There's a bizarre focus on Larry Page buying it for whatever reason. Sounds almost like a plea.<p>But hey, let's imagine that's possible - why do we want Google guy to run Twitter, too. What does that solve? Google has already tried and "failed" in the social area, Page buying it doesn't strike me as some kind of panacea.<p>What this election cycle has proven to me is that the old media and rapidly more and more of the new media censors things they or various friends of theirs don't agree with, and that doesn't sound like a path to a healthy society to me. The media's problem isn't about being "Old", it's about trust, and expecting people who have built the modern landscape to take a different path seems naive.<p>There's no evidence that modern social or political discourse is made better by Twitter. Some people seem convinced that Twitter shouldn't just die as is natural. Why?<p>Twitter strikes me as a platform where the existing media and celebrities pat themselves on the back. Of course media would think it such an important tool, but the average person doesn't get value from it unless we really like to hear Donald Trump's unfiltered thoughts at 3 AM. Personally, don't find that especially compelling.<p>Edit:<p><i>The country’s pre-eminent newspapers, including this one, have long been controlled by families who have understood that the press is not just an ordinary industry, but a civic calling. Twitter is not yet treated as hallowed, but it has the makings of an institution that could be.</i><p>I find this in particular hilariously out of touch. At least we're now admitting that families control the country, but let's not act like what the press has been doing for some time now is is anything like a civic calling. This election wouldn't be a complete disaster if the media had been doing its job instead of entertaining or pandering. If that's the standard that the media is holding itself to, then Twitter doesn't have a high bar to clear.
Old Media has a Twitter problem. They don't have the solution.<p>NY Times is barely profitable. Some mainstream publications are in a similar situation, most are hemorrhaging money all over the printing floor.<p>Money is one thing, but what the established media are really frightened by is the loss of power they have been witnessing over the last few years.<p>They do not like it one bit.<p>"The country’s pre-eminent newspapers, including this one, have long been controlled by families who have understood that the press is not just an ordinary industry, but a civic calling."
So the solution for Twitter's problem is to find an idiot willing to pay $12 billion for a medium that many people consider the digital equivalent of an open sewer? An idiot who's willing to spend another few billion dollars to turn that sewer in a hallowed spring for journalism? And Larry Page is supposed to be that idiot? Good luck with that.<p>Twitter hasn't an old media problem, Twitter's problem is that it has a goal, but no vision. That goal right now is profitability, no matter what. Twitter started out as a micro-blogging platform, but the company seems to be at a loss what it wants to be now or in the future. They have something, but they they don't know what to do with it, causing them to keep treading on the spot. And treading water, especially sewage water, is not a healthy long-term strategy.
I can't believe how quickly you guys are jumping to the conclusion of letting twitter die. It has a lot of value for common people to report problems and make them being noticed. For example, I've lost the count of how many people have gotten a better deal with companies that in the first place offered them a bad service / product, just by publicly reporting them on twitter.<p>Also lot of people get a quick support response just by typing "@company problem" no matter what company or the problem is. That's an incredibly easy way for users to solve many of their problems.<p>The world will keep going on without twitter for sure, but the hole that it will leave behind will be noticed.
Man, as I sit here at this news aggregator, which funded another pretty good news aggregator, having come from yet a third news aggregator, none of which are Twitter, it makes me think.... eh, maybe we just let this one die.<p>I have said before and I'll say again, journalists <i>love</i> twitter because it's a (free) portfolio site for them that hasn't (as yet) messed with their ability to interface with their fans (although they're moving that way).
Twitters problem is simple, they are a router not a destination. The simple fact that you are linking to an article but not debating it on twitter unless you really hit some nerve is why they cant make money. 140 chars dictatorship have hindered them doing any real innovation and the puritans unfortunately have been able to slowly choke twitter.
