On Twitter, the planned changes, Twitter strike, blacklegs and know-it-alls
This week Twitter went public with the news that they are going to roll out changes to the users' time-lines (TLs). They want to use an algorithm similar to Facebook's to filter the content the user is going to see according to their interests, abandon the chronological approach and basically kill the TL in order to create a "news feed".
No one I follow likes this idea. Of course not. As these tweets say it best:
Now there are several issues I have with people's reactions to this.
1.
Some people came up with the idea of a Twitter strike which took place today between 10 and 12 am and even though I'm actually with those people who thought this was a rather helpless attempt and probably useless, I'm NOT with those who then mocked this strike by tweeting extra much, joking that maybe now there'd be tweeted more than ever.
Hey, there's a VERY slim chance a "strike" could actually have been perceived by Twitter. And IF then that would have been a sign towards "Hey, LISTEN! We are trying to tell you something important."
But that REALLLY slim chance has leisurely been thwarted by people who didn't gain a thing for themselves by their childish "What are you doing? Haha, that's silly, let me destroy it because I can" attitude.
2.
A big argument of theirs, after the "no-one will notice this anyway" which was then probably proven right by their sabbotage (but we'll never know...) was (I'm paraphrasing many tweets I've read today here):
"A strike is only a strike if you can apply capitalist pressure, i.e. withhold your workforce. Twitter is free, bitches, you all just get to use it for free, you don't even have the right to complain about anything."
Really?
Wow, how stupid of Twitter to exist at all, then...
Or do they make money, wait - they DO make money! From the advertising. If you want to read details, here are some details: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24397472
Personally I'm even in awe that they don't even offer users to get the ad-free experience by buying a "Plus Membership" of sorts - my guess is that it's way more lucrative for them to sell their "sponsored" content and their customers (the companies giving them money so their advert tweets are pushed into people's TLs) know EVERYONE will get them.
That's right, we are not Twitter's customers, you got that much right. We are their goods. And now go back to that BBC article I linked above and the sentence
"Anything that disrupts the user experience might reduce engagement from users, which in turn can put off advertisers, Ms O'Reilly says."
Those planned changes to destroy the chronological time lines will disrupt the user experience quite a bit, I'd say. So we DO have something to bargain with and threatening (or, actually, telling them the truth) that we won't use Twitter anymore if they make it useless is definitely something that makes sense.
Some people, me included, are tweeting our negative reception of their plans at @twitter in the, again slim, hope that someone is reading them.
Twitter is a mighty tool with the power to threaten governments because it enables strangers to communicate with each other, tell the world about atrocities and organise themselves IN REAL TIME. If you take this "in real time" away you get something quite useless and only remotely entertaining.
I also wonder if this is a coincidence.
No one I follow likes this idea. Of course not. As these tweets say it best:
Now there are several issues I have with people's reactions to this.
1.
Some people came up with the idea of a Twitter strike which took place today between 10 and 12 am and even though I'm actually with those people who thought this was a rather helpless attempt and probably useless, I'm NOT with those who then mocked this strike by tweeting extra much, joking that maybe now there'd be tweeted more than ever.
Hey, there's a VERY slim chance a "strike" could actually have been perceived by Twitter. And IF then that would have been a sign towards "Hey, LISTEN! We are trying to tell you something important."
But that REALLLY slim chance has leisurely been thwarted by people who didn't gain a thing for themselves by their childish "What are you doing? Haha, that's silly, let me destroy it because I can" attitude.
2.
A big argument of theirs, after the "no-one will notice this anyway" which was then probably proven right by their sabbotage (but we'll never know...) was (I'm paraphrasing many tweets I've read today here):
"A strike is only a strike if you can apply capitalist pressure, i.e. withhold your workforce. Twitter is free, bitches, you all just get to use it for free, you don't even have the right to complain about anything."
Really?
Wow, how stupid of Twitter to exist at all, then...
Or do they make money, wait - they DO make money! From the advertising. If you want to read details, here are some details: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24397472
Personally I'm even in awe that they don't even offer users to get the ad-free experience by buying a "Plus Membership" of sorts - my guess is that it's way more lucrative for them to sell their "sponsored" content and their customers (the companies giving them money so their advert tweets are pushed into people's TLs) know EVERYONE will get them.
That's right, we are not Twitter's customers, you got that much right. We are their goods. And now go back to that BBC article I linked above and the sentence
"Anything that disrupts the user experience might reduce engagement from users, which in turn can put off advertisers, Ms O'Reilly says."
Those planned changes to destroy the chronological time lines will disrupt the user experience quite a bit, I'd say. So we DO have something to bargain with and threatening (or, actually, telling them the truth) that we won't use Twitter anymore if they make it useless is definitely something that makes sense.
Some people, me included, are tweeting our negative reception of their plans at @twitter in the, again slim, hope that someone is reading them.
Twitter is a mighty tool with the power to threaten governments because it enables strangers to communicate with each other, tell the world about atrocities and organise themselves IN REAL TIME. If you take this "in real time" away you get something quite useless and only remotely entertaining.
I also wonder if this is a coincidence.