Substack Notes Launched
on.substack.com
on.substack.com
https://substack.com/profile/241262-casey-newton/note/c-1446... I’d a good summary. I don’t want to subscribe to hundreds of newsletters to see tweet (sorry, notes). But if you change that setup, it really is a Twitter clone with no upside to writers.
If Substack sees the above as an existential risk - which it might be if Twitter executes well, then Substack is replying by trying to do the reverse to Twitter.
Because they wouldn’t have the followers’ email addresses, which is a big advantage to Substack.
Exactly. Exactly.
Good luck to Substack, though. I'm rooting for them in this scenario.
So here's to them being a more pretentious rumble/truth/parler/etc...
Seems like the people doing the most things in my field have no time for drama and are busy doing stuff, while the ones that actually accomplish little have the time and energy for this.
> Seems like the people doing the most things in my field have no time for drama and are busy doing stuff,
Standing up for ethics isn't performative drama. I made my exit very quietly because I didn't have time for the drama of a petulant tyrant. I care that the tech I consume is open source or at the very least is guided by some principal of any good kind.
People spent months and a tremendous amount of energy discussing the state of a site that is a glorified animated wall of text, but it's not drama.
Sometimes I wish I could teleport this community to were I lived in Mali and force you to stay there for 6 months to re-calibrate your sense of what's important.
And there will be many moments in the future, when Elon musk will have upset more of its users. And substock will be there to benefit just like Mastodon is benefiting every day.
Disclaimer - I'm not on Twitter, but my impression is that a few folks made a large amount of noise for leaving but most people shrugged. Other networks mat have seen a temporary large percentage Increase, but a) how much of that stuck and b) a large percentage increase of tiny absolute. Umber can be misleading.
Basically, every 4 years, half of America threatens to move to Canada, but here I am in Toronto and I ain't seeing it :->
Who?
I have to say, that doesn't sound remotely convincing to the 220M+ daily users of Twitter who continue to use the platform since there was no 'mass exodus'.
It was more like a leaf falling out of a tree.
Anyway, I think it's more relevant that many accounts are now also syndicating to Mastodon, which makes it a viable alternative for consuming users.
It's far from being an exodus, but they are averaging 200k new users per week, which seems pretty good.
200k new users per week is... what, 0.05% - 0.1% of Twitter active user base?
Not saying one day it might not snowball, but it's been 6 months and I wouldn't call Mastodon an existential threat to Twitter just yet. I am tremendously enjoying and schadenfreuding the twitter melodrama, but even most people making fun of twitter/musk/socialnetworks, seem to be doing it on twitter.
It looks like neil does quite a bit of boosting (retweeting) on masto: https://mastodon.social/@neilhimself
However, anecdotally, my relatively static "following" count dropped from ~1k to ~600 over the course of the back-to-back Elon/Mastodon/Trump/etc events that were supposed to prompt mass exoduses. That could be 40% of the accounts I follow blocking me or getting banned, but deleting their accounts seems more likely in this instance.
Sure, I won’t subscribe to hundreds of newsletters, but a few dozen might create a good feed.
This notes thing looks like an attempt to pivot to an advertising based business model and I'm guessing they think they have "influencers" on their platform to bring in a decent audience.
If I spent 30% of my net worth I could buy a condo in the bay, possibly. Although odds are it would be worth close to that if I needed to sell it.
But many people spend 30% of their net worth trying to start businesses with almost no traction. Musk spent 30% to buy something known internationally.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
I actually find it perverse.
Further he was misled by someone feeding him incorrect information and promptly apologized for the confusion. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1633253950198624257
Given he continues to talk with the man at times (he replied to one of his tweets the a few days ago) and there's no evidence to support the idea that he did it for monetary reasons, other explanations are much more reasonable. Namely that it was a simple mistake.
I like Musk because he doesn't appear to be a woke tool. Is he a tool of a different kind? Probably. But I don't like woke, so I stick up for the non-woke. Is he perfect? No. None of us are.
1. I care pretty strongly about the truth. When I see people actively spreading incorrect information whether through malice or their own misunderstanding I think it’s important to correct it to prevent the deception of others, especially when it’s happened on such a wide scale. He himself doesn’t seem to understand that it’s important to correct this type of thing early so there’s no other option.
2. I care because a lot of the future depends on the success of Elon’s companies and people use tearing down Elon as an excuse to attack his companies. They’re doing amazing things for the future while being constantly attacked for it.
So it’s a double-whammy of self interest and my own internal mental obsessions.
Musk spent 30% of his net worth on it then immediatly burned 90% of the already questionable value it had.
What Musk did was just bad business.
citation needed
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65084254
[1]: https://twitter.com/ZoeSchiffer/status/1639737042828673024
That sounds like one of the least interesting things I could do with $44bn.
With that sort of money I could fund 1000 Twitter rivals, and after a couple of years combine the successful and interesting ones into a single rival that would actually do something better than Twitter.
You could fund The Manhattan Project ($21Bn).
And the Panama Canal ($13Bn).
And the Concorde project ($2.5Bn).
And the Hoover Dam ($0.8Bn).
And an Eiffel Tower, a Statue of Liberty, and a statue of Christ the Redeemer. ($100s of M)
Buy yourself a B52 Stealth Bomber (~$2Bn).
And a Hindenburg ($100M), and a Titanic ($400M).
And still have a couple of billion left over.
The announcement for the feature on twitter[1] literally emphasizes the lack of ads, pointing out subs are their revenue source, so that would be some 4D enshittification chess.
[1] https://twitter.com/hamishmckenzie/status/164362995302659686...
Guessing that’s now how they’ll pitch it to an acquirer once it takes off.
(I don’t think you’re wrong by a factor of 10, just curious where you got your number from.)
- Infinite scrolling feed w/ ads
- Video Substacks
- Infinite scrolling video Substacks w/ ads
Sorry to get off-topic, but is there a read/book to understand funding, VCs, etc., from a holistic POV. I totally didn't expect that consequence of having to raise a crowd sourced round due to initial high valuation.
You can be a stable, profitable, money-making machine with 90+% margins and amazing reviews, but unless you're doubling something (users, engagement, profits, etc) every single year, you go to the back of the potential-investment line.
A high initial valuation might be great for performance relative to other companies (or whatever reasonable metric you want to insert here), but it also makes it way more difficult to show "growth" YOY compared to a lower initial valuation.
- If you raise more money at a lower valuation than your last fundraise, it's highly dilutive. Investors paid $10 for 10% of a $100 valued company last round during the bubble. Vs. given current market conditions, new investors would only pay $10 for 20% of a $50 valued company this round. This second round would dilute existing investors, except...
- If you crowd source the funding, now you can raise at a $100 valuation again (less dilution), because these crowdsourcing investors don't know what they're doing
Was recommended to read this by VC friends to prep for Investment Associate interviews a couple years ago
The game works like this: the VCs want 100% of your company, and you want to give away 0% of your company. (Of course, 90%+ of companies will fail, so it doesn't really matter. But let's pretend we're all in that special 10%.)
If you do end up choosing to play that particular game, then you'll find some common numerical rules of thumb. They usually go like this: Each round should raise 12-18 months of runway, and each round's investors usually get about 20-30% of your company.
On one side of the game, you have the VCs, who basically play this negotiation full-time — and whose comp structure depends on extracting as much equity from you as possible. This is why we get the constant stream of "thought leadership" from VC bloggers, because they're trying to distinguish themselves as offering something more than capital. (And, having distinguished themselves, they can extract more % from you for less $.)
After decades of practice, VCs have plenty of hustles they can run. Some of the classics are the old "participating preferred" play, as well as the usual sound bite about how "it doesn't matter what the exact numbers are."
On the other side of the game, you have the founders, who basically want the maximum amount of money in exchange for the least amount of equity — but also for the least amount of time. Fundraising is a massive distraction, and VCs know it — which is why time always gets used against the founder, with long and drawn-out "fundraising processes" that (by total coincidence, of course) also happen to exhaust the founder and push them towards signing.
The twist is that this game isn't only for 1 round. Once you take your company into this game, you're stuck in it — you'll have to keep fundraising to keep fueling the growth that you've kickstarted using external capital. With the average IPO timeline being 7-10 years, combined with fundraising every 12-18 months, you can expect to play this game 5+ times on the way to IPO.
Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, the founder raises too much $ for too little %. You'd think this is a good move — but, since this is an iterated game, it's not all upside. Decisions in this round set the stage for the next round. If you can't live up to the growth expectations implied by the high valuation, then you're in for a "down round."
VCs have a standard "down round" playbook, too. They'll have their way with the cap table, of course — and it's also not uncommon to see some/all of the founding team shown the door. The press piles on as soon as they hear of it, which drags on employee morale as well as the talent pipeline, both of which then destroy product velocity and market positioning... it's very easy to have a single "down round" be the kiss of death for a company.
So that brings us all the way back around to your question. For this particular company — as well as for many others that raised during the "cheap money" era of the pandemic and pre-pandemic years — it sounds like they're facing this conundrum. Crowdsourcing the next round is a somewhat new way to tackle this situation — new regulations came out a few years ago, and founders sometimes go this route instead of risking the "down round" game with VCs.
You usually only see B2C companies making the crowd-funding play in the first place, since you need the name recognition and customer base to even try to raise money in this way. Because founders can essentially "divide and conquer" their investor base in a scenario where everyone's investing only four or five figures, the common scenario here is that the founder sets the terms to avoid the down round — and then they begin the fundraising. Since they're fundraising from hundreds/thousands of people instead of 5-10 people, it ends up being more of a marketing campaign rather than high-touch sales, which can also play to some founders' strengths.
Anyway, I could keep riffing for a while (and I'm sure others here could do even better). I'll let the other commenters chime in with book recommendations — I'm sure someone's written about these market dynamics in much more detail.
Why? What stops you from raising a $15m series A and only burning it conservatively until you hit neutral profitability. Investors only have 15-25% of your cap table and can't strong-arm you.
- VCs don’t want founders to own 0% of their company because founders need to be motivated to work hard to make it a success
- % of dilution usually goes down very significantly over funding rounds
- there is significant competition between VCs to fund good startups these days, which can translate to founder leverage
- there are early-stage VCs these days, which don’t pressure founders for quick growth
- founders talk to each other and a large portion of founders are serial entrepreneurs. Reputation among founders matters to VCs
- looking over the longer term of decades, typical funding terms are getting much more founder-friendly
That's really interesting. Do you know how they make that work, exactly?
I feel like that's naturally opposed to the standard incentive structures that VCs have with their LPs. They need to show results in O(years) so they can raise their next fund and keep the overall VC firm going over O(decades). That maps down straightforwardly to the day-to-day pressure VCs put on all their portfolio companies to grow as fast as possible.
Unless early-stage VCs are doing something new with the terms they give their LPs, how could they prioritize anything other than growth?
If the startup is showing good growth metrics, they'd point them to friends at later stage funds. If they aren't, they'd give intros and help get the startup aquihired.