While I agree with the article's intent, we're missing the forest for the trees. The reason a billionaire has to do this is because it can't be done with traditional business models.<p>Twitter is infrastructure. Rapid bursts of semi-trustworthy data for us to consume and consider, at our own peril. That Twitter has to change its core behavior providing that service in order to make revenue is the problem. The value it provides is <i>intangible</i> in current financial models.<p>When I talk about this stuff, I think the value or commodity of a thing Twitter is such that current financial models cannot describe it properly. It feels as if we need a different type of business model to deal with keeping the business side of these houses in business.<p>Call it a suffering coin, if you will.
The article makes virtually no logical case for its own claim. The example that Larry Page should buy twitter because it is great, is immeadiately under cut by the follow up reason. Larry Page is Jewish and Twitter is an extremely vitriolic place, especially towards people of color or minority groups. The "Old Media" problem is that no-one wants to pay for content. Twitter is less of "content" and more real-time news pings-- closer to reuters than NYT. If the author were to make the case they should go the way of Reuters, I would at least entertain it, but Twitter as a b2c play seems like a stretch at this point.<p>Twitter has an extremely viable business. They should try this innovative model I was reading about called subscription billing. The hail mary play is to ask users for $1 a month. Users would churn and they would have to limit adverts so their current model would take a hit, but it makes sense.<p>I think users would pay $1 per month per 160 char addition to their monthly limit. At minimum advertisers would. kill adds, sell tweet length. I get it Jack, you want to preserve the arbitrary SMS thing, but it needs to go before your company does.
While this is a valid solution, Twitter has to go into bankruptcy first for this to happen. One of the challenges of being a publicly traded company is that these types of creative financing through equity can't happen quickly.
I like how the article transformed my view of Twitter. I never saw it as a kind of newspaper without a filter and I think I like the analogy.<p>Twitter does give a voice to people and the magnitude of participation by people on Twitter speaks for itself. Weither we (or anyone) _need_ to hear all those voices is debatable though. Maybe some filter is not too bad after all.
So this article claims the problem with Twitter is that advertisers don't bring in enough money because of hate speech in Twitter. This is just absurd, any sources on that claim?<p>Why would advertisers care of the content? They are scared people would associate the company to the hate tweets?
Hmmm...many comments stated in the article sound like someone clinging to old legacy not for utility but for mere nostalgia...
"Twitter is a communications marvel..." << No, I feel the <i>internet</i> and the <i>web</i> running over it are communications marvels with applications like twitter simply being an (as in, one of many) application that was somewhat useful back in the day.<p>"Twitter is not yet treated as hallowed, but it has the makings of an institution that could be." << I struggle to classify any application that artificially constraints its messaging to 140 characters, as anything that could be considered "an institution". There's something good to be said for being succinct but 140 characters - nowadays - is just silly, i think. Mind you, not just because it limits the initial message, but I believe it drastically limits the possibility for further discourse and discussion.<p>"Twitter is the first draft of journalism." << I disagree. I would argue that systems like BBS or even early blogs represent truer electronic representations of "the first draft of journalism". I fail to see why journalism needs to feel beholden to a single, monolithic company. What about the Internat Archive and its wayback machine? I actually feel that might be a good (though not the only) representation of journalism - albeit inclusive of "civilian journalism".<p>"This computer-science problem — filtering out trolls — remains as difficult...technology would not only win back the advertisers who are fleeing because of trolls, but also, if shared, enable newspapers to reopen their comments’ sections at their own websites, promoting the airing of differing views in public space." << While I can't speak to the advertising aspect, here's one method to provide for airing of different views <i>while</i> helping to de-anonymize trolls (at least a little, which might lessen their flames): don't have everyone jump into yet another walled garden; instead have everyone build up their own decentralized social network presence. So everyone has a presence online - either managed through their own website which runs a decentralized social network application/software, or maybe they pay a small fee to group onto a small community...this would help mitigate from a single platform failing and bringing down the whole "first draft journalism". This would also give each user the freedom to express themselves - without any constraints from twitter, etc. Its not perfect, and i'm sure there would be problems, but i feel this is the better direction forward.
> Twitter puts no intermediary between speaker and listener.<p>Actually, Twitter puts ads, filters, and clever curation algorithms between the speaker and listener.<p>Now an IRC channel ... <i>that</i> puts no intermediary between speaker and listener.