And? Your opinion of whether that's bad is subjective, yet the people there are happy with the result (presumably, as they keep using/visiting it).
> Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work.
So in other words: "I'm too lazy to curate a non-threatening experience for myself which is my responsibility because the offense being taken is my own." Whether or not you're willing to filter things out that upset you is a personal problem, not a platform problem.
> Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with.
It's not. Twitter isn't creating the content nor are they financing the content (e.g. like a Netflix type model). It's user-generated which is completely random and subject to chaos. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't advertise there (hence why a pay-to-play option is best as it prevents a revenue collapse for Twitter). E.g., if I I'm selling crucifixes, I'm not going to advertise on slutmania.com
---
Ultimately, people need to quit acting like everything they come into contact with needs to be respectful of every possible issue or disagreement they have with it. It's irrational, entitled, and childish.
1. I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists.
2. It's a platform problem. If you make users do work they don't want to do in order to make the platform pleasant to use, they won't do the work, the platform will not be pleasant to use, and they'll use a different platform that doesn't make them do that work.
3. "If they can't handle it, they shouldn't advertise there." Correct! They won't advertise there. That's the point.
There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms, and those platforms are niche, with small audiences, filled with low-tier/scam ads and are generally not profitable.
> I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists.
A product exists with those properties, but not something like Twitter.
> It's a platform problem.
It's not. I don't use stuff like 4chan because it's not of interest to me but it is of interest to others. There's zero requirement for Twitter to be a universally acceptable platform (that delusion is why there continues to be issues around moderation), just like 4chan needn't cater to everyone.
> There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms
Right. And there's no requirement for Twitter to offer advertising. That's why I think it'd be wise for them to adopt a pay-to-play model instead of chasing that rabbit.
You seem to be demanding that Twitter adopt policies and features despite the fact the market has shown those policies and features will shrink their user base and their profit.
Demanding? No. I think it's a smart business decision and removes a ton of overhead and stress.
And no, App.net was Dalton Caldwell's halfhearted attempt (the UI was okay at best) after Twitter already had the network effect in motion (six years after Twitter launched).
There are no successful "pay for access" social media networks, and the argument that Twitter's dominance some how held App.net back ignores all the other social networks that succeeded despite being founded after Twitter.
Yes. The reason a social network works is because of its brand, adoption, and network effects—not features (App.net sounds like a Boomer social network).
Twitter is so well-established that introducing a premium paid version would be de-facto successful—if done properly, not like Twitter Blue—for producing revenue. Especially because so many people rely on it to communicate.
A rough example:
Twitter Basic = Free. Follow up to 50 people. Bookmark up to 100 tweets. 140 character limit. Ad supported.
Twitter Pro = $5/month. Follow up to 500 people. Unlimited bookmarking. 280 character limit. Up to 10 minute videos. Customized ads.
Twitter Business = $10/month. Follow up to 2500 people + all of the above.
Twitter Elite = $15/month. Elite Checkmark, unlimited follows, all of the above, + 420 character limit and up to 30 minute videos.
---
It can certainly be done, but it requires creativity and speed. Both of which waved bye bye to Silicon Valley about 10 years ago so it will likely be a mediocre version of the above at best.
Social networks work because people enjoy using them. As people tell their friends about the network, they use it, and network effects allow it to grow. As it grows, its brand is established.
Twitter is a distant fourth or fifth place network because, as it is, most people do not enjoy using it. Its Brand is wildly seen as synonymous with toxic parts of our culture.
And your plan is to make it worse and then charge people to use it.
It really depends on how you use it. Just based on your attitude it's clear you're engaging with bad stuff and then blaming that on the greater experience of the app/network as a whole. If you follow a bunch of politics stuff (which is inherently inflammatory) or seek out arguments with people you know you disagree with, yeah, you're not going to have a good time.
You can only follow bible quotes and motivation accounts and not once encounter any "toxic" behavior. It's 100% up to the user. Ignoring that is just ignoring reality (which like I said earlier in the thread, most people need to take responsibility for, but won't).
And? Your opinion of whether that's bad is subjective, yet the people there are happy with the result (presumably, as they keep using/visiting it).
> Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work.
So in other words: "I'm too lazy to curate a non-threatening experience for myself which is my responsibility because the offense being taken is my own." Whether or not you're willing to filter things out that upset you is a personal problem, not a platform problem.
> Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with.
It's not. Twitter isn't creating the content nor are they financing the content (e.g. like a Netflix type model). It's user-generated which is completely random and subject to chaos. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't advertise there (hence why a pay-to-play option is best as it prevents a revenue collapse for Twitter). E.g., if I I'm selling crucifixes, I'm not going to advertise on slutmania.com
---
Ultimately, people need to quit acting like everything they come into contact with needs to be respectful of every possible issue or disagreement they have with it. It's irrational, entitled, and childish.