“The Power Law: Venture Capital And The Making Of The New Future” is also good. It tells the story of the evolution of VC over the last 70 years. It is interesting that funding terms seem to be becoming more and more founder-friendly over decades.
It's not. Substack is very clear about that. https://on.substack.com/p/notes-faq
"The ultimate goal on Substack is to convert casual readers into paying subscribers. Because the Substack network runs on paid subscriptions, writers are rewarded for respecting the trust and attention of their audiences, not exploiting it like with ad-based social media."
"While Notes may look similar to social media feeds, the key difference is in what you don’t see. The Substack network runs on paid subscriptions, not ads. It’s social media with a heart transplant."
Would they?
No business would pivot to a dying monetization model unless it was their last option.
Advertising is not a solution for Substack; but rather a Trojan Horse.
Source:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1783191/000167025423...
I’d edit the post but it’s too late to do so.
When will we realise that blogging websites (not personal blogs) are not sustainable in long run.
Substack is already far, far more paywalled than Medium ever was. Subscriptions are the business model.
Advertising works there because of the numbers. People will quickly consume enough bite sized content to drive traditional numbers.
Medium broke the things that made them appealing in an attempt to sweeten the advertising sell, but this made the platform unappealing. It was a self inflicted wound.
To be more specific, advertising works there because of the feed algorithms. The platforms gather data about user interests and use that to tune what they choose to show the users, favoring things the algorithms suggest will get more "engagement". In turn, they sell ads on those favored items. On top of that, they charge both users and advertisers a premium to be featured on the favored topics.
Take away the algorithms that determine what content and ads to feature, and you get back to the basics of blogging websites. You get happier users, but no advertising money.
This is a classic case of VCs corrupting an industry with money that’s really not needed at valuations that really can’t be supported.
One can post a note without having a newletter, and you can "see notes" from a user without subscribing.
Twitter has been completely worthless anyway for promoting my Substack channel. In their Dashboard, it doesn't even show up in the top five referers.
Actually, this site is usually the best, and Facebook (the latter might reflect my audience).
Reddit subs tend to censor any attempt at self-promotion, which you can't blame them for, I guess. And StackExchange is the absolute worst. The level of asshole-ness there has to be seen to be believed.
YC/Reddit/SE being good/bad/worse for self-promotion seems to be 100% in line with the intended use of these sites.
Most of my readers come from HN, reddit or substack itself. Now it's mostly Python so it makes sense a tech oriented medias will be reading more about it.
Still, the ban on substack by twitter means that, while a #python tweet gets some view, the same with an article to substack tanks bit time.
So when I post it, it's congruent.
Basically, either you find a way to cheat, or you climb the ladder. I'm terrible at cheating.
It's always been very difficult to get people to leave Twitter. This is why their ad business is worth so little. Advertisers pay for clicks, and Twitter just doesn't deliver them very well.
Most other advert platforms try to say “hey mate over here, stop your trail of thought and look at this…”
TV and radio says “ha gotcha now let me force this ad down your throat”
However, if I link to an external article or something, the percentage of people who actually click on it is relatively tiny.
That's all I want out of these platforms. I don't care about decentralization or who owns it. I just want to read interesting stuff and not get pissed off in the process.
There's an option to just subscribe to notes and not newsletters on desktop, apparently, under the three-dots menu:
https://substack.com/profile/34072171-katie-substack/note/c-...
That UX is awful, but I'm sure they'll work it out in the coming weeks.
But Substack Notes allows for greater potential monetization (ick): TikTok style content, algorithmic recommendations, and ads. Especially ads.
I think it does add some confusion to the product if notes become more popular than articles / comment sections on articles.
Substack has a perfectly good mechanism for publishing (paid and unpaid) to support people, but that conversation is missing. It's a pretty obvious move if you are engaged with the overlapping users of Twitter and Substack, and has potential to peel a lot of people out of Twitter if they're primarily there to follow their favorite authors, showrunners, etc.
it certainly seemed to me like there was a good portion of twitter that was just people promoting their substack newsletters, and most of the people they interact with are doing the same. it makes perfect sense for substack to try to bring that under their roof.
The phrasing is weird though: “You’ll then start seeing more of their notes in the Home tab.”
More? Not all? Odd.
Notes linking to Substack Newsletters should convert better. Notes are networked "post summaries" that represent an improvement over the traditional blog homepage format. I see a play that could improve what they're cloning while also benefiting their core offering.
It has potential but the likeness of the clone is a bit off-putting for me.
That said, Substack showing writers adjacent to your subscriptions in Notes makes if feel more Twitter-like in a way that I'm not sure I like.
Substack will need to decide if they view Notes as a search engine with an RSS feed or a standalone social network.
Edit: I don't think their positioning is obvious yet.
I'm very disappointed in Musk for essentially ruining one of the world's great information platforms. Mastodon was just not the thing people were looking for. I hope this takes off.
This is my experience as well, and is the thing the higher ups at Twitter should be really concerned about. Low rent.
The content moderation is basically nil now so tons of racist content is propagated throughout the network.
Various technical bugs plaguing things - videos not playing, images not appearing, etc
The verification system has been destroyed which has allowed fake accounts to run rampant
The API has been wrecked, causing third party apps to stop working and massive amounts of research being done to be halted
It's really tiring to counter so much misinformation about this that flies about.
It's not just a one-time drop either, the impressions continues to go down. https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1613335965996810241
Hate speech IS up. The claim was "hate speech is up". Impressions being down matters to the impact of the speech, but the claim stands - hate speech is up. You can claim it doesn't matter (and I might agree with you, since impressions are down, people know what to expect now, and the increase is significant but not huge at this point), but you can't honestly say the claim "hate speech is up" is misinformation.
Edit: Actually, I had the claim backwards - YOU said it was DOWN, and you were wrong (according to the report). So to correct myself - the person refuting your claim was right, and spread no misinformation.
The visibility of hate speech on twitter is down.
- Ads range from obnoxious to downright scams. I know some people used to block ad senders as a matter of routine, but I didn't, most of the time they were valid and I was happy to support the site via their ads. After Musk, most ads vanished and for a while all I saw was Nintendo and SpaceX (!?) ads. Now there's many ads, but I block 95% of them because I REALLY do not want to ever again see the kind of shit they're pushing.
- Search, and content outside of my carefully curated list of follows in my chronological timeline, has become complete hell. I used to be happy to search for "stuff that's happening" in Twitter rather than google or news sites, but now the stuff that comes out is not only irrelevant, but often disgusting.
I still use the site but in a very specific and controlled manner. In that way, the experience is still good (bugs aside). I suspect at some point Musk will force some algorithmic crap down my throat and that will be the end.
So it's not that it's dead today, but how long can they make it like this?
Is that possible? Seems kind of difficult due to its nature, but I admit I'm just a very casual user of it and don't know much.
Signed up for the Substack thing. Seems worth a look - it's very similar to Twitter.
Twitter:
1. Search for Twitter.
2. Click on the first link.
3. Click sign up.
Mastodon:
1. Search for Mastodon.
2. Click the first link: mastodon.social.
3. Click create account.
4. Message modal pops up alerting the user that it is currently impossible to sign up to mastodon.social. But don’t worry, you can sign up on another server by clicking “Find another server.” At this point I’m confused. Why are there different servers? Will my friends be on the other server? Do we need to sign up on the same server? No explanation. I click the link.
5. Long page of options. No indication of quality or why I should choose one server over another. Now I am in choice paralysis. I click the first option (which has an anime figure on it). Surely - surely - the first option is the best option. The suggested option by whoever is running this application.
6. I land on a Korean language portal and I am done. I’m never coming back. Mastodon is dead to me. Forever.
You might think this is hyperbole, but I promise you it is not. I’ve been in charge of A/B testing and UX centric development for web applications just like this for a very long time. Mastodon’s sign up process is easily one of the worst I have ever seen. Not a single UX person has been involved in the creation of this protocol.
No one wants to waste their time connecting a constellation, they want to get to content as fast as possible.
Until that changes Mastodon isn't trying to be a serious player.
- Brutaldon: https://brutaldon.org
- Source: https://gitlab.com/brutaldon/brutaldon
Because Mastodon has an open API, you don't need to use the official Mastodon web client. Twitter upset a lot of users when it limited access to its API because many alternative Twitter clients were rendered useless.
Twitter definitely does not load without loading several megabytes of Javascript. Nitter.net is a quick and easy substitute that loads instantly without it, though some video playback still requires Javascript (HLS video).
Doing so also breaks all web applications (and web applications posing as websites, i.e. React rendering) so it's not something I turn on permanently. I usually only disable JS when my phone is running low and I'm not near a charger, or when I'm trying to read something and the terrible website hijacks scrolls/taps/somehow makes my phone run hot doing stuff in the background.
Not sure how to solve the HOA problem though…
When I show people that I can talk to Signal, WhatsApp, and Signal through a single app, they're pretty impressed. I wouldn't expect most people to set up a Matrix bridging system like I did, same with most Mastodon servers, but it's a feature people do generally want.
With Mastodon, most people first ask "but how do I follow people on Twitter", which often leads to pointing at bridges that may stop working at any point and have no official status, and often get blocked on small servers because of the overwhelming wave of moderation spam they cause.
Phone manufacturers back in the day used to have quite commonly used "social hub" apps that would combine various social media sources into a single UI, but they were all tied to their own brand that either got too difficult to maintain or lost the phone wars (HTC and Blackberry had quite well-received integrations if I recall).
The past years we've been stuck with a locked in ecosystem for so long that the mere idea of two different apps interoperating has become inconceivable to the mainstream.
I hope the DMA, which will force messenger apps to interoperate, will bring back the knowledge that it's possible to do so at the very least.
We're getting some form of federation of messengers and other technology companies deemed "gatekeepers" by the EU. Companies serving large user bases won't have a choice, so there's no need to go out am buy anything.
But reinventing something that everyone can already do (eg. tweeting) with federation is not a winning game.
I think they want it, but by an order of magnitude more, they want simple UX. Everything else is a distant second. UX is the foundation upon which everything else is built. Without an excellent UX, the audience will forever remain niche. I tried to just sign up to Mastodon, and it was a clusterfuck of proportions so unbelievable that I can't believe it has as many users as it does - and it only has a couple million users.
I think it's a good thing in the long run.
Twitter was a gimmick in many ways. Here, throw a few words out into the ether and see who notices.
That simplicity attracted tons of people. Then it became THE place to reach a ton of people, even though it's format for such things is AWFUL for it. It's a TERRIBLE platform for meaningful information dispersal, but it's THE place to be, so you see a bunch of evidence of that.
Twitlonger, people chaining twitter posts, just about any conversation, etc. Worse it eliminated a lot of things that probably shouldn't have died. My personal pet peeve is the death of forums, most specifically for games. Pre twitter you could find old forum posts that were pinned about just about anything you wanted to get into seriously. Dustloop had character guides with a level of info that would justify a thesis on characters in games that were 8 years old and hardly ever played.
