8 ms·

Twitter Is Finally Starting to Wake Up to Reality and Consider Selling Itself

74 points by edran 10y ago

golemotron 10y ago
Twitter's turnaround could come through acquisitions. If Yahoo were willing to sell Tumblr to Twitter, and if Twitter were able to pick up Gawker Media it could form a real powerhouse.
pbreit 10y ago
"The Street" still exists??
walterbell 10y ago
Has Twitter considered a micropayment service for publishers, given the outsize value of the platform to journalists and creators for marketing, real-time signals and discussion? Flattr [1], Brave [2], Blendle [3] and Patreon [4] are trying different approaches, but Twitter already has the scale (identity namespace), behavioral signals and traffic. Since Twitter does not seem to be highly successful at existing advertising models, perhaps some resources could be dedicated to a small team that can move quickly and launch a new service by Jan 2017, so that a payment experiment can run for a couple of quarters before D-Day arrives in July 2017? If any innovative revenue-generating projects are planned, please involve the diehard users who would be lost if Twitter went away. They have much to offer, despite painful memories of API/developer changes and other missteps. There are loyal users who want Twitter to succeed as an independent entity, one that can chart an independent model for social media. [1] Flattr: favoriting tweets to allocate funds, https://blog.flattr.net/2013/04/twitter-is-forcing-us-to-drop-users-ability-to-flattr-creators-by-favoriting-their-tweets/ https://blog.flattr.net/2013/04/twitter-is-forcing-us-to-dro... [2] Brave: browser metrics to allocate Bitcoin funds, https://brave.com/blogpost_3.html https://brave.com/blogpost_3.html [3] Blendle: pay-per-article with instant refunds, http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/03/testing-its-pay-per-article-model-in-english-blendle-launches-in-the-united-states-with-20-publishers/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/03/testing-its-pay-per-article... [4] Patreon, recurring subscriptions to crowdfund creators, http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6502119/patreon-two-years-crowdfunding-amanda-palmer http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6502119/patreon-t...
- Pxtl 10y ago
  ... I would totally use a twitter micropayment tip platform. I follow dozens of independent artists and writers on twitter who live on gratuities and patreon, a tipping engine built into twitter would be fantastic. I hate the patreon model because I don't want to commit to a monthly contribution for artists who fall in and out of my tastes. They should buy flattr and build it in.
  - jondubois 10y ago
    I don't think it would work. Tweets don't really classify as 'content'. Also you can never rely on donations - People only pay money when they have no other choice.
    - walterbell 10y ago
      Donations are only one of many possible micro-payment transactions. Creators/vendors can also provide digital entitlements to their customer/users, in exchange for revenue. Artists can sell digital swag. WeChat offers one example of incorporating transactional workflows into a chat/conversation interface. For some abstract ideas about currency, data signals, identity and trust, see the MetaCurrency project, https://medium.com/metacurrency-project/beyond-jobs-32f65369cfc1 https://medium.com/metacurrency-project/beyond-jobs-32f65369... & http://metacurrency.org http://metacurrency.org.
    - Pxtl 10y ago
      Tweets often contain links to content.
  - walterbell 10y ago
    It could also work for tipping app developers who struggle to earn revenue on Apple/Google platforms. Some developers respond quickly to support and enhancement requests on Twitter. It would be convenient to tip developers for either their assistance or to sponsor a new software feature, from the Twitter app where you are already "chatting" with the developer. In China, WeChat incorporates payments and much more, http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ "... while Facebook and WhatsApp measure growth by the number of daily and monthly active users on their networks, WeChat cares more about how relevant and central WeChat is in addressing the daily, even hourly needs of its users. Instead of focusing on building the largest social network in the world, WeChat has focused on building a mobile lifestyle — its goal is to address every aspect of its users’ lives, including non-social ones. The way it achieves this goal is through one of the most unsurfaced aspects of WeChat: the pioneering model of “apps within an app”. Millions (note, not just thousands) of lightweight apps live inside WeChat, much like webpages live on the internet. This makes WeChat more like a browser for mobile websites, or, arguably, a mobile operating system — complete with its own proprietary app store. Not what we’d expect from a messaging app.." If Twitter can create a revenue channel for creators and developers, then (re)open the platform to third-party developers, they can unlock dormant economic potential in both the platform and customer base. The advertising ("own the user experience") experiment has run its course, it's time to try business models which build on Twitter's unique identity platform.
jacquesm 10y ago
Why would twitter have to be more than it already is? It has a fairly unique place in the whole social media constellation and has long term viability. So what if it didn't become the #1 go to place for everything and anything. Concentrate on that core, make it work flawlessly and keep a good balance between commerce and utility. Better that than selling out to Facebook or Google, guard that independence.
- joobus 10y ago
  Because they make no money!
