1 00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,440 Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 2 00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:17,080 Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 3 00:00:17,120 --> 00:00:20,400 Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio and how the tech 4 00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:24,639 Speaker 1: are you? So it is a wild time on the 5 00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:28,479 Speaker 1: social network platform seen these days. If you're not active 6 00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:31,800 Speaker 1: on social networks, I think you should count yourself fortunate, 7 00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:37,040 Speaker 1: because frankly, I find it exhausting to be covering this 8 00:00:37,360 --> 00:00:40,840 Speaker 1: and to be using any of these social platforms right now. Personally, 9 00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:44,720 Speaker 1: I had scaled way back on my social network presence 10 00:00:45,120 --> 00:00:48,080 Speaker 1: until fairly recently I kind of dipped my toe back 11 00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:51,960 Speaker 1: in and then everything went banana. And that's why it 12 00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:54,360 Speaker 1: has convinced me that maybe I should have just, you know, 13 00:00:54,880 --> 00:00:57,640 Speaker 1: kept kind of at a distance. But anyway, today I 14 00:00:57,680 --> 00:01:00,000 Speaker 1: thought I would give an overview about what's going on 15 00:01:00,600 --> 00:01:05,679 Speaker 1: with the microblogging landscape, which for the longest time was 16 00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:10,080 Speaker 1: dominated by Twitter, and then the various attempts of different 17 00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:13,800 Speaker 1: social networks to compete with Twitter. So, first of let's 18 00:01:13,840 --> 00:01:16,760 Speaker 1: just talk about Twitter. And I've done episodes about the 19 00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:20,800 Speaker 1: company's history before, so instead of going through an exhaustive history, 20 00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:23,600 Speaker 1: we're going to do a recap. So Once upon a 21 00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:26,800 Speaker 1: time there was a company that was trying to launch 22 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:31,720 Speaker 1: a podcasting service, and this was called Odio. But then 23 00:01:31,880 --> 00:01:37,800 Speaker 1: Apple's cannonball into podcasting would drink Odeo's milkshake to mix 24 00:01:37,880 --> 00:01:41,120 Speaker 1: metaphors and references. A few folks at Odeo were also 25 00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:43,920 Speaker 1: working on kind of a spinoff project, and it was 26 00:01:43,959 --> 00:01:47,039 Speaker 1: a tool that would let one person post a text 27 00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:50,600 Speaker 1: message to a whole audience of people all at the 28 00:01:50,600 --> 00:01:54,000 Speaker 1: same time. And the idea was that through this service, 29 00:01:54,120 --> 00:01:57,440 Speaker 1: people could connect with one another or follow other people, 30 00:01:57,760 --> 00:02:00,520 Speaker 1: and then you could blast out quick messages. Maybe you 31 00:02:00,560 --> 00:02:02,680 Speaker 1: would do something like I'm going to go see the 32 00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:05,760 Speaker 1: Struts at Variety Playhouse. Who else is going now? The 33 00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:10,560 Speaker 1: service originally depended upon SMS texting technology that had a 34 00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:12,760 Speaker 1: real limit to the number of characters you could send 35 00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:16,200 Speaker 1: in a message. So this new service, which would eventually 36 00:02:16,280 --> 00:02:19,800 Speaker 1: be called Twitter, originally had a cap of one hundred 37 00:02:19,800 --> 00:02:24,000 Speaker 1: and forty characters per message. It reserved some characters so 38 00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:26,520 Speaker 1: that you could have a username for example, but one 39 00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:28,800 Speaker 1: hundred and forty characters was as long as you could post. 40 00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:32,200 Speaker 1: In two thousand and seven, Twitter would get a big boost, 41 00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:34,919 Speaker 1: so they launch in like the summer of two thousand 42 00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:36,560 Speaker 1: and six. But in two thousand and seven, that's where 43 00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,919 Speaker 1: it landed on people's radars because they went to south 44 00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:44,280 Speaker 1: By Southwest, the big conference that's a music conference, a 45 00:02:44,320 --> 00:02:49,760 Speaker 1: movie conference, and