That level of information is still found now, but instead it's tied to a hashtag, and then vomited out...never consolidated. Right now i'm looking to mess with a new character in strive, and while the GGST_BE tag is nice for "oh that's neat" kind of tech discoveries, it's fucking awful for actually understanding how to play the character or what's useful from it.
To be fair, that's always the case with a brand new character, but in the old days it was somewhat easier to keep a running tally of what works and what doesn't in a forum discussion, while twitter just doesn't promote that, so picking someone up waaaay after the fact is miserable. Discord is the other spot these things are now heavily discussed (with similar issues to twitter, although the forum feature of discord has helped a bit) and the wiki's are in theory where the data is consolidated but it's just a much higher barrier to entry and thus often you have half completed pages with outdated information.
In short, i'm hoping the slow death of twitter (IF it dies. The number of people saying twitter is abhorrent...on twitter...is a sign to me it's not going anywhere) will finally lead to people realizing that we want a way to quickly spread information among those who want it, but we don't need it to be in this shallow, vapid, character limited style. Sure that works for "oh hey look at where I am today" but it drives me nuts every time i see some essay broken into 45 twitter posts.
RSS feeds are an alternative tech that's honestly quite close to being what most people want, but it lacks the discovery/aggregation effect of things like twitter in most cases (inoreader kind of has something like that), and thus mostly still relies on twitter for content (at least it did until they nuked the API).
I’m happy with the destruction of Twitter. I think it’s a net negative for the world and we’ll be better off without it. This might be the only tech I’ve ever felt like this about (including atomic bombs). I think it amplifies and even creates hate and division.
It will be funny if ten years from now we find out it was a gawker-style takedown with the intent to purposely destroy something in a lasting and permanent way as described in Ryan Holiday’s book about Thiel’s purposeful execution of strategy to destroy gawker, https://www.grahammann.net/book-notes/conspiracy-ryan-holida...
PS- are there any other business/tech “case study” type books out there. I also liked Clifford Stoll’s Cuckoo’s Egg, John Brooks’ Business Adventures, Michael Lewis’ Liar’s Poker, Po Bronson’s Nudist on the Late Shift, and David Kaplan’s Silicon Boys. Looking for more of what I suspect is more common than I can find.
- "Hatching Twitter" by Nick Bilton (published in 2014, about the early days of Twitter)
- "Super Pumped" by Mike Isaac (published in 2019, about the early days of Uber)
I returned to Twitter recently due to great features like Community Notes. I don't see what people are complaining about.
Good luck to Substack on eating twitter's lunch!
Edit: That said, I've found mastodon (@jpmattia@mastodon.mit.edu) to be a much more pleasant interaction compared to twitter, so I'm curious what the landscape looks like in a couple of years.
By the time there is a dent, it's too late.
Its utterly ludicrous how so many intelligent and rational people are becoming un-hinged whenever Twitter/Musk is mentioned.
Overpaying, creating a mass exodus, destabilizing the platform, and losing tons of advertisers is "successful?"
Twitter on the other hand was bought with a management layer that could fairly be characterised as the opposite of true believers in whatever Elon is selling. Hence the implosion.
It's concerning that you're not.
2) All sources are cited so they can be easily verified by the reader.
I was very happy with Google but recently on my iPhone the Google website started nagging me to log in every time I do a search. This is a poor experience, add to that the ad results that have gotten harder and harder over time to distinguish from real results.
And... I don't recall this "everyone" that you are citing. Chrome launched when Google had a ton of good will.
OpenAI has $100bn+ from Microsoft, and millions of paying subscribers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/08/microsofts-complex-bet-on-op...
"Microsoft’s $13 billion bet on OpenAI carries huge potential along with plenty of uncertainty"
Somehow Microsoft found a way to make it worse?
I think that they are simply ok with making my life worse if it makes their life better at all.
It immediately took over my whole screen, in a completely weird way that no native Mac app ever did before (in my experience, though I don't use that many Mac apps).
I assume it has more telemetry than Chrome... anyone checked?
Then it showed me so much junk and crappy news on new page, it was pure propaganda.
That was the end of it. I know it’s possible to configure all those things, but the starting experience was soo bad I got away quickly.
Most of the time, my search queries are just to find websites. Like I'll search for "[movie] rotten tomatoes" or "[book] wiki".
I've found duckduckgo to be a good enough replacement for Google for such queries.
"You should look up global search volumes and Yahoo's share of it. There’s no dent" was once a valid statement. Same for Altavista, MySpace, etc. You can go from on top to the bottom very fast in this realm.
edit: typo
Once Google can’t pay-to-play in Safari and iOS they are in very deep shit. This is the classic thing with monopolies: eventually the “innovation” is just leveraging market power to deepen the moat by burning cash.
This is what happens when the CFO runs the damn company. Sundar has no vision, at all, and Ruth’s vision is the same boring Wall Street play book that put a hundred tech companies in the ground.
Yahoo used to pay for that, and to package the Yahoo Toolbar pretty much everywhere. I remember when it used to try to install itself with MySQL. I'm sure it helps, for a while, until it suddenly doesn't.
Fuji, who was also big in the chemical film business, came out just fine.
Replace "Kodak" with "Google" and that's the exact impression I get from friends who work there
It’s also institutionally arrogant, they really think they are the best, Jeff Dean and Urs are Gods, and no other company can do what Google does. OpenAI just destroyed that myth, yet on the inside they haven’t woken up to the change.
2. For non plus users, chatGPT UX is poor with slow responses, captchas and random logouts
3. All of this will eventually change
There is no more major growth for Google, which is all that matters to Wall Street.
It will go down slowly, but it will go down.
There are tons of free custom UIs to chatGPT by now, all vastly superior to OpenAI’s. No captchas or login screens, just paste your API token once and it gets stored in local storage.
And it does neatly summarize what I meant about the term “free speech” being abused: “ For them, free speech is when they can say what they want, and when you can say what they want.”
This is what makes Mastadon interesting. I'm not using it, but a lot of people I pay attention to are.
There was tons of /kick and /ban there too...
reality is pretty different, fb business is doing great despite all their missteps
Twitter has suffered financially but I’ve seen little evidence that they’ve lost substantial numbers of users — Twitter posts are still in news articles and sites like HN as if it’s still serving it’s original purpose despite the noise.
I disagree with the assertion that in 5 years these companies may be heavily disrupted but these darlings that preyed on the fact the incumbents were ossified, large and slow are now themselves ossified, large and slow. The cycle continues on.
In the particular case of Twitter they're being actively driven into the ground by a guy who seems determined to wake up each day and not go to bed until he's made some very poor decisions so who knows, maybe they will crash and burn quickly.
They're the reason I joined Twitter originally. The community is what I care about, not the social media platform.
It's down to posters vs reply guys vs rubberneckers. If those 1.2M active users are posters and higher quality reply guys, great.
Same goes for any sufficiently large population, but the outliers worth following still seem to be there too.
It serves the daily/hourly whims and mood swings of a single person who has proven to be petty, vindictive (to his employees), and devoid of integrity.
That lack of stability in my opinion accumulates.
Sooner or later it will balance out the momentum.
The "narrative" was right. There are actual outages now unlike earlier. It's not like twitter engineers were holding up the servers to the light for there to be outages the moment they're gone. Systems run on their own just fine, until something does go wrong. And if there's nobody there to fix it, something usually small blows up. Enough of these and users start to notice degraded performance and outages.
I think it’s due to more aggressive VPN blocking, but I’m not sure about it.
Elon seems to have given up; he's just doing jokes now like changing his name to Harry Ballz and replying to fake news from the fake news accounts he unbanned.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-perpetuati...
I use Twitter once a day and not every day.
I don’t have a monitoring service so this is the best citation I can offer.
In the last month I have experienced more issues than in the last four or five years if similar use.
The "Following" tab is showing only a fraction of your timeline tweets. Go to the "For You" tab and see an endless firehose of unrelated stuff together with some of the tweets of people you were following and were supposed to show up on the "For You" tab but didn't.
Not to mention tweets in private circles being shown in the "For you" tab
"twitter is working fine" is a bad take. It looks like it is working fine if you look at it for 30s, that's it.
It definitely feels less active and the conversation largely dominated by small accounts that are paying the $8.
How do you get around privacy concerns for using the big AI models? Run your own. How do you get around the compute requirements for training? Push to the leaf nodes. How do you solve for personalizing AIs? Have personal AI models running locally... And wouldn't it be nice if there was some dedicated hardware those AI models could inhabit...
Musks politics on their own didn’t create problems. However, Musk’s tolerance for hate speech sure as hell did. There aren’t many major advertisers were willing to risk having their ad show up next to hard core hate speech.
Nah, the dude is for his brand of free speech, which is you can hate the people he hates and you can do what he likes and you can stay on his website.
I've actually never seen that on HN before -- every flagged comment I've ever looked at turned out to be full of abusive language and attacks.
It makes me sad that multiple HN'ers flagged this. :(
The tricky part here is, as you point to, not wanting to see people abused is turning out to be good business. That's why Twitter came around on hate speech, harassment, and the like. Claiming to be the "free speech wing of the free speech" party sounds great, and it's appealing certain types of people. But at the end of the day, a place has to choose. Either you keep the people who want to shout racial epithets or you keep the people who they're shouting at plus the ones who don't want to be around that. It's the that nazi bar Twitter thread, but at scale: https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-k...
But back to politics. Racial resentment waxes and wanes in American history. Most of us know it went into decline after the civil war, during the Reconstruction. Many don't hear, though, that there was an upswing, known as the Nadir [1] that peaked in the early 1900s with events like the Tulsa Massacre [2]. This period includes the only time an American government was violently overthrown [3]. It waned and we eventually got the Civil Rights Movement, sometimes known as the Second Reconstruction.
We're now in a period that some call the Second Nadir. Racial resentment has increased, and the US's political parties have sharply diverged on levels of racial resentment. One of the biggest political divides is around being "woke", which noted liberal Ron DeSantis defines as "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them." The agreement with that also sharply diverges by party. And Musk has very much chosen a side, repeatedly rejecting "wokeism".
Most people can dodge or ignore questions of systemic issues; it's bigger than their choices. But Musk just spent $44 billion to buy control of a major system for conversation. In Twitter's CEO seat, there are a lot of switches to flip, and few of them have a "neutral" position. E.g., You have to pick between the Nazis or the people they like to harass. Same deal for the people who hate black people, women, Mexicans, trans people, queer people, et cetera, ad nauseam. The "woke" move is pretty clear here: you decide you want your platform to be a reasonably humane and inclusive space. The anti-"woke" move is also clear: you gut the anti-abuse efforts and turn the terrible people loose (perhaps occasionally nuking a few accounts when they cause too much bad press). All in the name of freedom, of course.
The problem for Musk is that's terrible for business. Even if you don't care at all about systemic injustice, most people find distasteful the ugliness that drives ethnic cleansing campaigns, digital and otherwise. The US consumer economy is diverse enough that businesses can no longer focus exclusively on the (shrinking) white audience; they want all the eyeballs. He's supposedly a business genius, so we'll see which breaks first: Twitter's financials or his anti-"woke" politics.
