that it is now is entirely due to that. The worst things that can happen to you on Twitter are being banned, or not getting a blue checkmark. It's not that hard to get a new account, even with phone verification, and the blue checkmark doesn't really do much.

The fuckup of Twitter's design goes well beyond the safe space mentality. But safe space types are drawn to Twitter, because the platform has no negative reinforcement for bad behavior, so they can act completely retarded and say the dumbest shit and nothing bad happens besides people disagreeing with them, which they call harassment and cry about. The platform is designed to appeal to people who normally get shit on, because the platform makes it difficult to shit on people. You need things like downvotes to let people know they can't be retarded and get away with it. Twitter is designed to be a platform to enable horrible ideas and bad discussions. Which, to no one's surprise, means a ton of safe space SJWs flocking to Twitter, only to cryiabout the one thing on the site that discourages them from being retarded in public.

That's just one of the major problems, the other is how it promotes low effort content over high effort content. We could never have an in depth discussion about a social media platform on Twitter in 140 characters. The whole of Twitter doesn't get it. They tried shadowbanning before, which completely misses the point. Why ban people for bad behavior if you don't tell them they're doing something you don't like (ignoring what we think is good or bad)? All you do is accumulate retweets and likes. To be successful on Twitter, you can just keep throwing shit at the wall and eventually your account will move up.

Twitter has massive design flaws, getting rid of Dorsey, while he's a piece of shit, isn't going to fix it. It needs massive changes to how the site works to fix it, but it's so big a ton of users will revolt if major changes happen.

0
2

[–] MMMT 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Honey pot is the word you're looking for. Twitter can't be taken seriously any longer without a full blown pedo as CEO.

0
0

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

any longer

You mean you took Twitter seriously?

0
4

[–] Zaqwert 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

MySpace, Digg, and Twitter

three peas in a pod

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Zaqwert 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

True, MySpace failed more due to its inherent shittiness than anything else. I guess I was just lumping them together because they were once online giants and eventually collapsed into nothingness (twitter seemingly determined to start down that road)

0
1

[–] RamblinRambo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Reddit.

0
3

[–] gazillions 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The entire culture of the company is childish. They couldn't be in the same room with a business person that wasn't as much of a spoiled brat as they are so they'll appoint another emotional retard. They don't have a choice.

0
1

[–] MMMT 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They're regressive to their core. Guess they're full of.. substance, after all.

0
2

[–] CeepsNo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think the entire Trust and Safety council should also go

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)