you know interactive. So Twitter had this 46 00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:53,600 Speaker 1: bright idea. The people there had this great idea really 47 00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:57,640 Speaker 1: to set up television screens that would display posted Twitter 48 00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:01,240 Speaker 1: messages to people who were just at the conference, so 49 00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:04,600 Speaker 1: they could actually see these messages pop up. And y'all, 50 00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:06,680 Speaker 1: folks love to see their stuff go up on a 51 00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:09,040 Speaker 1: big screen. So suddenly you had a ton of people 52 00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:11,840 Speaker 1: signing up for Twitter and tweeting all over the place 53 00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:13,600 Speaker 1: and keeping an eye out to see if maybe they 54 00:03:13,639 --> 00:03:17,480 Speaker 1: would pop up on screen. So the strategy drove enrollment 55 00:03:17,639 --> 00:03:20,959 Speaker 1: and buzz. And because you had so many influential people 56 00:03:20,960 --> 00:03:23,640 Speaker 1: at stuff By Southwest, including a lot of you know, 57 00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:30,680 Speaker 1: tech journals and stuff, it really made Twitter's relevance climb significantly. Now, 58 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:33,200 Speaker 1: there were a couple of big draws to Twitter. Over 59 00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:37,160 Speaker 1: the years, you could gather a fairly large following, and 60 00:03:37,200 --> 00:03:41,480 Speaker 1: so celebrities and brands found Twitter useful. Some famous folks 61 00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:44,880 Speaker 1: used it to promote their work or sometimes they were 62 00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:47,120 Speaker 1: doing it so that they could land sponsorships and that 63 00:03:47,200 --> 00:03:49,360 Speaker 1: kind of thing. Others used it just to kind of 64 00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:52,560 Speaker 1: goof around or to tackle causes that they believed in. 65 00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:55,360 Speaker 1: Some did a combination of these things. It wasn't like 66 00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:58,760 Speaker 1: you could do just one or the other. And the 67 00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:02,040 Speaker 1: presence of these famous people on Twitter meant that it 68 00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:04,640 Speaker 1: was possible that you could have an interaction with a 69 00:04:04,640 --> 00:04:07,280 Speaker 1: famous person. That got a lot of regular old Twitter 70 00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 1: users like me really excited. I mean, I still think 71 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:13,520 Speaker 1: about the time when Neil Gaman retweeted one of my posts. 72 00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:17,560 Speaker 1: It got me more visibility than anything else I'd ever 73 00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:22,840 Speaker 1: done anyway. Another big draw was that news organizations and 74 00:04:22,880 --> 00:04:26,719 Speaker 1: the folks staffing those organizations were flocking to Twitter. The 75 00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:30,919 Speaker 1: platform became a way for journalists to rapidly disseminate big stories, 76 00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:34,440 Speaker 1: and Twitter became associated with breaking news. Folks in the 77 00:04:34,480 --> 00:04:37,039 Speaker 1: news business also built out their networks with each other. 78 00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:40,520 Speaker 1: Peer's got a chance to communicate directly with their colleagues 79 00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:44,000 Speaker 1: working for other publications, and Twitter also would serve as 80 00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:47,560 Speaker 1: a way to gather leads to unfolding stories. You know, 81 00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:50,800 Speaker 1: journalists would open up their dms and that way, if 82 00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:54,400 Speaker 1: you happened to know of this firecracker of a story 83 00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:56,400 Speaker 1: that wasn't in the public yet, you could send it 84 00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:58,560 Speaker 1: to one of these journalists. So it was a really 85 00:04:58,720 --> 00:05:03,120 Speaker 1: useful tool for writers and journalists and reporters and that school. 86 00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:07,040 Speaker 1: Now other important uses of Twitter emerged as well. Agencies 87 00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:09,760 Speaker 1: in charge of sending out emergency messages would use Twitter 88 00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:13,960 Speaker 1: to help spread word about everything from traffic conditions to wildfires. 