[1] known as the Nadir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_of_American_race_relatio...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...
That's not a quote from Ron DeSantis. From [0]:
> Ryan Newman, DeSantis’s general counsel, said the term referred to “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/05/desantis-...
There's no technically true - there's what you wrote, which was untrue, and what I wrote, which was true. Technically is entirely unnecessary in that assessment, especially when you go on to admit that DeSantis hasn't actually given an answer.
But if we're being extremely precise, something you are apparently very excited about, you'll note that I didn't say that Ron DeSantis said those words. I said that DeSantis "defined" it that way. Given that this was one of his closest legal advisors speaking under oath to a judge, I think it is entirely correct to say that this is their true definition of "woke".
As to whether the “anti-woke crowd” will never give an answer, I’ve seen plenty of answers given. (Cherry) Picking out one person who panicked[0] on television isn’t going to invalidate the many other times answers have been given. Again, I prefer the truth of the matter to fallacy.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/define-woke-bethany-mandel-conserva...
The reason anti-woke people generally avoid defining it is because once they do, they look at best ridiculous. Merriam-Webster has it as, "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)". Wikipedia has it as "being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice". That is not far off the Team DeSantis definition. But to people outside the far-right epistemic bubble, that just doesn't sound particularly bad. So to keep fundraising (and book sales) up, no useful definition must be given.
It's the same style of smear you see from the Civil Rights era, where MLK and the Freedom Riders were decried as communists. Were they? That wasn't the point. The point was to get people mad at vague and shadowy things. It was and is to activate tacitly racist whites against a boogeyman that is socially acceptable to froth about. So it's the literal truth that "anti-woke" means anti-"being conscious of racial discrimination".
What are you babbling about?
Here's one of my Canadian girlfriends defining woke, that I saw just the other day.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cp2650xsuES/
Already you have chosen a path of such tribalism that if anyone opposes anything you say - no matter how wrong you clearly are - means that you have to cast childish aspersions that are easily countered. Perhaps it's time to, shall we say wake up to yourself.
Nice rhetoric, but no you still do not get to censor people.
> The US consumer economy is diverse enough that businesses can no longer focus exclusively on the (shrinking) white audience
On your "woke", "humane", "inclusive spaces", I hope that celebrating the "shrinking" of the black population of any country on Earth would put you in the category of the terrible people... Double standards etc.
> hope that celebrating the "shrinking"
I'm not celebrating it. Again, it's just a business reality. In the Jim Crow era, businesses could ignore the non-white market, even be hostile to it. See, e.g., the Negro Motorist's Green Book. But most national-scale businesses can no longer do that, because the non-white market is much larger, as is the chunk of the white market that is reluctant to associate with open bigotry. And that part, I'm happy to celebrate.
Twitter has never had adequate restrictions on harassment. The were approaching it asymptotically for a while, but that's now in retreat.
> You are talking about censoring views, not harassment/insults.
Yes, I am also talking about censoring views. For example, views like, "the [ethnic group] must be exterminated to ensure white survival" do not belong on Twitter. For many reasons including both that they help shift the Overton Window toward genocide [1], and because it's really bad for Twitter as a business to have that shit running rampant.
> You core argument, that anyone is taking a "maximalist free speech" allowing people to harass others, is a lie.
Nope. It's sincerely held, so at the very worse I could be wrong. But I'm not.
Some free-speech absolutists are absolutely pro-harassment. Every banned jackass has a deep believe that their free speech trumps absolutely everything else.
A good chunk of the rest are just indifferent to harassment, generally because they're comfortable white men who do not normally experience harassment as a means of social control. Many in this group may be inclined to use it themselves when one of the lesser orders is out of line, but they probably wouldn't recognize it as harassment when they do it. See e.g., Manne's "Down Girl" for more.
And the remainder just haven't thought it through. They fail to see it as balanced with other rights, like freedom of association or freedom from harm. Typically, this is the adolescent (or frozen adolescent) view, where they don't have a theory of rights much beyond "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD YOU CAN'T MAKE ME". Which is, y'know, a start on an ethical understanding, but they haven't yet gotten to things like Rawls's Veil.
Regardless, anybody who takes a maximalist position on free speech, by which I mean an expressed or implied view that it trumps all other rights, is in effect pro harassment. Because any sort of platform that tries to follow it, as Twitter did in its early years, will be absolutely full of it.
[1] https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/pyramid-of...
Nice example of speech that is currently not allowed on Twitter.
> [1] https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/pyramid-of...
An insane slippery slope, from "Non-inclusive Language" straight to genocide! This is laughable...
> they're comfortable white men
What a weird thing to say. You're not like the other comfortable white men, that's what you mean right?
> Typically, this is the adolescent (or frozen adolescent) view, where they don't have a theory of rights much beyond "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD YOU CAN'T MAKE ME".
Belittling people does not make you superior. It makes you sound full of fear and resentment, which by the way is still not justification for pro-censorship positions.
> Regardless, anybody who takes a maximalist position on free speech, by which I mean an expressed or implied view that it trumps all other rights, is in effect pro harassment.
Yes, and anyone who is pro-cars, is in effect pro-car accidents!
It is an example of speech that free-speech absolutism would permit. And example of the sort of view that I would not permit on a platform I am running. And yes, Twitter and most platforms ban it for good reason.
> An insane slippery slope, from "Non-inclusive Language" straight to genocide! This is laughable...
A great example of the way free-speech absolutists don't engage with the consequences of their views. Which is why I'm done here.
Thanks for pointing out that you are wrong in pretending that Twitter is governed by this "free-speech absolutism" strawman.
> A great example of the way free-speech absolutists don't engage with the consequences of their views.
Calling normal people nazis doesn't mean normal people are nazis, it just means that you have a serious problem. It might also indicate, depending on how much control you want to exert on said normal people, that you are a totalitarian.
> Which is why I'm done here.
Cool! This was always allowed. At least, on platforms with freedom of expression.
The only reason most larger accounts are still "active" is because nobody wants to have to rebuild elsewhere without strong commitment from platform owners - and outside of Tumblr, nobody has really done that. Except maybe now with Substack, we'll see.
Very few people produce on any platform. Musk has the value relationship exactly backwards. The creators do get value from twitter, but they generate the bulk of the business value Twitter has and they can easily move to other platforms.
You really can't tho. Even if you block him, he'll still routinely show up in your timeline when people tweet a jpg of his tweets. Even if you somehow ignore all that, he'll still do random shit like change the Twitter logo to a dog to make sure you don't forget it's his playground, and you're just an NPC in his main character existence.
any source / concrete examples of this? I've asked for this before but all I ever hear are general, sweeping claims without any actual data.
This says so much more about you than about anyone leaving Twitter.
I'm a person of colour. Do I have not have a reason to leave a web site that platforms people who espouse the belief that my children are a disease that needs to be eradicated with fire?[1] Of course I do, and you know that. I do not have a "disdain for Musk's political views," to put it like that is to suggest that white supremacy is a view no different than believing in universal healthcare.
Your rhetoric is a shallow and obvious attempt to invalidate and dismiss other people's concerns.
And while you have a right to your beliefs, no matter how much they lack empathy, no matter how much they are divorced from a belief that other people are not NPCs and are truly entitled to their own world views...
This type of talk is not in the best traditions of Hacker News, a site that yes, has a far more Libertarian slant than I personally hold, but also yes, attempts to hold its discussions and debates to a higher standard than you display in this comment.
———
[1] Other people of colour take a different view on whether to use Twitter, and that's the entire point of not dismissing other people's views. They have their own strategies for making the world a better place, and I don't have to dismiss their choices as posturing, I can respectfully make different choices for myself.
I mean, if you wish to signal your disdain for Musk's political views, you can leave Twitter. How is that an "attempt to invalidate and dismiss people's concerns" ?
And radical "woke" folks have been tweeting about killing and murdering white people on twitter for ages without much blowback. I always found it strange that was tolerated in the woke twitter days.
If Twitter fails - which it may definitely do - it will be because Musk screwed up and fired a lot of good engineering folk and got rid of power user features - which has made a lot of creators angry. But "racism" is un-likely to be the primary driving cause. It has always existed on Twitter.
Second, libertarian ideals around free speech say that fairly engaging people whose views you disagree with is a better way to change minds than deplatforming them. That is because deplatforming them just encourages them to migrate to cesspools like Truth Social, which then become echo chambers for extremist views. Therefore there are reasons to allow offensive people to remain on a platform other than agreement with their offensive views.
Speaking personally, I am firmly of the belief that the obvious political censorship applied to social networks, including by the previous management of Twitter, is one of the CAUSES of the extremism that lead to the Jan 6 insurrection. You might dislike that there are people who think your children are a disease. But surely you'd dislike it rather more if we slid into an authoritarian dictatorship where people like that are the ones in charge. Therefore it is worth looking past your good reasons for taking offense, and asking seriously what is most likely to keep violent extremist networks forming that are in a position to do just that.
Note that multiple countries in Latin America copied the US Constitution's idea of separation of powers. A common pattern is that they wound up as authoritarian regimes after a powerful executive solved gridlock through declaring a state of emergency. It could happen here. In fact, it nearly did.
And finally, I find the comment that you're responding to far more in the best traditions of Hacker News than your reply. Hacker News has a tradition of polite and reasoned discussion of controversial positions between people of diverse points of view. I would rather keep that tradition alive, rather than implying that people who disagree with you are horrible people who might not mind your children being eradicated with fire.
The gay community made large strides as a movement to allow a civil discourse and transparent conversations with others who opposed their lifestyles by deciding to be open rather than secret. When people meet face to face, and realize we're all really similar - people tend to soften their views to be "human".
It doesn't. I strongly oppose the riot, which is why I want people to take seriously the things that helped cause that.
Similarly I'm not legitimizing gang violence when I say that the War on Drugs helps cause gang violence, I'm explaining why I oppose the War on Drugs.
Let's look at the things the jan 6 rioters took grievances with: Mike Pence not overturning the election, nancy pelosi's existence, the federal court system which completely rebuked Trump's stolen election narrative, ALL of the media, the LIBERAL media, media in GENERAL, twitter, twitter moderation, george soros, jews, hunter biden, the crack he smoked, his penis, people who were verified on twitter, hollywood, jews, the thought that racism still exists...
if someone tells me the said they did something, and it's because of a ghost, and I accept their reasoning, then I am legitimizing the connection they allege. I dispute this connection. that's what I'm accusing you of legitimizing, their 'rationality'. they might call it rationality, but I don't have to. and maybe that's not what you meant, but I fairly took you to mean it, because you are apparently taking them at their word.
My point is that the way that they were censored made it easier for them to find a likeminded echo chamber that helped them become radicalized extremists. And now rather than dealing with obnoxious idiots with a few bad ideas, we've got an armed rabble. Which is far worse.
Whether or not this dynamic happened is completely independent of the specific extremist rhetoric that they absorbed. But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes. And it was easy to discount all information coming from any source which denied the existence of the conspiracy that they experienced.
