A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
We'll soon be implementing some changes in our effort to reduce spam in Direct Messages. Unverified accounts will have daily limits on the number of DMs they can send. Subscribe today to send more messages
https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1682501248334061572
I remember the conspiracy theory that was going on in the right wing circles of the internet a few years ago, where people like Tim Pool were saying that the blue checkmark was an attempt from Twitter to create a "privileged class on Twitter"...
All of those people are the ones that Elon's been pandering so hard to and look at Twitter now.
Why is it with these people, that them who cry wolf so often, also turns out to be the wolves so often?
This is an awesome thing, it encourages people up get off their site
Twitter could implement a feature where you could only read like 25 tweets a week and Twitter would still somehow survive
But then likely only the musk fanbase and maybe a few confused are the only left
Kinda pointless when most of the spam I encounter in general is from verified accounts. Love that doucheblock extension, and Blue Blocker for automuting accounts that promote tweets.
More ideas for Spez to use on Reddit.
Ah yes, it’s “to fight spam” and not at all an attempt to cut costs of the free users.
Just keep squeezing Elon. Blood will come out of that stone soon enough I just know it!!
Somebody is getting real desperate over there.
What's the limit? As long as it's high I can see this as decent anti spam idea.
It'd make for a good anti-spam measure if there was a limit to the number of DMs users could send to other people who don't follow them back. It'd mean people can still use Twitter DMs like a normal messaging service (which isn't something I care for, but I know some people use it like that).
As it is, it just feels similar to the whole "rate limiting the number of tweets people can view per day" thing, where they're taking the most obvious route to reducing bandwidth usage by restricting users.
It seems crazy that Twitter is actively taking steps to become a worse social media company. Back when I was a kid, companies were supposed to be these well thought out, highly methodical entities that would only make the most optimal moves. I suppose it's 2023 now though.
Look up enshittitication, it's an interesting rabbit hole.
Basically, the idea is that there is a path companies go along where they first please users to build a user base, once you are bound to a platform and don't want to leave (because "everyone" is there) they instead start to shift towards pleasing advertisers until they also feel trapped (because "everyone" advertises there). The final move is trying to squeeze as much as possible out of all these trapped people and companies. It's not just social media, although this of course makes it most obvious at least for a trapped user base. But this also applies for any other big thing that "evryone" uses.
"Enshittification" isn't a rabbit hole, it's a term made up by a pretty hacky young adult sci-fi author like a few months ago for behavior that has been happening and documented in capitalism for at least a century.
That sci-fi author is 52 "young" already, has spent like 25 years writing and active about the evolution of the Internet and how it impacts personal rights, so I'd give him the right to coin a new term for an old concept.
It doesn't prevent anyone from calling it:
...or whatever other set of words doesn't elicit a negative connotation in the business world at the particular moment in time.
Young-adult authors write books for young adults. The author's age is irrelevant (actually, the older they are, the creeper writing books for pre-teens becomes).
They are seeking to increase their wealth without providing additional productivity, or anything of value. That's rent seeking. Not a new concept, happening constantly around us, and nobody seems to want to call it what it is.
Putting a name on a century-old concept isn't the worst idea because now we can easily refer to it when it happens once again. And yes, the old age of that problem is why I consider it a bit of a rabit-hole. It's not just something Twitter does now or that tech companies do now because they copy from each other. It's a quite old concept you'll hear about again and again and can read up on quite a bit, if you really are interested into more than the basic concept or why companies keep trying even though the outcome does not always see positive (from an outside, users perspective).
It already has a name. That's my point.
It's not "happening once again," it has been happening constantly for a century. It's just another form of rent seeking. People like yourself are so focused on tech that you can't put it together and realize that this is something that happens everywhere in capitalism. Giving it different names due to slight variations, or depending on which market, makes it impossible to do anything about on a large scale because it keeps people fractured in their understanding of what is happening.
I'm glad a bunch of people are finally starting to grasp rent seeking, but it's important that people realize that this is a long tradition that has been "enshittifying" their entire lives (and their parents', and grandparents', and great-great-... you get it).
As long as people believe that what they're experience is a unique type of problem, and other industries don't have that specific problem so therefore they have their own separate battles to fight, then nothing will ever change.