89 00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:17,000 Speaker 1: Anyone who was on Twitter for any length of time 90 00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:20,640 Speaker 1: also knows that Twitter would become something of an earthquake tracker, 91 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:23,719 Speaker 1: because you would see messages pop up that would say 92 00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:26,719 Speaker 1: something like quake, and there'd be a ripple effect as 93 00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:29,599 Speaker 1: the quake moved outward from its source, and you would 94 00:05:29,600 --> 00:05:32,159 Speaker 1: actually be able to track that on Twitter in real time. 95 00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:34,920 Speaker 1: If you were following people who were say in California, 96 00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:37,520 Speaker 1: for example, you'd see it all the time. Twitter would 97 00:05:37,560 --> 00:05:41,120 Speaker 1: also become a tool for activists and protesters around the world, 98 00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:44,400 Speaker 1: which also meant that more authoritarian governments around the world 99 00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:48,159 Speaker 1: started to try and block Twitter within their borders. In 100 00:05:48,200 --> 00:05:51,280 Speaker 1: the spring of twenty twenty two, rumor first spread about 101 00:05:51,279 --> 00:05:54,960 Speaker 1: Elon Musk setting his sights on buying Twitter, and that 102 00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:59,320 Speaker 1: whole saga was filled with drama and theatrics, mostly coming 103 00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,560 Speaker 1: from Elie Musk himself. There were times when he antagonistically 104 00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:06,400 Speaker 1: pursued the purchase of Twitter, at other times when he 105 00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:08,800 Speaker 1: tried to back out of it, which led to Twitter 106 00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,280 Speaker 1: suing Elon Musk for trying to get out of a 107 00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:17,120 Speaker 1: deal that was pretty clear on the no backseis clause. Ultimately, 108 00:06:17,240 --> 00:06:21,479 Speaker 1: Musk did buy Twitter, and it happened just a short 109 00:06:21,520 --> 00:06:24,599 Speaker 1: time before the matter was supposed to be decided in court. 110 00:06:24,839 --> 00:06:27,760 Speaker 1: No big surprise there. He took possession of Twitter in 111 00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:32,159 Speaker 1: early October twenty twenty two. Then Musk began to gut 112 00:06:32,320 --> 00:06:35,880 Speaker 1: Twitter of employees, so as a company that once had 113 00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:38,880 Speaker 1: around eight thousand staff and it ended up being closer 114 00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:43,839 Speaker 1: to fifteen hundred. Entire departments were eliminated, and we started 115 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:47,080 Speaker 1: seeing lots of predictions about how Twitter's days were numbered 116 00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:51,680 Speaker 1: unless things would change dramatically. Former Twitter developers warned that 117 00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:54,280 Speaker 1: there weren't enough people at the company to continue developing 118 00:06:54,279 --> 00:06:57,479 Speaker 1: the platform while also making sure that everything else just 119 00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:00,880 Speaker 1: kept on running in the process, and the general consensus 120 00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:04,679 Speaker 1: was that Twitter was on borrowed time barring a massive change, 121 00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:08,320 Speaker 1: and by borrowed time. I mean that there would come 122 00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:11,960 Speaker 1: a point where Twitter would no longer reliably be active, 123 00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:15,600 Speaker 1: and that it would have lots of interruptions in service now. 124 00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:22,000 Speaker 1: During the same time, Musk's behavior encouraged certain populations on 125 00:07:22,040 --> 00:07:25,960 Speaker 1: Twitter and antagonized others. He claimed to be a proponent 126 00:07:25,960 --> 00:07:28,760 Speaker 1: of free speech, but it quickly became clear that what 127 00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:32,160 Speaker 1: he really meant was he favored his own speech being free. 128 00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:35,280 Speaker 1: There were numerous cases in which people said things Musk 129 00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:38,880 Speaker 1: didn't like and found themselves banned or their messages censored. 