The result is that they were convinced that powerful liberal forces had subverted democracy and were trying to shut down the truth that Trump presented. This made Trump's lies about a stolen election very believable to them. And they got fired up enough about such conspiracy theories that it came to seem reasonable to them to ensure that the TRUE will of the American people prevail, even if that required undoing electoral fraud by tying down representatives with zipties and making them recognize Trump as President. And executing those at the heart of enabling this fraud to destroy democracy.
If we don't like this outcome then it is on us to decide how to handle such extremists. My position is that it is best to undo the conditions that encourage the creation of extremism. An alternative position is to fight fire with fire, to become as extreme in opposing the extremists as they are in fighting for what they believe.
However I fear that the alternative position, as emotionally satisfying as it might be, is a recipe to turn political polarization into political unrest and potentially into a civil war down the road. Enough other countries have gone down that road to project what it would be likely to happen then. And it isn't pretty.
Everything that I've said is part of an argument about how to best respond to the potential for extremism. None of it legitimizes extremism or extremist positions.
Yeah... this is what I'm talking about when I say legitimizing. And hiding it in everything else you wrote doesn't make me not see your point. Clearly the opposite is going on.
That's a dishonest and unproductive approach to conversation. So I'm not going to bother with you for much longer.
But I'll address the point you objected to. In 2020, a whole infrastructure was created across multiple organizations to fight misinformation. Their method was to pick topics, create fact checks, and then proactively hunt down and block misinformation and those who posted it. The existence of this infrastructure and its intended goals can be confirmed from a variety of sources, across the political spectrum.
As soon as it was created, it became a natural target for anyone who wished to manipulate things for political purposes. And it was quickly so used. For example see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... for how Peter Damask managed to use it to suppress the lab leak story for about a year.
Now, as you'll undoubtably agree, Trump is a propaganda machine for whom lying is as natural as breathing. As a result the fact checking machine developed a knee-jerk response of fighting back against anything Trump had to say. But a stopped clock is still right 2x a day. And when Trump was actually right (eg kids don't spread COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop), the fact checking engine still classified his claims as misinformation, and still worked to suppress it.
But the problem is that when you tell people something that they can verify to be a lie, they will see EVERYTHING you see as a potential lie. And now it doesn't matter how often you tell them that X is a lie - they won't believe you. Which becomes a real problem when X actually is a lie.
Which brings us to our current situation. Somewhere around 40% of the USA currently believes that the 2020 election was stolen, and also have learned to distrust all of the news sources that could properly inform them. Obviously primary responsibility for this situation rests with Trump. But he wouldn't have succeeded so well without actions taken by groups including social media and mainstream media organizations that made his lies seem more plausible to his target audience. And it is those actions that I object to - exactly because they have helped fuel a politics-over-truth narrative on BOTH sides that I fear will lead to a really bad outcome in the end.
How can you take me to assume bad faith, when I quite clearly assume you in good faith meant exactly what you wrote? What about my post indicates I think you are in bad faith? This is literally the exact opposite of what bad faith means.
>In 2020, a whole infrastructure was created across multiple organizations to fight misinformation. Their method was to pick topics, create fact checks, and then proactively hunt down and block misinformation and those who posted it. The existence of this infrastructure and its intended goals can be confirmed from a variety of sources, across the political spectrum.
Weird, I don't see the words "censorship" or "right wing" here... yet it's how you describe it later. This part I agree with, I don't agree with the rest of your characterization and I think it legitimizes what is an otherwise completely made-up grievance phenomenon of not liking it when people disagree with you. The irony of course being, this is exactly what you accused me of doing.
You don't seem to get the point that I'm making, which is that we don't make policy around boogymen. So you can describe the boogeyman phenomena any way you want. It fundamentally does not change the fact that its a boogeyman and we shouldn't be shaping society around feelings of boogeymen. But of course you didn't just disagree with that, you were rude and presumptive and pejorative to me.
The reason why I say you are assuming bad faith is that you continually cherrypicked items to assert that I'm legitimizing extremists that I oppose. And therefore disregard anything that I have to say about strategies to reduce extremism.
To the contrary not only do you continue to assert that I'm "legitimizing" them, you dismiss my concerns as "boogeymen". Which is one of many ways that your complaining that I've been rude and presumptive and pejorative to you looks to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Now to the facts. You agree with the fact that there was an infrastructure created across multiple organizations to fight misinformation. But here are key points that I think you are not considering.
First, those organizations overwhelmingly lean left. For example look at https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9411117/silicon-valley-politic.... They do not fit perfectly within the Democratic party, but they generally have an overwhelming preference for Democrats over Republicans.
Second, the infrastructure created to fight misinformation WAS a method of censorship. Whether it is reducing reach (eg by shadowbanning), blocking links, or deplatforming people, all of the available tools are tools of censorship. Just intended for a good purpose.
Third, its actions were not politically neutral. Obviously, if mostly left-wing people censor mostly right wing misinformation, this puts a thumb on the ideological scale. Likewise most of the mistakes will show the same bias. We more easily notice what is wrong with what we politically oppose than what we politically support.
Fourth, not all involved acted in good faith. This is clearly seen in the Twitter Files. Political activists on the left and right immediately recognized that there was a useful tool to manipulate here. Given existing ideological biases, political activists on the left were more successful in doing so. The whole Hamilton 68 debacle demonstrates how easily a left-wing disinformation narrative was able to get widely reported and had tremendous influence despite the fact that Twitter internally knew it to be disinformation.
And now we get to the most important point to me. Media like the NY Times like to think of themselves as a neutral arbiter of truth. By their own actions, they aren't. And to the extent that they have an obvious and demonstrable bias, they SHOULD be distrusted by those that they are biased against.
It is true that the main alternatives are objectively less trustworthy. But NOBODY can be trusted here. And that is a problem.
His laptop.
Most of the people I follow have moved off it. They use Twitter largely for announcements when they've put out something new but all their casual, unfiltered thoughts are going in Mastodon. Every time I check in on Twitter now it seems the noxious behavior to signal ratio gets worse.
You don't have to be LGBTQ to see how important trans people are to Twitter's health. Many are still there because business is business, but many trans people and their allies have left because the new owner seems to hate them on a deeply personal level, and they have the professional wiggle room to ditch that promotional space.
Edit: W00t deep negatives for affirming that trans people exist and for stating the obvious that Musk hates them.
People aren't downvoting your post for trans affirmation or that Elon doesn't like trans people. They're downvoting it because you are inflating the value of the trans population on Twitter as integral to Twitter itself. I would not be surprised if there is a higher percentage of trans people using Twitter relative to the general population, but I find it unlikely that they make up a significant enough portion of its users to even move the needle if they all migrated away to Tumblr, Mastodon, or another social network.
There ISN'T? Ever since Musk stepped in it's riddled with bugs and changes for the worse. As an example very recently and as of now Twitter Circles are broken and tweets that should be private only for a select few are visible to anyone in the "For You" tab. This is MASSIVE and probably even a breach of GDPR.
Hilarious how people here have tolerated all garbage and bugs from pre-Musk Twitter takeover for years and now they all complain about them now.
It is selective memory based on the current villain of the year to hate. Twitter has always been an outrage capital with a strong network effect. It is just that for the 220M+ daily active users, it is better than the sea of worse alternatives out there.
Many HNers here won’t admit it, but the reality is that network effects are real hence the difficulty in creating a viable alternative, No anecdote, short term hype or subjective responses such as ‘for me it is’ refutes that.
Even a cursory search of HN brings up absurd bugs[1]:
> Slightly related but very interesting: the 2010 Twitter bug where simply tweeting "Accept [username]" would automatically force them to follow you.
From what Musk has told us since he took over, and others it sounds like an unholy mess behind the scenes. From [2]:
> In Tuesday's hearing, which ran for more than two hours, Zatko painted a portrait of a company plagued by widespread security issues and unable to control the data it collects. Calm and measured, he stuck closely to his expertise, unpacking technical details of Twitter's systems with real-world examples of how information held by the company could be misused.
> "It's not far-fetched to say that an employee inside the company could take over the accounts of all of the senators in this room," he warned.
From [3], a Twitter engineer on the work ethic:
> “If you’re not feeling it, you can take a few days off,” he was recorded saying. “People have taken months off.”
> “I basically went to work like four hours a week last quarter,” he added. “And it’s just how it works in our company.”
Which tells me a lot. And should we forget about this doozy from Dorsey's days in charge?[4]
> Oh, and while he was in charge, there was no backup of Twitter’s database.
I could go on for a long time but it's clear that people are being selective with their memories.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16942844
[2] https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122671582/twitter-whistleblo...
[3] https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/twitter-engineer-says-commie-s...
[4] https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/jack-dorsey-twitter-ceo-fired...
Even if I myself hadn't experienced more serious bugs than those prior to the takeover, it'd still seem a stretch.
Their traditional largest issue is their terrible ad targeting but that's not gotten better.
> Twitter has told an undisclosed number of users their private messages may have been leaked to third-parties for more than a year.
> The software “bug”, which has since been fixed, involved direct messages between users and businesses that offer customer services via Twitter.
> "The issue has persisted since May 2017," Twitter said.
They did have problems like state actors getting spies hired and leaking data directly of course.
I care about being able to choose between "For You" and "Following". I don't want an algorithmically curated feed which includes things I have consciously chosen not to look at. And I don't want people who follow me not to be able to see things I link to because of a pissing contest between tech companies.
Now, with the new management, I find myself going to Twitter more and more often. I disagree with many posts and I do not like many posts, but now, I could have some assurance that I am getting an authentic information.
How ? And how is this different than before ?
Musk has introduced several high profile changes to corrupt "the authenticity of their rankings" - what on earth are you talking about regarding "authentic information" given the person running the place is a known and repeated liar, whose lied directly about his management decisions regarding the property you've mostly recently started liking?
Seriously, what?
As for the content of your post, users who have subscribed to Twitter Blue are more likely to be engaged with and invested in the platform, leading to wanting it to succeed. The additional verification markers for businesses also helps.
Superfans are less credible/trustworthy, not more.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Personal attacks and swipes are particularly unwelcome, so please make sure to edit those out of your comments if any do make it in.
How are you doing that now?
> Is this post popular/important or is this post was put into my stream by Twitter/other entities in order to influence me? I don't like being manipulated so brazenly.
Bad news: Musk is doing plenty of that. https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/14/23600358/elon-musk-tweets...
Most of the Japanese user base welcomed the change, amazed at just how much manipulation Twitter Japan was (or is) doing behind the scenes.
Twitter in the USA is noticeably better too. A few people left but no one cares. So many more interesting voices have been raised.
I’m not sure why it is now fashionable to see many techies here scream about it now after tolerating the years of garbage that has proliferated on the site. It is likely has something to do with the layoffs which can cause many to become highly emotional of all their reasoning.
The network effect of 220M+ users do not care and are still sitting on the platform as predicted with the alternatives failing to challenge Twitter and failing to surpass Twitter at all.
