On Twitter, briefly

The "network effect" isn't some little thing you can easily solve. Like saying "building rockets is easy, the designs are all there, just solve the gravity problem".

[1] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon

To think of it as 'tech' and not the set of relations between the people is to misunderstand it.

Making that community again would be really hard.

There would have to be a 'very strong impetus' for it.

Trump is a very popular figure, and it's feasible he could be the basis for a new kind of social network, but as we saw with Parler and 'Truth Social' - he'll likely fail for obvious reasons. (And thankfully so).

And FYI - it's not at all obvious what would make a 'better Twitter'. Just adjusting the alg a bit, allowing 'more' expression, being better at spam - none of that would be enough for a 'new entrant' to make any progress.

Twitter feels less like a social network and more like just a tool.

...and before the copious amounts of illegal content. One other aspect that is briefly touched on in the article and other related writings (of which I cannot recall any specifically, unfortunately) is the virtue that is required of a Twitter user on the platform.

Twitter has a difficult time dealing with the sheer volume of illegal content popping up on the site (and I mean illegal, very immoral, not just something that can be handwaved as opinion - I mean things like e.g. straight up CSAM [0]) and I suspect that even if you solve the social network problems (and you have to solve that and try and get everyone over onto the platform together as whole social units, otherwise you have nothing but a void that people shout into), any competitor will eventually bleed itself dry with its "free" model due to the amount of money being thrown towards trying to close the floodgates, or at least stymying the tide of, incoming illegal content.

(Interestingly, I suspect this is true of any other social media platform as well, and I think once you try and factor in the costs and technological innovations needed to try and stop the problem, it becomes a truly impossible task to try and displace any existing giant at their current financial states.)

I do disagree on the millionaire bit, though - perhaps billionaire would be more apt for one to solve all the issues that social media can encounter given the kinds of valuations these platforms pull.

[0] https://endsexualexploitation.org/twitter/

For any Twitter competitor to work, they need a hook to get people to actually use it instead of Twitter. It's hard to think of a really good one. People who feel they have been too censored on Twitter are a possible source, but then the people who were enthusiastic about censoring them go on the attack at any new site, making them have to address a lot of hard problems earlier than otherwise.

Not to mention being able to get top-tier software engineers to work there instead of Twitter or any other company.

Isn't that what Yo, Secret, and all those other long-dead flashes in the pan were? 2014 VC decks were probably full of pitches for the next big thing in social media.

If anyone out there is on the fence, please try it. Quit for 60 days—long enough to break the addiction—and see how you feel and whether you actually miss it.

The lack of gamification (upvote buttons and the like) is probably one of the reason many moved from forums to Facebook groups and Twitter.

Now, reading an article about stoicism from the perspective of a Silicon Valley techbro or VC? That's real pain.

It's the closest thing to hacking the world's hive-mind, however cobbled together it is. IMHO the more people that use it the better. We can create a sort of better noosphere[0] than the current one.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

Whatever takes its place will likely be a shadow of Twitter’s size, and risks being confined to smaller demographics. These are all features, not bugs.

We will one day look back at this time and see how insane it is to take a website with a freeform, limited size text input field so seriously.

I am not on twitter.

Neither are billions of global human beings.

b) I don't think the powers that be really believe this is such a good thing.

c) Musk is bad for Twitter, almost assuredly. He could feasibly bring some operational rigour, 'more and better ads' meaning more profit - but I'm extremely doubtful that he will make Twitter better in the civic sense.

The best answer to Twitter is mostly just 'less Twitter'.

I've had Twitter account for more than 10 years and hardly ever used it. The war in Ukraine however, has instantly addicted me to it, what with news coming 'straight from the front lines'.

I have found this to be immensely valuable - though a bit too much to handle.

That said, stepping back, even the 'thoughtful comment's are 95% fleeting and rubbish.

Finally - only a small % of people use Twitter. Most people could give a shit. I think that distinction is important.

Imagine if you have all the journalists, NGOs, academics - people who are addicted to talking, ideas, their own voices, to 'making a name' - and now send them to one giant conference where they can yell at each other. Most people could care less and wouldn't ever want to participate.

In the end, if something on Twitter is important enough - it will make the news and you'll hear about it.

To people whose brokerage accounts have 8-digit balances, that is probably not too far away from what they meant.