130 00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:44,960 Speaker 1: Today Twitter is a weird and chaotic mess The company 131 00:07:45,040 --> 00:07:48,480 Speaker 1: has eased off on bands and restrictions that previously cracked 132 00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:52,560 Speaker 1: down on stuff like hate speech and misinformation, so a 133 00:07:52,560 --> 00:07:55,480 Speaker 1: lot of those parties are back at Twitter now. Musk 134 00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:59,200 Speaker 1: himself has tweeted out messages that some have said are 135 00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:03,400 Speaker 1: anti Semitic. I should add that others debate whether or 136 00:08:03,440 --> 00:08:06,360 Speaker 1: not the messages are actually anti Semitics, but that's in 137 00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:09,560 Speaker 1: the conversation now. A lot of the reports about hate 138 00:08:09,600 --> 00:08:12,960 Speaker 1: speech on Twitter end up being anecdotal, and that's not 139 00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:15,720 Speaker 1: really evidence. You can't really rely on that, you know, 140 00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:19,360 Speaker 1: just because one person may have seen something truly awful 141 00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:23,160 Speaker 1: on Twitter doesn't mean that that's, you know, indicative of 142 00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:29,320 Speaker 1: a bigger problem. However, some agencies have conducted various analyzes 143 00:08:29,400 --> 00:08:31,760 Speaker 1: and surveys to kind of get a better handle on this. 144 00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:36,120 Speaker 1: The Institute of Strategic Dialogue conducted such a survey and 145 00:08:36,160 --> 00:08:39,120 Speaker 1: found or a study rather and found a quantifiable increase 146 00:08:39,160 --> 00:08:42,240 Speaker 1: in the amount of hate speech, specifically anti Semitic hate 147 00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:45,280 Speaker 1: speech on Twitter. Other studies have shown that the company 148 00:08:45,280 --> 00:08:48,960 Speaker 1: has been slow to respond to this problem. The people 149 00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:51,280 Speaker 1: who used to be in charge of that kind of 150 00:08:51,360 --> 00:08:56,120 Speaker 1: content moderation stuff no longer with the company. Now coupled 151 00:08:56,120 --> 00:09:00,520 Speaker 1: with this is something that Twitter really can't ignore. They 152 00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:03,520 Speaker 1: might ignore the rise of hate speech, or it may 153 00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:05,240 Speaker 1: not even be ignoring. It may just be that they 154 00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:07,520 Speaker 1: literally don't have the manpower to do enough about it. 155 00:09:08,200 --> 00:09:11,280 Speaker 1: But one thing they can ignore is how advertisers are 156 00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:14,520 Speaker 1: viewing Twitter these days. According to The New York Times, 157 00:09:14,600 --> 00:09:19,240 Speaker 1: ad dollars make up ninety percent of Twitter's overall revenue, 158 00:09:20,160 --> 00:09:23,160 Speaker 1: so ninety percent of the money coming into Twitter depends 159 00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:28,360 Speaker 1: upon advertising. Twitter literally cannot afford to lose advertisers, but 160 00:09:28,520 --> 00:09:32,559 Speaker 1: the company has seen a sharp decline in advertising revenue 161 00:09:32,600 --> 00:09:36,800 Speaker 1: over the last several months since Musk took control again. 162 00:09:36,880 --> 00:09:39,040 Speaker 1: According to The New York Times, and this was in 163 00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:43,160 Speaker 1: an article that posted back in June of twenty twenty three, 164 00:09:43,360 --> 00:09:48,480 Speaker 1: revenues were down fifty nine percent year over year of 165 00:09:48,600 --> 00:09:51,920 Speaker 1: the April to May period, so one month period, So 166 00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:56,160 Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three April to May, Twitter made fifty 167 00:09:56,240 --> 00:09:59,600 Speaker 1: nine percent less revenue than it had April to May 168 00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:03,360 Speaker 1: in twenty On top of that, the Times reported that 169 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,560 Speaker 1: Twitter was falling well short of its sales projections, up 170 00:10:06,559 --> 00:10:11,559 Speaker 1: to thirty percent short in some cases. Meanwhile, shareholders of 171 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:16,280 Speaker 1: a different Musk owned company, Tesla, were or i should 172 00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:20,160 Speaker 1: say Musk operated company, because while he is a majority 173 00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,400 Speaker 1: owner of Tesla, he's not the only one. But shareholders 174 00:10:23,400 --> 00:10:25,640 