It's just the pendulum finally swinging the other way (as was foretold) and the people concerned becoming appalled with the realization they now have to drink their own kool-aid.
It's not unlike what happened when journalists, who told people who lost their jobs to go and "learn to code", were told to go and "learn to code" when they in turn lost their jobs.
Basically, these people can dish out but can't take.
Any smart bystander who witnesses these things would do well to take away the need for prudence in one's statements and desires. The pendulum swings with absolute apathy.
My biggest complaint, is that even paying for it, you still see (a lot og) ads... I'd be happier paying for it, and getting no ads than the blue checkmark. Also, the UX on the post delay/edit with blue is annoying as hell.
When I started working at Twitter (now years ago) my relatives asked me if they should join. And after thinking about it, my honest answer was "no". The only person who needs to be on Twitter is somebody who wants to feel like they're part of a global conversation. Most people just don't and won't.
Twitter is only successful because it started in an era where that was a novel and appealing idea, and because it developed a critical mass of users. Both traditional participants in that conversation (journalists, politicians, media personalities, etc) and new ones (like dril) came on board. It is now gradually losing that critical mass.
These days there are just too many options tuned to too many sets of needs. Mastodon will get a chunk of those people, as will existing social media properties. But I don't think we'll ever again see a global groupchat at the scale of Twitter. Assuming Musk persists in running it into the ground, I think in a decade's time Twitter will be in that bucket with MySpace or SixDegrees, one of those early-internet things that people remember with varying degrees of fondness but would never go back to using.
Keep thinking I'd like to create an easy button for FB groups like self-hosted community setups. Then you can control/host your own interest group... add in live group chats (that FB used to have for groups) and just have a centralized auth and search that are opt-in.
What's unclear to me is whether or not there is enough money in it to make it worth maintaining/moderating.
My feeling as an outsider is that Twitter was useful and valuable ("high engagement") for the folks who enjoyed the culture that built up on the platform, but for everyone else it was always a bit insular and self-important. Since Twitter's founding, more and more online communities and spaces have sprung up, so if Twitter does indeed decline in usage its regulars will diffuse into the many other alternatives that have sprung up.
That's my $0.02 at least as someone who's watched from the sidelines for a couple decades.
But I think "insular" is a funny word to use here, in that it being one giant space meant that self-segregation was a much harder choice to make than on, say, HN or a given subreddit. The thing that always kept me using it was the great variety of voices there. Some of my favorite people to follow were not the ones saying much, but the ones with excellent editorial judgment about who to retweet, exposing me to so many different perspectives.
Early Reddit definitely attracted a pretty interesting, insular bunch but there was never any feeling that Redditors were creating a similar global network. I was on IRC channels that had Americans, Europeans, Indians, Singaporeans, and Hong Kongers but we all knew we were weird. There was always something unique about Twitter users that made them think of their space as a global village, and I think the large presence of journalists and MSM friendliness was a big part of that.
Twitter also managed to create a product that its sticky users loved in a way that I'm not sure any other network managed. Redditors loved Reddit but not nearly as much as Twitter users liked Twitter. Whatever it was I hope product folks study it closely.
Twitter is unique in that it had both wide international reach and no topic structure. Reddit is an engine for shutting you off from 99.9% of the Reddit discussion. Twitter, for better and for worse, didn't and couldn't do that.
As you say, the journalists were definitely part of that. To the extent a global conversation existed previously, it was among journalists and the people they covered, like major politicians, NGO heads, and the like. Twitter expanded and disintermediated that. Suddenly you could hear from all those media subjects directly. And even more unusually, you could try to join in, speaking directly to people previously unreachable, maybe even getting replies. One major motivator for people joining Twitter was exactly that, as the Waiting for Bieber art piece demonstrated: https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/waiting-for-bieber
The only platform with anything like that reach was email. And although email has global reach, it isn't a global stage like Twitter was. No other platform has that, and I doubt one ever will.
Did any other platform ever get so much attention from mainstream media?
But also that help make twitter feel like a constant outrage factory that impacts negatively on a lot of people's mental health. I got off of twitter a year ago (deleted my account after 14 years,even) and I'm really appreciating mastodon's less addictive, less "lively"ness.
I just find the "follows of follows" or "include some frequently-favorited users" that twitter does for the algorithmic view is useful for expanding and finding more interesting content.
He's completely pissed it away. The skills at finessing the demands of different regulatory regimes were some of the first he got rid of, no doubt deriding it as "wokism". Now he's got fines racking up for publishing Nazi shit in Germany, privacy breaches in the EU, and is globally censoring anything that Hindu extremists don't like.
Turns out that the main problem in social media is the social bit, not whether you can convince a man-child that your code works.
Discoverability there is, of course, harder. At least initially, but just like twitter once I see someone making interesting replies, or someone in my follows boosts them, I tend to follow them faster (and drop them faster if their smart reply was a fluke).
Twitter’s second largest market is Japan, with Saudi Arabia ranking fourth, Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Mexico all in the top 10[1]. While a lot of people prefer to Tweet in English, I can confirm that Twitter has a healthy amount of content in other languages if you want to go find it.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/countries-most-people-twitter-socia...
Second, the toolchain has matured in absolutely huge ways. AWS exists. Twitter had to build their own cloud to meet scaling needs. Languages have matured or been purpose-written to enable building/scaling these types of systems. A huge portion of the N+1s and hidden footguns have been cleaned out of the thousands and thousands of open source libraries that you can glue together to get the system up and running.
Third, Silicon Valley engineers as a whole have spent the last decade-plus building all sorts of Twitter-adjacent Web 2.0 projects, so there's an incredibly deep pool of people that have extremely relevant experience, even if they never stepped foot inside the Twitter building.
Fourth, Twitter (and companies very similar) have been publishing literal engineering designs and post-mortems for public consumption on their engineering blogs. Even if you have no idea what HTML is, your path to self-education and building your own Twitter clone has never been shorter or better paved. They've even published huge chunks of their own work as open source projects.
And on and on and on and on. And here's the thing about growing to Twitter-scale: it doesn't happen all at once. You can build the low-volume version and just follow approximately the same technical scaling path that Twitter itself followed, except you'll be able to skip a whole bunch of mistakes.
I find I’m not super convinced that ‘aws exists’ or whatever solves the problems Twitter had. Though I guess a bunch of the problems with eg distributing a notification to millions of followers or super-deep reply chains or football games or new years or whatever can be punted on until you have significant numbers of users which fits ‘low barrier to entry’.
ETA: I want to be careful to say that it's not "lol easy peasy" to build Twitter, but that the question "How likely would an investor be to pass on your Twitter clone startup because they thought the technology couldn't be built by your team with their investment?" is laughable, possibly even if the founding team is non-technical. With $5m, anyone competent enough to even file a YC application could hire a good enough technical consultancy to get a Twitter clone that scales to millions of users.
Actually that's exactly what we don't want.
So Substack will be successful in its own niche, doesn't need to eat Twitter's lunch for that.
The problem is at the current valuation of $650M and bleeding $25M per year, they will have to come up with a plan to generate revenue pretty soon, most likely in the form of ads and generally that's incompatible with high quality content.
Now if Substack's fan base put their wallets where their mouth is and pay say $30 per month, then maybe Substack wouldn't need ads, but we know that's not going to happen, not even at $5 per month.
But Musk seems, knowingly or unknowingly, to be systematically pissing off Twitter's users. The blue tick shenanigans and conflating it with paid membership, pissing off advertisers, the bots problem that was never addressed, promoting himself at the cost of business, his covert/overt approval of extreme right wing tweets, so on and so forth.
There's only so much crap users can tolerate. A bunch of users have left for Mastodon, and a few more are doing so after he banned Substack links. Once a good chunk of core and influential content creators leave Twitter it'll get overwhelmed with bots and advertisers and will set of a negative spiral.
I've been interacting with only couple of people whom I follow and vice versa for past several months I've been on Mastodon and I feel great about it. I'm convinced that federated instances are the solution to the social media problems just by strong focus on the theme and inherent limit to scaling without any pressure from VCs.
P.S. Please consider donating to your Mastodon instance.
Can you be more specific? Only thing I found missing was "Quote Posts" and almost everyone seems to agree that it was the right decision to make.
> will prevent Mastodon from ever growing beyond a small niche
And its not a good thing? "There's an instance for everything" is fast becoming an reality, Let those instances be small as its managed by volunteers;
There's no need for everything to grow into a democracy destroying scale, Especially Social Media platforms.
Some might just want to have a social interaction with like minded people, I'm one of them and Mastodon has been perfect for it.
I have a 14 year old Twitter account, Apart from the first few years when Twitter was actually like Mastodon with friends fooling around I never felt happy browsing Twitter; It has become an algorithm enforced narcissism universe with everyone trying to sell something or themselves.
I follow Ed Zitron's Substack, and he is also a prolific Tweeter. He seems to be using Notes the same way he uses Twitter, for shitposting. I'm not sure that's really in line with the tone of Substack.
I wasn't aware of any IP protection of Twitter's UI, which in one form or another has been done 100's of times.
I've been saying it since Twitter launched, but Twitter was/is just some folks stealing Facebook's status update.
I actually thought that a newsfeed would be a good fit for substack, but looking at this i dont think i m going to use it. It should be simpler, a timeline of things i ve subscribed, with some threaded, sane comments. The medium shapes the message, and twitter's medium is just not a good fit for substack's message
Following the whole banning-saga my impression was that Notes was a genuine extension of the Substack platform, but it being a frontend clone explains why such a tantrum was thrown by Musk.
Here's a side-by-side comparison for anyone that doesn't want to go through the same process:
The fact that Musk is known to be thin-skinned and prone to internet outbursts explains why he threw such a tantrum.
I don't want email spam from every follower, but do want to see the best snippets on substack.
Super easy to create a for you page, given text content:
Step 1: embed every article I ever read, or note I liked/comment/share and stuff it in a DB.
Step 2: every time a new note is posted (by anyone anywhere), embed it, search the db for my last 100 embedded items, and see if new note has relevance > 50%. If so, add it to my feed inventory. Resort my feed inventory by semantic relevance every hour. Remove items older than 7 days from feed inventory every hour.
Step 3: On page load, move everything in my feed inventory to my feed archive - never rerank again. (Bonus points for tracking note level views rather than assuming all were viewed, but small detail).
Bonus Step 4: Every 4th item in my feed inventory, intersperse something that's solely there based on popularity/top liked note of all notes visible to all of my followings. i.e., show me something possibly irrelevant but viral.
That'll get you pretty far, each step can be endlessly optimized over time.
I want to see the results of this so bad that I'll volunteer to build v1 this weekend if you really don't have time to do it internally. Tiktok for text... could be amazing.
how many platforms need to be ruined by an algorithmic feed before people understand that its a terrible idea?
If you are making a twitter clone, AP is the only way to go
I'm not sure what the average number of subscriptions a Substack user has, but it seems like a very echo-chambery setup right now. As an author there are definitely things that I want to share that aren't worth of an email, but I'm pretty sure very few of my audience members are going to see it. Maybe this makes more sense for writers with audiences who are on the Substack app all day.
