This was one move by Twitter that I still can't wrap my head around. That was some prime real-estate Twitter had on LinkedIn, advertising the service in a way that few paid placements could match. It's not like I'm going to go to LinkedIn to follow anyone's Twitter activity on a regular basis; it's just publicity for the Twitter feed's existence and substance, so I know to follow them in a real Twitter client.
I still can't understand Twitter's strategy. The sharing of content is what made it popular, isolating "their" content will drive it to celebrity watchers.<p>I guess advertisers understand publish/subscribe better than social interaction.
The day Twitter broke this, I just wrote an ifttt recipe to replace it: <a href="https://ifttt.com/recipes/42950" rel="nofollow">https://ifttt.com/recipes/42950</a>
I'm still not entirely sure where Twitter is trying to go with the 'new direction'. I trust they have a cunning and well-reasoned plan, but honestly it feels a lot like getting bored playing a game of Civilization - You kill all your citizens, destroy all your infrastructure, give your money to the Romans, then declare war on everyone.
Twitter's disruptive potential is arguably greater than its cash-flow potential. Strategy shift to the latter might be net-negative from an buyer's perspective. They are also at risk of killing brand value, which is tied to the perception that twitter is a universal-fabric-of-the-intenet service. Once Isolated, they don't seem so scary to incumbents or valuable etc.
The question in my head about this data:<p>Is the spike because LinkedIn traffic actually spiked, or was it just getting misattributed as Twitter traffic?
Dick Costolo/Twitter is siding with REAL businesses with REAL money (e.g., going on NBC's Today show to advertise new iPad app).<p>Linkedin is vaporware with no revenue.