Speaker 1: were concerned that Elon was spending a bit too much 175 00:10:25,640 --> 00:10:28,360 Speaker 1: time with his new company of Twitter, and not enough 176 00:10:28,400 --> 00:10:32,439 Speaker 1: tending to matters of concern back at Tesla. So Musk 177 00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:37,280 Speaker 1: faced pressure from Tesla's shareholders to name a new Twitter CEO, 178 00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:41,079 Speaker 1: and at the same time, he recognized that advertisers were 179 00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:43,960 Speaker 1: not eager to sign on to the new face of Twitter, 180 00:10:44,040 --> 00:10:47,640 Speaker 1: so he needed to do something, and he named Linda Yakerino, 181 00:10:47,760 --> 00:10:53,200 Speaker 1: a former executive with NBC Universal, as Twitter's new CEO. Now, 182 00:10:53,240 --> 00:10:57,160 Speaker 1: she has led sales teams at big companies, and she's 183 00:10:57,200 --> 00:11:00,400 Speaker 1: known for her relationships with advertisers, So this move made 184 00:11:00,400 --> 00:11:02,480 Speaker 1: a lot of sense. A lot of people said, Okay, 185 00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:04,960 Speaker 1: maybe we're going to see some stuff turn around here, 186 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,440 Speaker 1: because she clearly is going to mend fences between Twitter 187 00:11:08,480 --> 00:11:12,400 Speaker 1: and advertisers. But Musk didn't actually walk away from Twitter. 188 00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:15,400 Speaker 1: He's still very much a presence there, and based on 189 00:11:15,520 --> 00:11:18,040 Speaker 1: recent moves, it's very hard to believe he's not, at 190 00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:21,480 Speaker 1: least on some level, calling most of the shots. If 191 00:11:21,480 --> 00:11:24,800 Speaker 1: he's not, then Yakarino really needs to rein him in 192 00:11:25,040 --> 00:11:28,800 Speaker 1: because he's been doing more harm to the company recently. 193 00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:32,880 Speaker 1: And then, on top of all of this other mess 194 00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:37,320 Speaker 1: we've been talking about, we've got Twitter the company's financial woes. 195 00:11:37,400 --> 00:11:40,079 Speaker 1: That drop in revenue has meant that Twitter has been 196 00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:42,440 Speaker 1: in a real tough place financially, and a lot of 197 00:11:42,760 --> 00:11:45,960 Speaker 1: reporting has been about how Twitter has failed to pay 198 00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:50,959 Speaker 1: its bills, like all sorts of bills, bills ranging from 199 00:11:51,200 --> 00:11:54,960 Speaker 1: promised payouts to current and former employees who were guaranteed 200 00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:58,679 Speaker 1: a bonus payout that was at fifty percent of goal 201 00:11:59,160 --> 00:12:02,120 Speaker 1: and then never got them. They have now created a 202 00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:07,839 Speaker 1: class action lawsuit against Twitter to seek those payments. Then 203 00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:11,679 Speaker 1: you have the former CEO and leaders of Twitter who 204 00:12:11,760 --> 00:12:14,960 Speaker 1: are suing the company because they say they are owed 205 00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:19,120 Speaker 1: fees to cover legal expenses that they incurred as a 206 00:12:19,160 --> 00:12:22,000 Speaker 1: result of this whole process, and that Twitter owes them 207 00:12:22,040 --> 00:12:25,280 Speaker 1: that money and hasn't paid them. Then you also have 208 00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:29,640 Speaker 1: the owners of cloud services who have said that Twitter 209 00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:33,160 Speaker 1: has failed to pay its bills for the hosting services 210 00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:37,600 Speaker 1: these cloud companies give Twitter, not give sell to Twitter. 211 00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:41,240 Speaker 1: And then you have landlords who are saying that Twitter 212 00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:45,400 Speaker 1: has failed to pay rent on office spaces in various cities. 213 00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:48,719 Speaker 1: And considering Elon Musk's push to have folks come back 214 00:12:48,760 --> 00:12:50,439 Speaker 1: to the office, it does seem odd that he and 215 00:12:51,120 --> 00:12:53,120 Speaker 1: wouldn't make sure that rent was paid up so that 216 00:12:53,160 --> 00:12:55,360 Speaker 1: there would be an office to come into in the 217 00:12:55,400 --> 00:12:59,960 Speaker 1: first place. The negligence has led to one landlord to 218 00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:03,439 Speaker 1: actually evict Twitter from its office space. This would be 219 00:13:03,520 --> 00:13:07,960 Speaker 1: in an office space in Boulder, Colorado. So there had 220 00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:10,719 Speaker 