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    That's why we can't have nice things - for longer than just a while, at least.
    - nsns 10y ago
      Perhaps we could, by adopting the way Firefox, Wikipedia, Internet Archive et al. operate.
      - mixedCase 10y ago
        Doesn't Firefox rely on search engine backing?
        swift 10y ago
        Yes, they do. They are struggling to reduce their dependence on it but have not seen much success.
  - gkya 10y ago
    Can't they charge for things like verified accounts, too big photos, etc.; organise paid talks/forums of very high-profile users and sell gear and pro-grade client software? I don't use Twitter but I guess many organisations, companies and celebs alike wouldn't care to pay for these. They could also start a cheap <handle>@twitter.io mail service.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Seems like if they opened up their API it would help. Wasn't that when everything started going downhill, when they started closing down third party apps?
- digitalengineer 10y ago
  It was. Kinda like the opposite of Ballmers "Developers, developers, developers!" The people that helped them become big got shafted and now no longer trust Twitter management. What a surprise...
  - achompas 10y ago
    I'm not sure I buy this. The API meant they effectively outsourced product development instead of developing that competency internally. It's no surprise that the company struggled to develop compelling features or products for years (both before and after closing the API).
- AznHisoka 10y ago
  Opening their API also introduced a lot of noise into timelines. Especially tools/apps that allowed users to automate/schedule their tweets like Buffer and Hootsuite. When you see that 9 out of 10 tweets are just automated link sharing, you stop paying attention to your timeline.
  - tombrossman 10y ago
    Instead of no longer paying attention, just manage your timeline better. Stop following people who automate tweets, it's mostly garbage and it comes with extra baggage like more click-tracking and redirects. I've found that most of the items people share on Buffer are things I already read here on HN or saw someone else share earlier. Not following too many people is great, because the people you follow will curate the interesting stuff for you and re-tweet it. Stop following all media accounts for instance, maybe follow a couple reporters instead and you'll still catch all the interesting stories. If un-following is socially awkward for whatever reason, mute people you follow or at least toggle off re-tweets for those that do too many. I read my whole timeline most every day and it's great. It does take regular pruning though, like a plant in your garden.
pcunite 10y ago
I can't use a service that limits me to 140 characters. Sorry.
- pcunite 10y ago
  Downvote me all you want Twitter developers. You know it's true.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    He said in 62 and 64 characters respectively.
- criddell 10y ago
  That's a defining characteristic of Twitter. If it doesn't work for you, there are lots of other places for you posts. For me, the brevity is the what I like about Twitter. I think complaining about message length on Twitter is like complaining that you can't place video calls on Instagram.
yuja_wang 10y ago
I liked twitter, but some products have a "time" and their time passes.
erikb 10y ago
Why would anybody think that Google would buy Twitter, if they think that Google is number one in the same space that Twitter is number two at? If you are number one in something, usually you don't buy number two. If you want to grab part of a market you are pretty much not part of or modernize your century old empire you will consider buying number two. No 2 is already quite expensive. And if you are already the market leader grabbing more does not yield a value that corresponds with the price. And in the end making some return on your investment is always quite a big factor.
- themartorana 10y ago
  These buys aren't straight revenue buys. For Google, it would be buying an enormous database of personal information, and only Google could tell you if that would be valuable to them or not.
  - niftich 10y ago
    I don't understand why Google keeps getting brought up as a possible purchaser of Twitter. I just don't see it as either a synergistic or a defensive purchase. - Google already has two-and-a-half social networks (Youtube, Google+, Blogger) if you don't count their ever-relaunching chat apps (Hangouts, Allo, Duo) - they don't need Twitter to innovate, they don't need them to stay relevant, and they don't need Twitter's presence on phones because they (Google) are likely also present on mobile devices - they are still the leader in display ads, Twitter is distant third behind Facebook [1], and Facebook has absorbed most of the growth in the last year, but now that AOL and Yahoo have merged (both now owned by Verizon), it's possible that Twitter is fourth behind them (I'll try to confirm with sources) On a defensive purchase: - Facebook, Amazon (Twitch), Microsoft, and Verizon are Google's largest threats in the social/ads/attention space; Google dwarfs them all except Facebook. As I've said above, Verizon is the up-and-coming ad network and they stand the most to gain by (approximately) doubling their share, but even if they do so they still won't be a meaningful threat to Google in the near future. - Snapchat, despite being a serious threat to Facebook (mostly to their subsidiary Instagram), isn't actually a threat to Google -- it infringes on next to no capability that one could enjoyable do with Google's services. This remains unchanged even with Google's new phone-number-bootstrapped chat and video apps, Allo and Duo, which exist primarily to compete with iMessage/Facetime and WhatsApp - Someone with the most to gain from buying Twitter would be a relative outsider who wants to enter the social space, or get access to influencers and their valuable ad draws. In my opinion, these are Verizon, Amazon, and Yandex. I've posted about this before, here [2][3]. [1] (2015) http://www.dmnews.com/digital-marketing/facebook-twitter-to-claim-a-third-of-display-ads-in-two-years/article/405558/ http://www.dmnews.com/digital-marketing/facebook-twitter-to-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083561#12083975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083561#12083975 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913828#11914620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913828#11914620
