by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
Again, I have to stress that I just want to use this idea I’ve come up with — I have no skin in the game otherwise besides wanting credit for thinking it up. I can’t code and don’t have any money. So, lulz, have at it. But with that out of the way, I will note that there is more than one way to look at this Twitter replacement concept.
Instead of a direct Twitter replacement, you might use the concept to go after newspapers as an app. You would have the main domain name and then a subdomain for individual cities that you were going to cover. Each of the your editors would have a number of Groups under their control and their writers would post to the Groups and there could be discussions about whatever it is they posted.
So, instead of the passive user base of a print newspaper, you would have a very active audience that felt engaged in what the “virtual newspaper” was putting out during the course of the day. This is very Blue Sky and just something I’ve thought would be an interesting application.
Also, if you really wanted to be ambitious, this cherry picking of Usenet UX concepts could be used to go after Facebook. You do it this way — start the service as a Twitter replacement then gradually add features so it’s a direct Facebook replacement. Doing so, of course, would mean Facebook would either want to buy you or crush you before it was all over with. Or, if nothing else, clone all your features.
But I really do like the idea that the fundimental problem of how currently the various elements of your life are all smashed together in a very weird and awkward situation. The Group concept fixes this problem because everything about the service would be based on Groups. By definition, to use the service would be to have different interests, subjects, elements of your life all in a different Group devoted to them.
Anyway, lulz. This is really fun to write about, even if it’s completely pointless and no one cares.