1: been at one time around three hundred Twitter employees who 221 00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:14,720 Speaker 1: worked out of that office, although around a third of 222 00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:19,240 Speaker 1: them were either fired or left when Elon Musk took 223 00:13:19,280 --> 00:13:23,840 Speaker 1: over Twitter. So I guess that means around two hundred 224 00:13:23,880 --> 00:13:26,880 Speaker 1: of them don't have an office to go to considering 225 00:13:26,920 --> 00:13:31,559 Speaker 1: this eviction. Other landlords have filed lawsuits against Twitter, also 226 00:13:31,679 --> 00:13:34,920 Speaker 1: seeking out past rent because they say they haven't received 227 00:13:34,920 --> 00:13:38,880 Speaker 1: payment from the company recently. Then there's this music trade 228 00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:41,880 Speaker 1: group that has sued Twitter over copyright infringement issues. They're 229 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:44,400 Speaker 1: looking for like more than a quarter of a billion 230 00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:48,120 Speaker 1: dollars in damages. The list of aggrieved people and entities 231 00:13:48,160 --> 00:13:51,920 Speaker 1: seeking payment from Twitter is a long and exhaustive one. 232 00:13:52,640 --> 00:13:55,640 Speaker 1: All this and more prompted a lot of folks to 233 00:13:55,679 --> 00:13:59,480 Speaker 1: ask the question, is there anywhere else to go? Is 234 00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:03,880 Speaker 1: there any alternative to Twitter? And I would say the 235 00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:08,240 Speaker 1: answer to that is yeah, but you're probably not gonna 236 00:14:08,400 --> 00:14:12,439 Speaker 1: like it. I'll explain more, but before we dive into 237 00:14:12,559 --> 00:14:16,800 Speaker 1: the next chapter of the micro blogging drama Saga, let's 238 00:14:16,840 --> 00:14:29,360 Speaker 1: take a break to thank our sponsors. We're back, and 239 00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:33,160 Speaker 1: before I dive into this next section two, deeply, I 240 00:14:33,200 --> 00:14:35,640 Speaker 1: do want to say there have been lots of alternatives 241 00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:38,760 Speaker 1: to Twitter over the years. We are talking about a 242 00:14:38,760 --> 00:14:44,000 Speaker 1: couple of recent examples in today's episode, but some of 243 00:14:44,040 --> 00:14:46,000 Speaker 1: them have been around for ages. In fact, some of 244 00:14:46,040 --> 00:14:48,080 Speaker 1: them date all the way back to when Twitter itself 245 00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:51,840 Speaker 1: was first coalescing as part of odio. For example, there 246 00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:56,960 Speaker 1: was jai Ku Jaiku that launched a full month before 247 00:14:57,040 --> 00:15:02,080 Speaker 1: Twitter did. A pair of finish developed created Jaiku, and 248 00:15:02,240 --> 00:15:04,920 Speaker 1: Google purchased Jaiku in the fall of two thousand and seven, 249 00:15:05,640 --> 00:15:09,400 Speaker 1: and well, you can probably guess Jaiku's fate from there. 250 00:15:09,560 --> 00:15:14,800 Speaker 1: Like so many other Google projects and acquisitions, it languished 251 00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:18,800 Speaker 1: without real direction or support for a while until Google 252 00:15:18,960 --> 00:15:23,320 Speaker 1: ultimately shut it down. That has happened way too frequently. 253 00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:27,800 Speaker 1: In two thousand and eight, a service called Plerk debuted. 254 00:15:28,680 --> 00:15:32,160 Speaker 1: Also shared some similarities with Twitter, but with a different 255 00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:36,880 Speaker 1: user interface and layout an approach to microblogging. Clerk kept 256 00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:40,920 Speaker 1: a fairly low profile. It's still around today, but it 257 00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:43,640 Speaker 1: never really got the traction of Twitter. And that's just 258 00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:46,840 Speaker 1: two examples. There are many more, including a couple that 259 00:15:46,920 --> 00:15:50,120 Speaker 1: I will talk about later in this episode that debuted 260 00:15:50,320 --> 00:15:53,480 Speaker 1: a few years ago but really didn't get much attention 261 00:15:53,640 --> 00:15:57,760 Speaker 1: until late last year after Musk purchased Twitter. The one 262 00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:01,080 Speaker 1: that has the most buzz right now is clear. It 263 00:16:01,160 --> 00:16:04,160 Speaker 1: is from a goliath of a company, and I'm talking 264 00:16:04,240 --> 00:16:08,440 Speaker 1: about Meta, formerly known as Facebook and the service that 265 00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:11,840 Speaker 1: some have called the Twitter killer that has the actual 266 00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:15,040 Speaker 1: name of Threads. And while most of us