noelwelsh 10y ago
It seems that Twitter execs believe the magic of Twitter resides in the 140 character limit. I strongly disagree. To me the magic of Twitter resides in the ability to connect with people with whom I have a professional relationship or interest, but not necessarily a personal one. (Personal relationships belong on Facebook or perhaps Instagram.) The 140 character limit is an archaic relic that I believe is harmful to Twitter. The 140 character limit arose in a world that doesn't exist anymore. In 2006, SMS was a sensible way to transmit data, phones were mostly dumb, blogs were the way to get your thoughts into the world (but experiencing a backlash, which helped bring Twitter to prominence), and most people interacted with the Internet via a desktop. Facebook et al have shown that given a blank canvas the majority of people do not suddenly pen 10'000 word screeds. Lifting the 140 character limit will not suddenly lead to an explosion of novellas on Twitter, especially now that most people interact via a mobile (I went to my laptop to write this comment, having read the comments on my mobile.) The 140 character limit is actively harmful to meaningful discussion, and I believe it fuels much of the anger and abuse that Twitter is known for generating. Drop the 140 character limit and let me have meaningful conversations with the social network on Twitter. That is, to me, an extremely compelling proposition. (1427 characters)
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  I don't want to go there to read peoples' blogs, though. Some sort of limit on content length feels like it is key to what defines Twitter (whether 140 char or something else).
  - noelwelsh 10y ago
    This can easily solved at the UI level. Posts longer than a certain limit can have only the first few lines shown, with a "fold" like on blogs, or some other mechanism, to reveal the full content. There won't be many long posts in any case.
    - lhnz 10y ago
      That's exactly what people achieve with screenshots of text below their tweets.
RileyKyeden 10y ago
I just hope they sell to someone who respects that people can have a need for multiple unlinked identities without nefarious purposes. Facebook's "real name" policy is bogus. They haven't imposed it on their acquisitions so far, but how long will that last?
codegeek 10y ago
I have come to this conclusion : Personal/Family/Friends: Facebook Professional/Business: Linkedin Celebrity/Gossip/Politics: Twitter I have a twitter account but who cares what I tweet. No one really unless I am a celebrity or a famous politician.
- RileyKyeden 10y ago
  Facebook is where I quarantine family and people whose interests diverged from my own over time, but are still good to keep in touch with. I don't use Linkedin. Twitter is where friends/personal stuff happens. You should find a community beyond the stuff they push at sign up. There's so much there beyond celebrities, gossip, and politics.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  LinkedIn for professional? I don't know what industry or field you are in, but you can't really have discussions on LinkedIn can you? I'm in computer science and a lot of things are announced or organised over Twitter.
  - SyneRyder 10y ago
    As much as I hate LinkedIn, I've seen a lot of corporates using it for discussions & posting long form articles & case studies. Typically in legal, manufacturing & Fortune 500 marketing. LinkedIn has a lot of Facebook-esque features now. But if you're not excited by conversations about legal implications of safety harness design or improvements to cardboard box manufacturing processes, then you probably wouldn't enjoy LinkedIn....
tommoor 10y ago
Seems like a good time to start building that Twitter alternative you've been dreaming of..
Animats 10y ago
Sell to whom? They're already publicly held. Selling means someone has to buy up all the stock, which requires about $15 billion in cash.
- andruby 10y ago
  Not necessarily in cash. With a leveraged buyout, you can go as low as 20% in cash and finance the rest with loans you put on Twitter's balance after the acquisition. Or the acquiring company can issuing new shares and using those to pay Twitter shareholders.
  - Animats 10y ago
    Twitter doesn't have the balance sheet for a leveraged buyout. No hard assets and money-losing. Google or Facebook could buy Twitter for cash, but it's not clear it would be a good investment. It would be better to wait for Twitter to fail and then pick up the pieces at a huge discount.
gjolund 10y ago
Twitter is the gossip rag of social media. I haven't logged in to my twitter account in years.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yuhong 10y ago
As a side note, I have been thinking of Yishan-style CEOs for a while now, with board of directors tweeting often too. Twitter itself would probably be a good candidate for such a public company.