Is my email inbox an echo chamber because I don't get random newsletters from political activists?
According to this research study, these are the two main ingredients: 1) Homophily in the interaction networks 2) Bias in the information diffusion toward like-minded peers https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Substack Notes is their way to venture into the social platform realm, which differs from the personal email inbox model, which isn't a social platform. With that in mind, for ingredient #1: people can only see notes from people they follow. People will overwhelmingly only follow people that align with their ideas/political leanings/beliefs. This creates the homophily in interaction networks. For #2, users can easily share biased information to their like-minded peers without pushback/opposing views since their social network is comprised of people with the same viewpoints.
To be clear, algorithms can definitely create echo chambers as well but ideally an algorithm based feed will promote discourse and dialogue about ideas.
An anecdote: I follow quite a few people on TikTok that post about housing policy in NYC. TikTok's algorithm exposes these videos to people with varying viewpoints, which creates a ton of dialogue on proposed solutions and pushback on ideas that could potentially harm certain demographics/historical areas, etc. This pushback is very important but is only possible when there is a chance for those with opposing views to discover it, which means there needs to be an algorithmic recommendation feature.
If TikTok had no FYP and instead people could only watch videos from people they follow, this would create a closed loop system and those opposing views for housing policy would not be nearly as prevalent.
Is that what people actually want? To be algorithmiclly fed content from strangers? Why is this the imputed ideal?
> but ideally an algorithm based feed will promote discourse and dialogue about ideas.
Is there any evidence that this is true or should be an expectation? Is that really why billions of dollars are spent on this space?
Yes. If people only used social media to connect/follow people they know the industry would be making nothing.
I never made the argument that it's the imputed ideal. Rather, my point is that in the context of a social platform, having an option for an algorithmic feed leads to other people with opposing views to discover the content and have dialogue about it/contest that viewpoint. Otherwise, it's a closed loop system that contains only like-minded viewpoints that can lead to an echo chamber. How do we prevent echo chambers from forming? Well, the most straightforward option is to introduce opposing viewpoints. How do we introduce opposing viewpoints? Well the people with opposing viewpoints need to be able to discover the content - so it needs to be shown to them somehow. The best way to do that (right now at least) is through an algorithmic recommendation engine.
> Is there any evidence that this is true or should be an expectation? Is that really why billions of dollars are spent on this space?
That's why I said "ideally". There's huge differences in algorithms for all the major social platforms. Algorithms can easily be used to make echo chambers worse, but algorithms can also be used to reduce echo chambers on a platform. To your point, that's why billions of dollars are spent on this because it's a complicated problem. One thing is a fact though, dissenting opinions create engagement and keeps people on the platform. If you responded to my comment and said "I agree with you", I wouldn't be commenting here right now and back on Hackernews. Most social platforms take advantage of this feature of our human psyche to get people to stay on the platform to then show them more ads and drive more ad revenue. That's why engagement is such a critical factor in social media algorithms and also has the unintended consequence of promoting controversial content - because it receives the most engagement. Which goes back to the need of having an algorithm that can balance reducing echo chambers by showing the content to others with dissenting opinions without unintentionally promoting only the most controversial content because it has the highest engagement. There's really no easy answer to this and again, that's why they spend billions like you said.
The question about any feature they add is “what does it do about that situation?”
>The question about any feature they add is “what does it do about that situation?”
The answer is the same in the cases of Amazon & Substack: generating sales isn't free, and in all likelihood the platform can do it cheaper than you can. Take the $200k writer who pays $20k to Substack annually. Either Substack can generate 166 subscriptions ($10/mo) annually so it's worth the money, or you move. (That's almost correct: if you are a writer, it may be worth it to you to let Substack continue to own this piece so that you don't have to run a business. There's a lot of value in being able to focus on thinking and writing and not SEO and ad placement.)
So far the superstars of Substack (say Matt Taibbi) were superstars before Substack and promote Substack as opposed to the other way around.
Substack competes with traditional journalism, which delivers more journalism per dollar than the typical Substack but is based around the strength of the brand of The Guardian or The Economist as opposed to that of the individual journalist. From the viewpoint of the journalist the newspaper is an aggregator that is doing their marketing work for them.
Substack also competes with Medium which plausibly claims to be doing promotional work for its authors, but despite claiming to be a place which is a little bit better than the rest of the web it's actually a place that is a little worse than the rest of the web and isn't making significant amounts of money for anyone.
One Substack "generates" the sale, transferring the relationship to your own site feels cheap.
It's like if Amazon stopped selling New Yorker subscriptions. If I actually gave a crap about the NYer subscription I was paying for, I'd find some other way to pay for it. Amazon [Substack] is a commodity in this vertical.
Of course, the people who didn't care about your subscription because they never read it would disappear. But, they were going to churn eventually. I imagine if you amortize over a year, this marginal loss is less than the diff between Substack's take rate and operating your own blog + newsletter.
---
Acting rationally from an economic point of view, the only reason you'd want to stick around on Substack is that you think this equation holds true:
(Future subscriber base on Substack * (monthly rate - Substack fee)) > (Future subscriber base as an independent * (monthly rate - cc transaction fees)).
For "young" writers who don't yet have an audience, Substack helps a lot. But if you have a well-developed audience, IDK, I imagine Substack must view them as big flight risks (hence the advance payments).
Some substantial things Substack can do to make this equation more favorable:
- Give you free (or low-fee) marketing on substack properties (note this is a zero sum game over ad inventory, choosing to give you ad space means choosing to not give it to others. this is a hard game to solve, but they can probably do it).
- Reduce their take rate for mature audiences.
IMO, their current model doesn't make a lot of sense if you're somebody with a large audience. Especially now that we're out of ZIRP and they can't afford to sweeten the deal as much anymore.
I mean, youtube had half the internet complaining "I wish that link was text and not a video" and the other half complaining "I wish it was as easy to monetize writing as it was to monetize video" and Substack saw the obvious solution.
Most creatives don't want to run a business, they want to create.
I know a warvlogger, however, who is still active on YouTube but moved to Patreon because he felt constrained about what he could post on YouTube who left Patreon because Patreon kicked out all warvloggers, now he has his own members-only website.
Another example is OnlyFans which has the same inequality problem as Substack. In my mind it is a little more mysterous how you'd run your own video streaming platform than how you'd run an email newsletter system, but I know you can rent video streaming from AWS so it isn't so hard. I think it's interesting how live-interaction platforms like Clubhouse outside pornography collapsed really quickly though.
If it's really possible to charge $20,000 for this service then please tell me where to find clients.
You could put a job like that up on a freelancer platform for a lot less money and you might get a good outcome or you might not.
My figure would assume there is a certain amount of arguing and barguing about requirements and that you’re dealing with somebody who will really come through, dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s and it is worth it if you are really making money on a newsletter.
Subscribing needs improvement. Subscribing to a hashtag might make sense? It seems like subscribing to someone’s notes and their blog should be independent, because maybe someone has a good blog but you don’t care for their notes, or vice-versa. Having them tied together also doesn’t work for people like me who use RSS. I don’t usually want email from blogs I read, so I only subscribe to blogs where I’m interested in the paid content and usually turn the email off.
I think this loses what makes Substack interesting, though, which is keeping the community for each blog separate, so you don’t care what people are saying on other blogs that you don’t read. Putting everyone in one community, or an unclear blob of overlapping communities, seems likely to be bad for the same reasons Twitter can often be bad.
I guess blogs need discovery, though, and maybe external sites aren’t enough?
(I think I’ll repost this as a note, since they need the content.)
I have the same concern. Substack creators are paid for highly engaging content as individuals subscribe to individual content creators. I don't see how that mechanism works with short form content; it could easily prove to be another platform where number of minutes of eyes on content is the metric that's optimised, rather than engagement with high quality content.
“Log in to Substack”
closes tab
The following command works well:
ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -vf "fps=10" -loop 0 out.gif
To be clear, the loop 0 will make the gif infinitely loop. By setting a number n, it will set the gif to loop n times.
A lot of the time I find this preferable because iMovie is not very flexible with video aspect ratios/resolutions
gifs just constantly remind me that they're not made for what we used them for these days
gifski --fps 10 --width 320 -o anim.gif video.mp4
Or Command + Shift + 5
Even with all the other options, my favorite is still ScreenFlow. It has a lot of editing features… basically uMovie for screen recordings.
* Make it look exactly like Twitter in every way
END OF DOCUMENT
Uh, no, I was observing how every other "social media" company has done this, and was guessing that Substack, having already told its users to write more frequently, would jump in with both feet.
My general belief is that we won't get a better Twitter from VC world. I also have zero confidence in the Fediverse because it has no business strategy.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/17/23309877/substack-forever...
I dunno, I think a lot of the enshittification[0] of social media companies comes in part because of their business strategies. VCs demand eternal growth or an eventual buyout. Fedi doesn't have that incentive. The worst that can happen to it is what happened to e-mail, where you get a few nebulously large providers but it's still more than possible (although with e-mail, rather aggravating due to an outdated tech stack that we've bolted a bunch of asterisks onto to try and make it more suited for general use) to live outside that bubble and interact with that big provider bubble anyway.
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/
HTTP also has no business strategy. Any number of sites that use the protocol can have different strategies, profit-oriented or otherwise.
However, Substack Notes seems to have no method for discovery. They add some random larger accounts to my feed.
You can't search Notes to find people posting content in order to find others potentially interested in similar content.
So, unless you already have a large following, seems like posting into another void. People are reluctant to follow you as well, since you must subscribe to the persons newsletter, they are the same action.
I put forward this suggestion to Twitter, I doubt they will use it, but it is currently ranked 4th by up votes.
Maybe that's why Twitter had blocked retweeting links containing to Substack.
That seems to have accelerated the shift for some to Substack [1] (imagine if Google blocked searches for Bing or Brave!). Suppressing Substack makes the Twitter brand look weak and nervous.
1. https://reason.com/2023/04/10/elon-musk-matt-taibbi-twitter-...
Suppressing substack when substack is trying to advertise for a twitter competitor is just common sense. There's no need for twitter to advertise for a competitor. That isn't censorship, thats just normal business. If substack was depending on twitter for free data and free advertising they were the ones who were weak and nervous.
That being said, maybe the important things will start being said in private spaces and only end up in "public squares" via screenshot ten or fifteen minutes later.
They can block whomever they want and I can say it highlights how fragile they view their own business position as.
E.g. an author writes content, people who are not affiliated with substack try to like/share.
That is not advertising, and this from the apparent free speech absolutist Elon.
Twitter is within their right to cut off access to their competitors, future or present.
If you want to bethe next massive aquistion/IPO, then maybe not.
But... paying for a Tumblr sounds weird. People are already used to paying for Substacks, so there's that.
However now that Substack is becoming more like a conventional social media platform they will have a harder time being an "absolute free speech" app.
The entire free speech movement was a response to government literally throwing people in jail for even talking about a given topic. It was never about allowing minority opinions to be as loud as majority opinions.
