Opt-outs highlight the tension between privacy and revenue at Twitter | Hacker News Reader

Opt-outs highlight the tension between privacy and revenue at Twitter

internetofthieves.org

77 pointsrandomwalker25 comments

Interesting. If the article is correct about the reason for the privacy setting change, then that means Twitter is unable to figure out how to make enough money while respecting people's privacy choices. Twitter only exists in Europe because it is subsidized by Twitter in less privacy-conscious countries.

If Twitter can't make enough money to survive while respecting their users' privacy choices, maybe that's the market telling Twitter that it shouldn't exist. You know, invisible hand and all.

Article doesn't say it cannot survive, simply its unable to achieve revenue targets [from investors].

And there are plenty of other ways to achieve revenue targets that's not advertising:

* Integration of memberships like Patreon - Twitter can essentially kill Patreon by building Patreon with better discovery and a non-4GB-memory-eating SPA.

* YouTube Premium, Discord Nitro-like premium memberships with extra features

* Awards like Reddit gold

* Reduce costs by laying off employees

* Focus on core investments and get rid of non-revenue generating projects

Advertising shouldn't be the only business model you embrace.

I think they, and other social platforms should charge by number of followers an account has. Free for anyone with less than 100 followers, $10 a month for 1000, $100 a month for 10K followers, etc. (and the account owner sets the follower limit but can raise it to the next tier if they want)

This could set a really perverse incentive for people to start monetising their followers.

They are so successful in the journalism community, they could probably start patreon for journalists and get some good press for doing it.

Another route could be to start a newsletter platform since paid newsletters are getting so big.

Substack and it’s perverse companion OnlyFans are good examples of this. Both are growing enormously right now as I imagine a lot of unemployed people are looking to monetize themselves directly.

They are the source for a lot of journalism..

A bit of focus on exclusives.. pay for them, vet the story and the person reporting, journalists would fall over themselves to subscribe to that.

Or maybe I read too much bbc

There's plenty of people who would pay for Twitter as a premium experience.

Twitter's problem is that the design and product team's egos wouldn't like the fact the main thing people would pay for is being able to opt out of their "improvements" to the service.

£4.99 a month for full API access for third party clients, plus two anonymously nominated other accounts (privacy protecting your alts). Total chronological order. Clients can opt out of all "conversation" UI improvements. Favourites can be turned back to stars. Users can pick the client that's best for them layout wise. A proper, useful search tool. A website with more that two tweets on screen on a 4K monitor. No algorithmic features whatsoever.

It would sell like gangbusters. It might also suggest to shareholders that their biggest problem was Twitter's employees.

> And there are plenty of other ways to achieve revenue targets that's not advertising:

> * Reduce costs by laying off employees

> * Focus on core investments and get rid of non-revenue generating projects

How do those help your revenue?

> Advertising shouldn't be the only business model you embrace.

A fine point, but those last two ideas aren't business models. A business model needs to include money coming into the business. Stopping money from leaving is a different thing.

> by building Patreon with [...] a non-4GB-memory-eating SPA

Twitter is the last company I would trust to deliver a product that's not a 4GB-memory-eating SPA. Their current web UI is a disaster in that regard.

How is their web UI a disaster? It's the only I've seen deliver a cohesive experience in all devices, mobile and desktop. One of the better crafted SPAs out there, actually.

Advertising pays significantly better than the other business models and scales significantly better. Reddit's revenue per user is less than 5% that of Twitter and most of that is still from ads.

So no, there's very very few ways to hit the sorts of revenue targets Twitter has without advertising.

> So no, there's very very few ways to hit the sorts of revenue targets Twitter has without advertising

That is very different from saying that a Twitter-like service can't be profitable without advertising.

plenty of other ways to achieve revenue targets that's not advertising

Charge per tweet for anyone with >1000 followers. Those people will gladly pay, they are addicted to the thrill of likes and retweets.

Basic Twitter might cost about as much to run as Craigslist. Do users really want all the add on junk? Or is it mostly there to benefit advertisers?

Craigslist doesn't need to personalize what it shows for every user which makes it cheap to run. Twitter does. I want my timeline based on those I follow and not your timeline.

How complex and demanding do you expect "personalize what I want to see" to be? I remember when i used facebook how I hated when they removed the chronological timeline showing everything Im following. Personally all these "personalization" features are anti features to me. I always though they need this fuzziness to charge for placement of ads and adlike stuff

Your chronological timeline IS a personalization. Doing that at scale adds a lot of complexity over something like Craigslist which doesn't need it.

Ad-sponsored social media seems fucked.

What I don’t get is why they can’t go back to contextual ads. Should be obvious to figure out that users following people posting about topic X might actually be interested about commercial offerings in field X.

It really is. Most of what's wrong with social media, and the modern web in general, can be tied back to the perverse incentives that an advertising-based business model creates. If your goal is to drive traffic to view ads, then you do whatever drives traffic, which in the social media and and journalism landscapes is to create outrage and controversy. Advertising as a business model is the problem. We need to fix that. Installing an ad-blocker is a moral choice not to support that business model, and I encourage everyone to do so. The sooner we kill web advertising as a viable business model, the better. They'll find something else.

How does twitter determine region? If someone uses a VPN do they get different privacy settings? How long do those settings apply forbid they are traveling?

‘How does Twitter set my country setting?

‘When you access Twitter, we may receive information about your location, such as your IP address, precise location information from GPS, or information about wireless networks or cell towers near your mobile device. We use information about your location to determine the country setting for your account, based on the countries where we make our services available. If we are unable to successfully resolve your location to one of these countries, it will be set to the United States by default.‘

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-cha...

The country setting can be changed by the user. If one wanted to change their country to a GDPR respecting EU country, which should one choose? Does it matter?

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-cha...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com