74 points by edran 10y ago

Twitter's turnaround could come through acquisitions. If Yahoo were willing to sell Tumblr to Twitter, and if Twitter were able to pick up Gawker Media it could form a real powerhouse.

pbreit 10y ago

"The Street" still exists??

walterbell 10y ago

Has Twitter considered a micropayment service for publishers, given the outsize value of the platform to journalists and creators for marketing, real-time signals and discussion? Flattr [1], Brave [2], Blendle [3] and Patreon [4] are trying different approaches, but Twitter already has the scale (identity namespace), behavioral signals and traffic. Since Twitter does not seem to be highly successful at existing advertising models, perhaps some resources could be dedicated to a small team that can move quickly and launch a new service by Jan 2017, so that a payment experiment can run for a couple of quarters before D-Day arrives in July 2017? If any innovative revenue-generating projects are planned, please involve the diehard users who would be lost if Twitter went away. They have much to offer, despite painful memories of API/developer changes and other missteps. There are loyal users who want Twitter to succeed as an independent entity, one that can chart an independent model for social media. [1] Flattr: favoriting tweets to allocate funds, https://blog.flattr.net/2013/04/twitter-is-forcing-us-to-drop-users-ability-to-flattr-creators-by-favoriting-their-tweets/ https://blog.flattr.net/2013/04/twitter-is-forcing-us-to-dro... [2] Brave: browser metrics to allocate Bitcoin funds, https://brave.com/blogpost_3.html https://brave.com/blogpost_3.html [3] Blendle: pay-per-article with instant refunds, http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/03/testing-its-pay-per-article-model-in-english-blendle-launches-in-the-united-states-with-20-publishers/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/03/testing-its-pay-per-article... [4] Patreon, recurring subscriptions to crowdfund creators, http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6502119/patreon-two-years-crowdfunding-amanda-palmer http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6502119/patreon-t...