Never using that shit :)
[1] - https://www.varunsrinivasan.com/2022/01/11/sufficient-decent...
Though I do appreciate the niche focuses of these apps, e.g. posts is primarily designers, farcaster is a lot of crypto people, etc, I still use Twitter for most of my content discovery.
> 1. Go to Settings on the web version of substack.com
> 2. Scroll down to you publications
> 3. Click into any publication you don’t want to get emails.
> 4. Deselect “Receive emails for new posts”
Hoping they improve the experience.
I'm left in awe of the wranglers at SpaceX and Tesla who have managed to keep the companies in question profitable despite being surgically sewn to a narcissistic fauntleroy
RSS solved the "you fully own the content, everyone else can discover it via a well-known protocol" problem decades ago! Is it just that stuff like comments and reactions would be harder with just RSS?
People want enjoyable communities far more than they want the 'freedom' to spam the n-word.
The majority of people however don't value it or actively desire it because no wants to live in a pigsty. There is a reason apps like Truth Social don't take off, and that 4chan never gained the mainstream popularity of other social sites.
There have been multiple reddit clones, multiple twitter clones, multiple social media clones all based on the false pretense that there is demand for a freeze peach social site, and they all fall flat. Mastodon is doing better than most and its gaining users because of Twitter catering to the alt-right and refusing to censor offensive or dangerous speech.
Is that something you are unaware of?
I first heard about nostr last in November when Twitter tried to ban it. There's an incredible dev ecosystem developing — so much so that I decided to rebuild Satellite (https://satellite.earth) the social platform I'd been working on to become a client for the protocol.
There's a bunch of other clients too. Someone started a directory here https://www.nostrapps.com/
I'm happy to answer technical questions about nostr if anyone is curious.
Whether by design or because such sites just attract those kind of individuals, that's not good for a couple of key reasons:
1: Those kinds of interactions turn away many potential users
2: It makes advertising basically impossible (No potential advertiser wants to be associated with that kind of site)
There's a good reason that as sites like Reddit got larger, they started to clamp down on less desirable content.
And any form of social media with no advertising is always going to be very tiny and niche, and in general likely to die out quickly.
Elon's regexp for matching Substack links just got defeated.
If so, I don't really see this taking a notable chunk out of Twitter until this happens.
I see a Substack Reader app, but it's more or less read-only.
Forcing me to login to a single account is not going to work beyond a single email address that I can pick.
I love that it's going to enrage Elon. He's going to realize that he paid 44 billion for something that's going to lose users to Substack's side project.
Where one cannot love, one should – pass by. - Nietzsche
He upset and tore down the military-industrial complex launch monopoly saving the collective US tax payers billions through starting SpaceX (and could soon revolutionize access to space for the average person within the next decade). (Also note that without SpaceX, we'd still be paying money to Russia to send US astronauts to space, which wouldn't be a good look during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.)
He created an electrical vehicle revolution that's taking the world by storm, changing industries and pushing us much faster toward ending global warming than would have happened without. It's hard to imagine a few misguided political opinions could offset all of that. Let's be realistic here.
(Yes you can't attribute all that to him solely, as Elon himself says commonly, the praise should be given to the workers at SpaceX and Tesla, not him. But at the same time, without him, they would have never happened.)
None of those good things magically disappear if Elon fails in his Twitter purchase or changes. Those past gains have already happened.
If your argument was forward looking it would make more sense to me (if he fails with this Twitter program, he won’t be able to deliver Starship which would be bad because XYZ; or it would impact his ability to continue Tesla forward because ABC). I don’t know that I agree with the forward looking argument, but it seems more sound to me than the backward looking argument.
I actually suspect that many people hate him not in spite of what he has done, but because of it:
They think if they acknowledge what people like Elon Musk have done in their lives, they'd have to loathe themselves, their own choices, values and weaknesses.
Which is, of course, quite silly. Each human being has their own path in life. Comparing yourself to anyone, no matter who, is going to cause misery. But with people like Elon, the threat to the ego is particularly great.
So, hate and schadenfreude are the easy way out. "He, too, makes mistakes. So I'm not that worthless after all".
(The irony being that many of these people say that Elon Musk is self-centered. Though the question he is asking is "What do I believe is greatest good to humanity as a species", whereas they, by their very act of comparing themselves to him, are asking "How can I be greater than and more right than Elon Musk".)
(By the way, I don't actually agree with any of what I wrote above. It's just another example of a bad-faith argument like the one I'm responding to.)
Before, almost all the techies here were dreaming and begging to work for Elon Musk. Then the blue bird happened, got bought out and gave them 'emotional distress' and Elon immediately became public enemy number 1.
> So, hate and schadenfreude are the easy way out. "He, too, makes mistakes. So I'm not that worthless after all".
Hence that, the same techies who loved him are now eternally desperate for Twitter to be Elon's biggest failure as much as possible, giving 24/7 over-coverage about Twitter schadenfreude.
The manipulation of human psychology due to over-coverage and creating villains every month or year is just too easy to create a story out of that is guaranteed to attract eyeballs and clicks. It is an symptom of obsession.
> I think people think these things are generally more salacious than they are.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/style/elon-musk-maureen-d...
> About the contention that he had a threesome with Ms. Heard and her friend Cara Delevingne, Mr. Musk said, laughing, “We did not have the threesome, you know. So I think people think these things are generally more salacious than they are.”
He's laughing at the reporter for even proposing the idea, followed by downplaying it in a way that makes it clear that this was the media being sensationalist for clicks again.
Unfortunately I haven't reached that level of enlightenment yet.
I root for Elon to fail in the same ways I root for Donald Trump to fail. He's destructive, self-serving, thinks he's above the law, and hasn't faced real consequences for his actions.
I'm rooting for him to fail because he constantly lies, about big and small things. An example: He claimed Substack is downloading Twitter user data to power their competitor. There's no evidence of this. He said this before backtracking because he knew he was looking bad.
I'm rooting for him to fail so folks, like the ones in this very comment chain, can come back to reality and see that he's a flawed human like the rest of us and stop the blind worship.
In this specific case, I'm rooting for him to fail because he's proven over and over he's unfit to lead Twitter and make it a better product.
Not to mention that old Twitter never hamfistedly censored people by straight up shadowbanning users for using the words 'mastodon' or 'substack' in their tweets.
I guess by now he probably appreciates people going off the deep end for/against him.
The people that see this differently are typically the same people who believe that 'the Twitter files' were revelatory, when in fact they weren't. Strong overlap there with eternal Trump supporters and various complot theory proponents, I'm not sure what degree of evidence would be able to convince people like that.
I'm basically looking for the "Medium from when Medium was good"
So much for giving a new platform a try. I will never use this
However, by poking around in my browser debugger's XHR calls, it only took me a few hours to write a translator from Substack's (not-publicly-supported) JSON-based browser API to RSS.
am i missing something in my understanding?
Then, they will let an Algo organize the feed of articles.
Then the ads - no, wait, the "sponsored post - will start popping in, etc, etc...
Maybe they won't. I enjoy substack as it is today, and maybe they'll pull it off. But I can't help seing this as the next step towards enshitification. In the words of a 21s century social media author : "so sad".
No need for a $8 verified button, they can just say how many paying subscribers has as a form of social truth. That is game-able, obviously, but imposes a substantial cost on buying credibility.
I think that since Substack already has a monetization in subscriptions it's possible that they won't need the same revenue. But it's also hard to convince execs to leave potential revenue on the table when they see it.
Mindread much? You have no idea whether GP is upset.
Looks too much like deja vu all over again.
What bother me the most is that they don't seem to address the issue at all in the announcement. I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one who sees how things could get awry here. I wish they had at least given a nod to the very likely worst case scenario, and maybe explained why they think they're in a better position then pretty-much-every-other-social-media.
I just wonder how long it's going to take for:
* this Notes tab to be the first thing that the app opens
* Content from people I have not subscribed to, to be the first thing in the Notes tab
* This content being stuff I do not care about
* In short form
* Optimized to get "engagement" (aka "arguments between trolls")
We'll see...
When I click on a forbes article I usually don't notice the author.
On Substack I'm subscribed to specific authors and one former newspaper/ now independent journalist I follow.
I totally get the point of following people you’re already familiar with and have a track record of quality. Not arguing against that.
I’m just interested in your comment about not noticing the author.
I'm starting to wonder if there is a law of physics that inevitably turns any content publishing platform into youtwitokbook (tm).
Let's hope we keep a critical mass of "suckers" who still write good, long form content despite it being the least effective strategy.
I think the real problem is when this is done with an ad-supported business model. In that model, the interests of the algorithm designer are too far removed from the interests of the user. Presumably, since substack has a subscription business model (like netflix) we may end up with algorithmic feeds that users enjoy using.
If you follow 100 people who post 3 times a day, that's 300 posts. You're awake 16 hours a day, so an average of ~18 posts per hour, or 1 every 3 minutes. Many users follow way more people and/or follow accounts which post much more often.
Having a non-algorithmic feed means that posters will see low levels of engagement and users will quickly be overwhelmed with their reading list, and miss most of the posts. It's a vicious circle which will cause both writers and readers to eventually give up.
If, on the other hand, posts are ranked based on user popularity and engagement and that rank affects its position in subscriber feeds, then it's a virtuous cycle where more people will be directed to interesting posts, and those posters will be incentivised to post more.
This is why Mastodon has seen its usage drop after their initial surge earlier this year. We don't have time to wade through a firehouse of random posts every day.
... or it's a vicious cycle when someone understand which kind of cheaply generated content games the recommandation system the best. If history has told us anything, it's that radical, divisive, tribal, infuriating, titilating, voyeuristic, trivial, scammy, stupid short form tends to works very well.
You can also post notes without even having a newsletter.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of paying for content directly (I spend over $100/mo on Patreon), but I feel like Substack has cultivated a nasty branding issue for themselves. To me, and I know I'm not alone, Substack is where you go when you want to hear some 17-year-old who got high for the first time tell you what THE MANNNN doesn't want you to know, duuude. Greenwald and Taibbi and the like. I guess there's probably other types of content on there, but that's all I ever see from the domain.
Anyway I'm not going to register an account to see whatever's going on with Notes. Good luck, guys.
The media folks are clearly escaping scrutiny and playing to their base, but there are many excellent Substackers in other fields!
I intensely dislike both of them, but are they really considered NRx?
[1] https://twitter.com/lulumeservey/status/1511376638487019524
I don't like Twitter though, so I don't really care about Notes
Not to mention, a good chunk of those actual actions have resulted in Twitter being a legitimately worse place for a great number of people to spend time on/engage with, and thus they... leave.
In fact most of us would much prefer that he focused on his space launching abilities and electric-car making abilities (with the usual caveat that it's not clear how much of both are based on his contributions vs others, but I'm willing to give some benefit of doubt).
He doesn't know anything about tunneling (boring company), mass transit (hyper loop), software (twitter), or social platforms (twitter). And those are the areas he gets criticized for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35530201.