Like CB Radio, Twitter isn’t an end product. It’s infrastructure that plays too socially and politically useful a role to be left in the hands of investors and stockbrokers. Whether it’s through state nationalisation, some sort of global governance framework or a user maintained co-operative, it’s time to take Twitter out of the world of finance and put it firmly in the hands of the public – before it goes broke, or wrecks its user experience entirely, or both.
Sigh.
“…before it goes broke, or wrecks its user experience entirely, or both.”
Whereupon the new Twitter will rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes.
What’s the idiot’s problem? Does he just not want to think up a new username, or something?
Does this person think brokers or investors actually run companies?
Investors have voting rights but it’s not going to be on questions of whether to tag someone with a blue emoji or something.
State nationalisation. HA.
User created- yeah there is networks created and maintained cheaply through collaboration by techies out there. Join one of them
If twitter goes broke it will be because the business model did not work. Simple.
The idiot is arguing that Twitter should be considered a vital public service like the armed forces or the fire service.
It isn’t. As far as I can tell, it is a social network for the opinionated to find affirmation for their largely ill informed views where as before they would get drunk on six pints of Johnny knock-me-down in a pub, start ranting and then find themselves barred by the landlord for being a grade A twat.
Hence the reason why some people call the service twatter.
The author is a testament to the value of immigration. As the numbers of native arrogant, authoritarian leftist morons fall we must keep up their ranks by importing same from abroad. He is probably second gen but the principle holds good.
I’d be glad to see the demise of the virtue-signalling echo chamber that is Twitter.
The free float is 81%. If you want to make it a co-op, just find $20bn and take it private.
Right. Because government is brilliant at deciding whether to use a star or a heart to indicate non-awkward approval of someone’s lolcat/dinner/homophobic rant.
Why is it that the people most het up about equality are the ones most likely to put random high-status individuals and groups on pedestals?
“I’d be glad to see the demise of the virtue-signalling echo chamber that is Twitter.”
Putting it into public ownership should virtually guarantee that outcome.
Surely if the lefties want it that much they could start their own non-profit Twatter clone.
Communism is Free™
Surely if the lefties want it that much they could start their own non-profit Twatter clone.
If they did, and it was a success, the owners would sell out in a heartbeat. Most SJW lefties are capitalists who are too thick and/or lazy to make any money. But once they lay their hands on some, they’d make Gordon Gecko look philanthropic by comparison. Who remembers the shifight that ensued over the millions that the Occupy movement raised in NYC?
It’s just not true that nationalisation is a bad idea. It’s just a bad way of making something succeed. In the case of Twitter, I think state ownership is a superb idea. I support it wholeheartedly, and so does my dog Arthur.
If he got his way we could call it Twatter.
The “commanding heights” of the economy used to be steel, transport, banking, etc. now, apparently, it is Twitter.
I am about as close to the forefront of modern web technologies and infrastructure as you can get and I can safely say that the demise of Twitter would have absolutely zero impact that would still be felt six months later.
Of course this is just idiotic clickbait like the bollocks about the rugger chap giving his medal to a kid. Safe to ignore it.
Didn’t the gubberment fuck CB radio by forcing it to move from the popular 27MHz band (lots cheap of American hardware available) to 60MHz or summat…?
I too agree, Twitter needs a dose of State Ownership, good and hard.
MatthewL,
“Surely if the lefties want it that much they could start their own non-profit Twatter clone.”
Ideally, we’d have a decentralised social network. We pretty much had it with blogs and RSS, and then Facefuck and Twatter came along and everyone signed up because it had low entry costs compared to blogging.
We pretty much had it with blogs and RSS, and then Facefuck and Twatter came along and everyone signed up because it had low entry costs compared to blogging.
There are few greater tragedies than seeing articulate bloggers switch to writing their thoughts in 146-character snippets on Twitter. It’s as if P.G. Wodehouse decided that after 3 books he’d switch to txt spk.
> There are few greater tragedies than seeing articulate bloggers switch to writing their thoughts in 146-character snippets on Twitter.
Seconded.
Let me know when Twitter does move to 146 characters. Currently I find the 140 too, too, restrictive.
Hang on, have I understood this: in the middle of the UK govt arguing that the encryption on any app should include a backdoor, to be breakable by design by any govt that can bribe someone for access, a UK paper is publishing this twonk’s argument that govt should nationalise a platform because it’s useful for activists, among others?
“Twitter is struggling. Its disappointing financial results, mass layoffs and declining user experience show things aren’t well for the little blue bird. ”
What’s this, a SJW understanding financial results? Tell me it isn’t so.
“The time has come to ask whether, given the purpose of Twitter in comparison to other social networks, it’s time for the investors and merchant bankers to get out of the way. A ubiquitous mass communications platform belongs not in Wall Street but in the commons.”