Pxtl 10y ago
... I would totally use a twitter micropayment tip platform. I follow dozens of independent artists and writers on twitter who live on gratuities and patreon, a tipping engine built into twitter would be fantastic. I hate the patreon model because I don't want to commit to a monthly contribution for artists who fall in and out of my tastes. They should buy flattr and build it in.
- jondubois 10y ago
  I don't think it would work. Tweets don't really classify as 'content'. Also you can never rely on donations - People only pay money when they have no other choice.
  - walterbell 10y ago
    Donations are only one of many possible micro-payment transactions. Creators/vendors can also provide digital entitlements to their customer/users, in exchange for revenue. Artists can sell digital swag. WeChat offers one example of incorporating transactional workflows into a chat/conversation interface. For some abstract ideas about currency, data signals, identity and trust, see the MetaCurrency project, https://medium.com/metacurrency-project/beyond-jobs-32f65369cfc1 https://medium.com/metacurrency-project/beyond-jobs-32f65369... & http://metacurrency.org http://metacurrency.org.
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    Tweets often contain links to content.
- walterbell 10y ago
  It could also work for tipping app developers who struggle to earn revenue on Apple/Google platforms. Some developers respond quickly to support and enhancement requests on Twitter. It would be convenient to tip developers for either their assistance or to sponsor a new software feature, from the Twitter app where you are already "chatting" with the developer. In China, WeChat incorporates payments and much more, http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ "... while Facebook and WhatsApp measure growth by the number of daily and monthly active users on their networks, WeChat cares more about how relevant and central WeChat is in addressing the daily, even hourly needs of its users. Instead of focusing on building the largest social network in the world, WeChat has focused on building a mobile lifestyle — its goal is to address every aspect of its users’ lives, including non-social ones. The way it achieves this goal is through one of the most unsurfaced aspects of WeChat: the pioneering model of “apps within an app”. Millions (note, not just thousands) of lightweight apps live inside WeChat, much like webpages live on the internet. This makes WeChat more like a browser for mobile websites, or, arguably, a mobile operating system — complete with its own proprietary app store. Not what we’d expect from a messaging app.." If Twitter can create a revenue channel for creators and developers, then (re)open the platform to third-party developers, they can unlock dormant economic potential in both the platform and customer base. The advertising ("own the user experience") experiment has run its course, it's time to try business models which build on Twitter's unique identity platform.

jacquesm 10y ago

Why would twitter have to be more than it already is? It has a fairly unique place in the whole social media constellation and has long term viability. So what if it didn't become the #1 go to place for everything and anything. Concentrate on that core, make it work flawlessly and keep a good balance between commerce and utility. Better that than selling out to Facebook or Google, guard that independence.

joobus 10y ago
Because they make no money!
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  That's why we can't have nice things - for longer than just a while, at least.
  - nsns 10y ago
    Perhaps we could, by adopting the way Firefox, Wikipedia, Internet Archive et al. operate.
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      Doesn't Firefox rely on search engine backing?
      - swift 10y ago
        Yes, they do. They are struggling to reduce their dependence on it but have not seen much success.
- gkya 10y ago
  Can't they charge for things like verified accounts, too big photos, etc.; organise paid talks/forums of very high-profile users and sell gear and pro-grade client software? I don't use Twitter but I guess many organisations, companies and celebs alike wouldn't care to pay for these. They could also start a cheap <handle>@twitter.io mail service.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Seems like if they opened up their API it would help. Wasn't that when everything started going downhill, when they started closing down third party apps?

digitalengineer 10y ago
It was. Kinda like the opposite of Ballmers "Developers, developers, developers!" The people that helped them become big got shafted and now no longer trust Twitter management. What a surprise...
- achompas 10y ago
  I'm not sure I buy this. The API meant they effectively outsourced product development instead of developing that competency internally. It's no surprise that the company struggled to develop compelling features or products for years (both before and after closing the API).
AznHisoka 10y ago
Opening their API also introduced a lot of noise into timelines. Especially tools/apps that allowed users to automate/schedule their tweets like Buffer and Hootsuite. When you see that 9 out of 10 tweets are just automated link sharing, you stop paying attention to your timeline.
- tombrossman 10y ago
  Instead of no longer paying attention, just manage your timeline better. Stop following people who automate tweets, it's mostly garbage and it comes with extra baggage like more click-tracking and redirects. I've found that most of the items people share on Buffer are things I already read here on HN or saw someone else share earlier. Not following too many people is great, because the people you follow will curate the interesting stuff for you and re-tweet it. Stop following all media accounts for instance, maybe follow a couple reporters instead and you'll still catch all the interesting stories. If un-following is socially awkward for whatever reason, mute people you follow or at least toggle off re-tweets for those that do too many. I read my whole timeline most every day and it's great. It does take regular pruning though, like a plant in your garden.

pcunite 10y ago

I can't use a service that limits me to 140 characters. Sorry.

pcunite 10y ago
Downvote me all you want Twitter developers. You know it's true.
- daveguy 10y ago
  He said in 62 and 64 characters respectively.
criddell 10y ago
That's a defining characteristic of Twitter. If it doesn't work for you, there are lots of other places for you posts. For me, the brevity is the what I like about Twitter. I think complaining about message length on Twitter is like complaining that you can't place video calls on Instagram.

yuja_wang 10y ago

I liked twitter, but some products have a "time" and their time passes.

erikb 10y ago

Why would anybody think that Google would buy Twitter, if they think that Google is number one in the same space that Twitter is number two at? If you are number one in something, usually you don't buy number two. If you want to grab part of a market you are pretty much not part of or modernize your century old empire you will consider buying number two. No 2 is already quite expensive. And if you are already the market leader grabbing more does not yield a value that corresponds with the price. And in the end making some return on your investment is always quite a big factor.

themartorana 10y ago
These buys aren't straight revenue buys. For Google, it would be buying an enormous database of personal information, and only Google could tell you if that would be valuable to them or not.
- niftich 10y ago
  I don't understand why Google keeps getting brought up as a possible purchaser of Twitter. I just don't see it as either a synergistic or a defensive purchase. - Google already has two-and-a-half social networks (Youtube, Google+, Blogger) if you don't count their ever-relaunching chat apps (Hangouts, Allo, Duo) - they don't need Twitter to innovate, they don't need them to stay relevant, and they don't need Twitter's presence on phones because they (Google) are likely also present on mobile devices - they are still the leader in display ads, Twitter is distant third behind Facebook [1], and Facebook has absorbed most of the growth in the last year, but now that AOL and Yahoo have merged (both now owned by Verizon), it's possible that Twitter is fourth behind them (I'll try to confirm with sources) On a defensive purchase: - Facebook, Amazon (Twitch), Microsoft, and Verizon are Google's largest threats in the social/ads/attention space; Google dwarfs them all except Facebook. As I've said above, Verizon is the up-and-coming ad network and they stand the most to gain by (approximately) doubling their share, but even if they do so they still won't be a meaningful threat to Google in the near future. - Snapchat, despite being a serious threat to Facebook (mostly to their subsidiary Instagram), isn't actually a threat to Google -- it infringes on next to no capability that one could enjoyable do with Google's services. This remains unchanged even with Google's new phone-number-bootstrapped chat and video apps, Allo and Duo, which exist primarily to compete with iMessage/Facetime and WhatsApp - Someone with the most to gain from buying Twitter would be a relative outsider who wants to enter the social space, or get access to influencers and their valuable ad draws. In my opinion, these are Verizon, Amazon, and Yandex. I've posted about this before, here [2][3]. [1] (2015) http://www.dmnews.com/digital-marketing/facebook-twitter-to-claim-a-third-of-display-ads-in-two-years/article/405558/ http://www.dmnews.com/digital-marketing/facebook-twitter-to-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083561#12083975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083561#12083975 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913828#11914620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913828#11914620

