• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Twitter has started blocking unregistered users

TurkeysGhost said:
The best thing to increase revenue would be to make the website more attractive to advertisers, but that would mean reversing most of his big decisions and admitting that previous policies were about good business, not wokeness or whatever.
Click to expand...

I dunno. If the advertiser advocates censorship, then it's perhaps best not to take their money.
 
Trausti said:
My sense is he's trying to find ways to increase revenue. Other social media platforms limit what unregistered users can see. He set off this trial balloon, and it flopped.
Click to expand...

TurkeysGhost said:
The best thing to increase revenue would be to make the website more attractive to advertisers, but that would mean reversing most of his big decisions and admitting that previous policies were about good business, not wokeness or whatever.
Click to expand...

As I've already mentioned, unregistered users don't get ads, those logged in do. Kind of backward from the business point of view. Fine for me as long as I don't log in.
 
Trebuchet said:
As I've already mentioned, unregistered users don't get ads, those logged in do. Kind of backward from the business point of view. Fine for me as long as I don't log in.
Click to expand...

It's a come-on. Unregistered users see how valuable the platform is, and register for the premium benefits. Advertisers get a more refined data set to work with.

It's kind of a genius inversion of the usual model.

Until it isn't, of course.
 
Trausti said:
I dunno. If the advertiser advocates censorship, then it's perhaps best not to take their money.
Click to expand...

No. Advertisers have little interest in their ads appearing next to tweets by nazis and [other] racists, just for example.
 
Trebuchet said:
As I've already mentioned, unregistered users don't get ads, those logged in do. Kind of backward from the business point of view. Fine for me as long as I don't log in.
Click to expand...
That is kind of a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation.

Registered users tend to become blind to ads, but unregistered visitors are mostly worthless to advertisers because many (most?) aren't actually people and the site doesn't have access to demographics about the ones that actually are human.
 
Babbylonian said:
No. Advertisers have little interest in their ads appearing next to tweets by nazis and [other] racists, just for example.
Click to expand...


You want a multimillion dollar company to determine what you can or cannot read online?
 
Trausti said:
You want a multimillion dollar company to determine what you can or cannot read online?
Click to expand...

You mean Twitter and Facebook to name products from two private sector multimillion dollar companies shouldn't be able to control what appears on them?
 
jadebox said:
That is kind of a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation.

Registered users tend to become blind to ads, but unregistered visitors are mostly worthless to advertisers because many (most?) aren't actually people and the site doesn't have access to demographics about the ones that actually are human.
Click to expand...

I resent that, I am mostly a people!
 
I Am The Scum said:
This man wanted to put a chip in people's brains.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don't think he ever said that everybody had to have a chip, or that a chip would be put into anyone's brain without their consent.

Anyway, Threads was launched today in 100 countries. The tl;dr is that it's an Instagram-based direct rival to Twitter, and everyone with an Insta account can sign up for free. I'm on it, with my usual internet handle. Anyone else?
 
Trausti said:
You want a multimillion dollar company to determine what you can or cannot read online?
Click to expand...

Huh? That’s what a social media company is. A multibillion dollar company in the case of Twitter that determines what you can and cannot see on its platform.

I’m confused. What for-profit business model do you think exists that works completely neutrally?
 
arthwollipot said:
To be fair, I don't think he ever said that everybody had to have a chip, or that a chip would be put into anyone's brain without their consent.

Anyway, Threads was launched today in 100 countries. The tl;dr is that it's an Instagram-based direct rival to Twitter, and everyone with an Insta account can sign up for free. I'm on it, with my usual internet handle. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

I am, and I also just started a thread here about it.
 
Trausti said:
I dunno. If the advertiser advocates censorship, then it's perhaps best not to take their money.
Click to expand...

Advertisers don’t advocate or not advocate censorship. They just try to protect their brands from bad associations. If Pepsi doesn’t want its adverts to appear next to Nazi messages, they’ll just take their business elsewhere. They don’t say that a platform can’t publish what it wants, only that they will not be associated with a platform that publishes certain things.
 
Trausti said:
You want a multimillion dollar company to determine what you can or cannot read online?
Click to expand...

No but since almost everything online is funded by advertising, because the users have an expectation that the Internet is free, that’s the way it is.

It wasn’t much different before the internet. Traditional media was also partly or wholly funded by advertising. On commercial TV you only got to see stuff that would pull in advertising revenue. Magazines that reviewed products had to be careful what they said about the products that were advertised within their pages.

If you don’t like it, find a business model that doesn’t rely on advertisers.
 
Twitter site traffic is dropping like a stone. hard to parse out how much of this is because of competition from Threads and how much of this is because of this policy of login-walling Twitter content making the site unreadable to the general public.

Twitter’s website traffic is “tanking” according to the chief of internet services company Cloudflare, amid signs users are migrating to alternative platforms such as Threads, BlueSky and Mastodon.

On Sunday, Matthew Prince posted a graph from Cloudflare’s ranking of the most popular websites in the world showing Twitter has been in decline since the start of 2023, not long after Elon Musk took over the platform.

The graph shows a significant drop in Cloudflare’s domain server ranking for Twitter in mid-2023 coincided with unpopular changes Musk made to the site, and the launch of the Meta-owned rival platform Thread
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/10/twitter-traffic-sinks-in-wake-of-changes-and-launch-of-rival-platform-threads-elon-musk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom