Tag: Twitter Killer

Discovery & My Proposed ‘Twitter Killer’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

In my imagination, the Discovery feature of my proposed Twitter Killer would allow you to find any Public Group that might have been created by another User. I vacillate between letting everyone create Public Groups and letting only Verified Users create Groups.

But I think letting everyone create a Public Group is probably the way to go because that way everyone feels equal, even though in reality they aren’t — especially when it comes to who can post in a Public Group.

Back to Discovery, though.

When you searched for a Keyword or Phrase, you would find a multitude of Groups devoted to the subject in question, with varying degrees of popularity. I suppose you might have Sponsored Groups or Leader Board Groups that are featured in some way.

There is a lot you could do with the Group concept because it’s so flexible and powerful. There might be some clutter if everyone is creating a Group in an ad hoc manner with little or no regard for how to properly name one so people understood what the heck they were about.

But that would also be some of the appeal of this element of the service. And, remember, each Group would be associated with the account of a User, so that would really help narrow down how interested someone might be in the Public Group.

There are a lot of ways the Public Group concept could go wrong, of course, but I’m really enjoying thinking up different use cases and trying to bounce up and down on this platform concept to see where I can find and fix weaknesses.

Making My Proposed ‘Twitter Killer’ Scalable

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I find myself thinking up a lot of different ways to make my fanciful “Twitter Killer” based on updated Usenet UX design more scalable. One solution I just came up with is using Google Docs-like collaboration when any particular user in-line edits a Post.

But this obviously raises the question of — when does someone get to spawn a new Post within a threaded discussion?

If you don’t allow that to happen, then each Thread would have just one Post that was completely torn apart by various people. Here is my solution — not only would you limit who could contribute to a Group’s Thread, but you also limit who can spawn a new Post within that Thread.

So, you would have a situation where, say, a New York Times reporter writes a 500 word post that is quickly inline edited by a few dozen people, all using different colors so as to not to cause confusion. But some Users would have the ability to spawn a new Post within the Thread or Subthread.

This newly spawned Post might have some conditions, like it can’t just be the old Post, you would have to use subset of the content from the original Post in your new Post in the Thread or Subthread.

Something like that. Something manageable.

And you might get a Notification in your Control Panel when someone you followed either edited a Post or spawned a new Post. Or maybe you could follow individual Threads in a Group to monitor that sort of thing as well. There are a lot of different ways you might go.

An Interesting Feature Proposal For My ‘Twitter Killer’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

It just occurred to me how to fix a problem with my proposed Twitter Killer based on updated Usenet UX — instead of reposting each post when you post it in a group, you might allow people to inline edit through collaboration like you find with Google Docs.

This would allow the service to scale a lot easier and also reduce the risk of a zillion posts that were just people re-posting with the words “I agree” somewhere on the Post. This really fixes a huge issue with the service. My natural inclination is to make things way more complicated and nuanced than necessary, so maybe there would have to be a reason why you posted a new Post in a Thread instead of using the collaboration feature.

Maybe, essentially, you would have to “opt-in” to spawning a new Post in a Thread. The default would be just inline editing via a collaboration feature. Though, remember, you wouldn’t be able to edit someone else’s edits to a post. That’s the only way to prevent shenanigans.

A Unique Feature Of My ‘Twitter Killer’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

As I keep saying, unless I win the $1 billion Powerball, what I’m writing about here just isn’t going to happen. Not only does no one listen to me, but I can’t code and definitely don’t have any money. But this is an entertaining thought experiment, a way of letting off some steam in between novel copy writing sessions.

It has occured to me there is a crucial feature of the old Usenet that we just don’t have available anymore — inline editing. The last time I checked, with Reddit — which is the closest we have to Usenet these days — you can’t go into the main post and inline edit its text. You have to quote the copy in the comments below the main post.

Back in the day with Usenet, you had a full page to work with and within that full page you could have some pretty interesting discussions as various people inline edited the Post’s text. Think of it as a very primitive, public form of Google Doc’s collaboration feature.

So, this was an interesting way to add value to the conversation about something of interest, over and above the robust threading that Usenet had way back when. This is a feature that modern users simply do not have access to and if you gave it to them as part of a Twitter Killer based on updated, more modern Usenet UX concepts, they probably would love it.

But remember, Jack Dorsey is developing an open protocol for Twitter-like services that might upend everything. And, like I said, absolutely no one listens to me. So, lulz.

Well, It’s Now Or Never For a’Twitter Killer’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I don’t know what to make of Twitter at the moment. It could really go either way, depending on if Musk pulls it out of its current nosedive or if his mercurial nature proves to be too much.

As such, if you’re interested in building a “Twitter Killer” now is your moment. I would do it — I have the idea — but I can’t code and have no money. And the only way I would ever have the money to found a startup is if I won the $1 billion Powerball drawing coming up.

And that, I’m afraid, is rather doubtful — to say the least.

But the idea I’ve come up with, whereby everything one did in the service would be done in the context of Groups, is pretty cool. It’s a lot easier to understand the concept of a Group than it is a Circle like was found with G+. And, besides, what would be found in the Group is a lot cooler — full page multimedia Posts in threaded discussions.