noelwelsh 10y ago

It seems that Twitter execs believe the magic of Twitter resides in the 140 character limit. I strongly disagree. To me the magic of Twitter resides in the ability to connect with people with whom I have a professional relationship or interest, but not necessarily a personal one. (Personal relationships belong on Facebook or perhaps Instagram.) The 140 character limit is an archaic relic that I believe is harmful to Twitter. The 140 character limit arose in a world that doesn't exist anymore. In 2006, SMS was a sensible way to transmit data, phones were mostly dumb, blogs were the way to get your thoughts into the world (but experiencing a backlash, which helped bring Twitter to prominence), and most people interacted with the Internet via a desktop. Facebook et al have shown that given a blank canvas the majority of people do not suddenly pen 10'000 word screeds. Lifting the 140 character limit will not suddenly lead to an explosion of novellas on Twitter, especially now that most people interact via a mobile (I went to my laptop to write this comment, having read the comments on my mobile.) The 140 character limit is actively harmful to meaningful discussion, and I believe it fuels much of the anger and abuse that Twitter is known for generating. Drop the 140 character limit and let me have meaningful conversations with the social network on Twitter. That is, to me, an extremely compelling proposition. (1427 characters)

throwaway5752 10y ago
I don't want to go there to read peoples' blogs, though. Some sort of limit on content length feels like it is key to what defines Twitter (whether 140 char or something else).
- noelwelsh 10y ago
  This can easily solved at the UI level. Posts longer than a certain limit can have only the first few lines shown, with a "fold" like on blogs, or some other mechanism, to reveal the full content. There won't be many long posts in any case.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    That's exactly what people achieve with screenshots of text below their tweets.

RileyKyeden 10y ago

I just hope they sell to someone who respects that people can have a need for multiple unlinked identities without nefarious purposes. Facebook's "real name" policy is bogus. They haven't imposed it on their acquisitions so far, but how long will that last?

codegeek 10y ago

I have come to this conclusion : Personal/Family/Friends: Facebook Professional/Business: Linkedin Celebrity/Gossip/Politics: Twitter I have a twitter account but who cares what I tweet. No one really unless I am a celebrity or a famous politician.

RileyKyeden 10y ago
Facebook is where I quarantine family and people whose interests diverged from my own over time, but are still good to keep in touch with. I don't use Linkedin. Twitter is where friends/personal stuff happens. You should find a community beyond the stuff they push at sign up. There's so much there beyond celebrities, gossip, and politics.
chrisseaton 10y ago
LinkedIn for professional? I don't know what industry or field you are in, but you can't really have discussions on LinkedIn can you? I'm in computer science and a lot of things are announced or organised over Twitter.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  As much as I hate LinkedIn, I've seen a lot of corporates using it for discussions & posting long form articles & case studies. Typically in legal, manufacturing & Fortune 500 marketing. LinkedIn has a lot of Facebook-esque features now. But if you're not excited by conversations about legal implications of safety harness design or improvements to cardboard box manufacturing processes, then you probably wouldn't enjoy LinkedIn....

tommoor 10y ago

Seems like a good time to start building that Twitter alternative you've been dreaming of..

Animats 10y ago

Sell to whom? They're already publicly held. Selling means someone has to buy up all the stock, which requires about $15 billion in cash.

andruby 10y ago
Not necessarily in cash. With a leveraged buyout, you can go as low as 20% in cash and finance the rest with loans you put on Twitter's balance after the acquisition. Or the acquiring company can issuing new shares and using those to pay Twitter shareholders.
- Animats 10y ago
  Twitter doesn't have the balance sheet for a leveraged buyout. No hard assets and money-losing. Google or Facebook could buy Twitter for cash, but it's not clear it would be a good investment. It would be better to wait for Twitter to fail and then pick up the pieces at a huge discount.

gjolund 10y ago

Twitter is the gossip rag of social media. I haven't logged in to my twitter account in years.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yuhong 10y ago

As a side note, I have been thinking of Yishan-style CEOs for a while now, with board of directors tweeting often too. Twitter itself would probably be a good candidate for such a public company.