I suppose it was to much to be hoped for ….
The purpose Twatter, like those other social networks, is to make their founders and investors fabulously wealthy. It really isn’t to allow SJW’s to spend their time virtue signalling or bleating in their echo chamber.
“The hearts are the final straw: it’s time to nationalise Twitter.”
Kip’s Law, anyone?
Anyway, I thought the purpose of Twatter was to allow self righteous SJWs to gang up and bully frail old men like Lord McAlpine on the basis of rumour and innuendo or for plod to arrest people for off beat jokes about bombing airports.
“So how do you monetise an intangible combination of excitement and trepidation sparked by the overwhelming awe of talking to the whole world? ”
Simples, if its so important to you all then you’ll happily pay a subscription fee and maybe even an amount per tweet. And think of the taxes that will be raised, that should make you all feel really virtuous.
“Twitter hasn’t been successful because of decisions by investors, business developers and advertisers – it’s been successful in spite of them.”
But it hasn’t been successful, otherwise it wouldn’t be sacking people it would be recruiting.
“Ultimately CB Radio went out of the fashion with the advent of online chat rooms, which in turn have been replaced by social networks like Twitter.”
What, all those truckers switched to on line chat rooms while they were driving? Idiot. It was the growth in mobile phones that killed CB radio because you could talk to anyone world wide and not just within a 20 mile radius. A bit like Twatter allows them to talk world wide rather than just to their equally deluded mates in the student union bar.
“CB Radio wasn’t privately run. It was government administered and regulated. There was no point in trying to monetise it, because it wasn’t the platform itself that was valuable; it was the networks created by users that made it interesting and useful.”
Fucking hell, this guy really is a moron. Government administers the spectrum, not the service. There’s no money in it because its impossible to charge on a per usage basis without turning it in to the equivalent of a mobile phone network.
Lamp wicks! Get chor lamp wicks!
If Twitter goes under, something else will replace it. I explain it in more detail on my MySpace page.
“Let me know when Twitter does move to 146 characters. Currently I find the 140 too, too, restrictive.”
No one does world class pendantry like our world renowned host.
This is simply a rewording of “I prefer Twitter to Facebook.” I can see the argument (I disagree with it, but I can see it) that the giant social media networks have become such vital infrastructure that they need to be nationalised. But picking just one of them? That’s mental. It’s like claiming that just the District Line needs to be nationalised, but none of the rest of the Tube. Because you happen to like the District Line.
How on Earth is Facebook not a ubiquitous mass communications platform? And furthermore, how on Earth are phones not a ubiquitous mass communications platform? Should Apple be nationalised? Would that work better?
BIND,
> But it hasn’t been successful, otherwise it wouldn’t be sacking people it would be recruiting.
Exactly. Twitter was always a good idea for a free service with shite prospects for monetisation. Facebook pull users towards their own site and apps and therefore adverts. Twitter’s great strength (in usability terms) is that their API allows everyone to embed the service and therefore use it without being monetised at. Having built their platform that way, it’s hard to see how they can ever increase the monetisation without pissing off the users. It really annoyed me when Microsoft ditched full Facebook integration from Windows Phone, as that was a great WP feature, but I can see why FB might have pulled support for it.
Was discussing this with a trader round the time of Twitter’s IPO. He wouldn’t touch them, because there was no way for them to make money.
Tim Newman,
“There are few greater tragedies than seeing articulate bloggers switch to writing their thoughts in 146-character snippets on Twitter. It’s as if P.G. Wodehouse decided that after 3 books he’d switch to txt spk.”
@jeeves Good day, @roderickspode #Eulalie
It makes perfect sense, Twitter is primarily an echo chamber for those of a left wing view, along with the SJWs. Of course it should be nationalised and then ignored.
Why doesn’t the Guardian just set up it’s own platform they could call it Bitter
@NielsR
“Hang on, have I understood this: in the middle of the UK govt arguing that the encryption on any app should include a backdoor, to be breakable by design by any govt that can bribe someone for access, a UK paper is publishing this twonk’s argument that govt should nationalise a platform because it’s useful for activists, among others?”
That is a great point, eloquently put.
@Tim Newman
“There are few greater tragedies than seeing articulate bloggers switch to writing their thoughts in 146-character snippets on Twitter. It’s as if P.G. Wodehouse decided that after 3 books he’d switch to txt spk.”
This is so true. A couple of excellent bloggers I read for years ditched the long form for Twitter and it’s just not been the same since.
Mr Eugenides is one that comes to mind.
“@jeeves Good day, @roderickspode #Eulalie”
[/wipes coffee from screen]
Brilliant. Simply sublime.
I sneeze in threes :
The Greeniad is calling it “Bitter n’ Twisted”. Tim blames the campaign for real ale.