The service would have all the other accoutrements of a modern day social media platform. I keep trying to find new angles on my social media start up and I find it a real struggle because the entire concept is so strong that I don’t really need to explore it anymore.

I know in my mind exactly how it would work, what it would look like and its strengths and weaknesses. It doesn’t help that I’ve talked about and written about this idea in the past to an embarrassing degree.

Anyway, it will definitely be interesting to see which direction Twitter goes — if it explodes in popularity or if it implodes and turns into another failed social media platform that was once popular.

Only time will tell.

Is It Time For Blues to ‘Secede’ From Twitter?

By Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

The uncertainty surrounding Elon Musk owning Twitter has generated a massive about of Twitter liberal angst in the days since the acquisition closed. I’m not prepared to go so far as to say Blues should leave the service, but I do think it’s something to keep at the forefront of our minds going forward.

Being an “edge lord” is all fun and games when you don’t own the service that, at the moment, is at the center of national discourse in the United States. By definition, is public profile is significantly more potent. He’s so wealthy, of course, that he is rather oblivious to this change of state.

So he continues to be his usual provocative self, filling the media space previously inhabited by dingus Trump.

The risk is, of course, that the very prospective changes to Twitter that is going to give MAGA cocksuckers a boner will also be the very thing that drives that 10% of the user base that makes Twitter useful in the first place. And, really, at the moment, the missing ingredient is a Twitter-like platform for Blues to decamp to.

Jack Dorsey is developing an open source protocol that would allow for a number of different Twitter-like companies to access it at the same time. But that’s still in the development stages.

If I win the $1 billion Powerball lottery, I’m going to use that money to make my dream of starting a Twitter Killer using an updated Usenet UX. The usual caveats about that being delusional and not happening apply, of course.

But the point remains — if someone could found a fleet footed startup that did what Twitter does, only better…I think Twitter would be doomed. But the window to do such a thing is very, very narrow. It can probably be counted in months, not years.

My Hot Take On Twitter Post-Musk Discourse

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

There is a growing body of work written by people a lot smarter and better educated than me about different ways Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk might mishandle his acquisition and “kill” it.

Here’s my addition to all that.

It’s going to take a lot to dislodge the core 10% of Twitter users who produce most of its content. You’re going to need a better mousetrap, if you will, for them to leave the service. So, in that respect, Musk definitely has some breathing room. But at the same time, that breathing room is limited, if the perception hardens that Twitter is nothing more than a more popular version of Gab, or Truth Social, then there may come a tipping point where the service collapses and becomes just another MySpace or Friendster.

It would be at that point, obviously, where someone — probably someone center-Left — would come up with a Twitter clone that would be a “safe space” for people who just want a public form to talk about their food or rant about what a collection of deplorables MAGA is.

A lot is going to depend on the issue of what Musk actually does with the service as opposed to what his fan boys want him to do. If he pretty much just runs it the way it always has been while adding a few features, then the very forces that have made it an accidental success will continue. But if decides to let the malignant dingus Trump back on the platform, then, well, that, unto itself, could be the tipping point that leads to Twitter’s demise.

As I keep saying — all this uncertainty around Twitter’s future has opened up a very narrow window of opportunity for a similar service, maybe one based on an updated version of Usenet’s UX. That’s my idea, at least. I think that would be pretty cool.

But for the time being, I think Twitter is going to muddle through. Musk has a proven track record of success, so I think he’s probably going to pull this one off, too.

Twitter Is Woefully Underdeveloped

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

One of the many reasons why there seems a narrow window of opportunity for someone to swoop in with a new Twitter-like service is how low people’s expectations are when it comes to that space. It’s my impression that on a corporate level, Twitter has always been seen as a loosely controlled, very lucky shitshow that stumbled into its current importance.

Now that we have some sense of what people want, if you had a few million lying around, you could scoop up my “updated Usenet UX” concept and people would be so in awe that they could post a full webpage in the context of threaded discussion in a Group that you might have a real hit on your hands.

Or not, who knows.

But there is, if nothing else, Jack Dorsey’s “Bluesky” startup floating around, which apparently is going to be an opensource protocol that would allow for multiple Twitters to share the same feed — I think.

There is just a lot of potential untapped innovation within the Twitter-like space that would not require that much thought to develop. Or, I could win the lottery soon and do all of this myself. Wish me luck!

An Interesting Possible Feature Of My Imagined ‘Twitter Replacement’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

There is a very narrow window of opportunity for someone to create a Twitter Killer and, lulz, I just don’t see anyone listening to me in time for my dream of a Usenet UX-inspired start up happening.

But I find myself thinking a lot about how feature rich such a service could be. One cool possible feature would be that each ad hoc Group that a User created could have an associated “Chat” connected to it. Since the User could determine who could post or chat within each Group, you could really keep tight control on the size of each individual Group.

And, yet, lulz. The only way this dream is going to ever become a reality is if, like, I win the lottery. So, this is just an idle daydream and it’s likely to remain as such.

My Proposed Twitter Replacement Is Very Flexible

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.