Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsxwolf | Hacker News Reader

There's an Internet for celebrities and an Internet for the rest of us.

Facebook has this.

Wikipedia has notability requirements.

Twitter has verified accounts, which only celebrities can have because no one gives a shit if your account is real or not.

The Hacker's Manifesto is a bit turned on its head.

View on HN

>Twitter has verified accounts...

Which is something else that William Shatner has strong opinions about:

http://mashable.com/2014/06/24/william-shatner-twitter-verif...

The Internet for television and film celebrities is a walled echo chamber by design. The tools written for them are probably not useful or necessary for anyone not interacting under the same volume conditions with the same level of technical proficiency.

I expect social apps for celebrities to interact with thier audience typically have: a simplified/focused interface, filters for negative comments and spam, filters to resort the most "pr friendly" content to the top, an enhanced search interface to quickly filter content according to their current promotional/contractual obligations (allow easily responding to a comment about new movie x, when most of the comments are about 20 year old movie y), ml tools to track diehard fans, some kind of secondary user interface for thier assistant or PR manager to play puppet master or perform additional filtering and prepping...

In the end, these entertainers are paying for their "enhanced access" and tools by using them to promote the services that are building tools for them. Hence, Cap'n TJ Hooker's tumblr post about a fb service.

That is just the difference between a producer and a consumer. These sites need content for the consumers so they provide services to the producers. It's completely uncontroversial if you ask me.

I can't comment on Wikipedia.

There's a lot of "internet for Xs". Part of the point of the internet is you can set up your own area for anyone you like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com