became aware 267 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:19,360 Speaker 1: of Threads just last week when Meta surprisingly launched the 268 00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:23,800 Speaker 1: service a little early, this wasn't the first Meta product 269 00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:27,360 Speaker 1: to actually be called Threads. Meta had previously pushed out 270 00:16:27,400 --> 00:16:31,480 Speaker 1: Threads in twenty nineteen, but at that time, Meta, which 271 00:16:31,560 --> 00:16:35,080 Speaker 1: at that point was still just Facebook, wasn't really taking 272 00:16:35,080 --> 00:16:38,160 Speaker 1: aim at Twitter. Now they had a different target and 273 00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:42,360 Speaker 1: rival in mind. It was Snapchat. So the original Threads, 274 00:16:42,800 --> 00:16:46,520 Speaker 1: which like the current version was also tied to Instagram, 275 00:16:47,200 --> 00:16:50,760 Speaker 1: was an app that combined photo and video sharing capabilities 276 00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:55,600 Speaker 1: with quick messaging. Just as Instagram's Reels product was trying 277 00:16:55,600 --> 00:17:00,480 Speaker 1: to undermine TikTok, the Threads app, the original thread app 278 00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:03,240 Speaker 1: was intended to take a big old bite out a Snapchat. 279 00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:06,639 Speaker 1: And why Well, the big reason is that Meta slash 280 00:17:06,640 --> 00:17:09,800 Speaker 1: Facebook has a pretty big challenge facing it, which is 281 00:17:09,840 --> 00:17:14,320 Speaker 1: attracting new, younger users to its various platforms, or at 282 00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:18,200 Speaker 1: least there's a perception problem there. So the perception is that, 283 00:17:18,440 --> 00:17:22,320 Speaker 1: for example, Facebook is for old people. It's where your 284 00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:26,320 Speaker 1: parents are. That's the narrative anyway, though the company Oberlough 285 00:17:26,560 --> 00:17:29,399 Speaker 1: cites a study that suggests the largest age demographic on 286 00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:32,919 Speaker 1: Facebook right now is the twenty five to thirty four crowd, 287 00:17:33,240 --> 00:17:37,160 Speaker 1: followed closely by the eighteen to twenty four demographic. Now, 288 00:17:37,160 --> 00:17:40,440 Speaker 1: since I'm closer to fifty than i am to forty five, 289 00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:43,800 Speaker 1: those sound young to me. But I guess if you're 290 00:17:43,840 --> 00:17:46,399 Speaker 1: looking long term and you want to make sure your 291 00:17:46,480 --> 00:17:49,920 Speaker 1: company can continue to grow, which is a really big 292 00:17:50,000 --> 00:17:52,639 Speaker 1: challenge when you hit the size of a company like Meta, 293 00:17:53,520 --> 00:17:57,159 Speaker 1: then worrying about younger folks is a big deal. You 294 00:17:57,200 --> 00:18:00,440 Speaker 1: want to make sure you have an avenue to bring 295 00:18:00,480 --> 00:18:05,480 Speaker 1: new users into your ecosystem. Meanwhile, apps like Snapchat and 296 00:18:05,560 --> 00:18:08,760 Speaker 1: to a greater extent, TikTok have had lots of engagement 297 00:18:08,840 --> 00:18:12,360 Speaker 1: among young people, and so Meta, doing what Meta does, 298 00:18:12,760 --> 00:18:15,760 Speaker 1: look to find ways to either acquire competitors, or, if 299 00:18:15,800 --> 00:18:18,439 Speaker 1: that doesn't work, to replicate what they do in the 300 00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:20,640 Speaker 1: hopes that this would move more young folks to their 301 00:18:20,680 --> 00:18:24,920 Speaker 1: platforms and be able to kind of, you know, get 302 00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:27,560 Speaker 1: the other competitors to go out of business just by 303 00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:31,200 Speaker 1: virtue of the fact that you're already huge anyway, Meta 304 00:18:31,240 --> 00:18:35,200 Speaker 1: pushed threads this other version of threads, the Snapchat version 305 00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:38,080 Speaker 1: of threads, for a while, but not that many people 306 00:18:38,119 --> 00:18:41,640 Speaker 1: actually jumped on board, And in twenty twenty one, Meta 307 00:18:41,760 --> 00:18:45,919 Speaker 1: pulled the thread on threads and the whole thing unraveled. 308 00:18:46,440 --> 00:18:48,879 Speaker 1: Meta kept trying to find ways to mimic its competitors 309 00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:51,960 Speaker 1: in the meantime. Then we get to Musk acquiring Twitter 310 00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:55,280 Speaker 1: in late twenty twenty two and how the shift on 311 00:18:55,359 --> 00:18:59,840 Speaker 1: the platform upset a lot of users as well as advertisers. Plus, 312 00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:03,720 Speaker 1: Twitter was shedding talent in waves of layoffs, and this 313 00:19:03,840 --> 00:19:06,800 Speaker 1: situation spelled out an opportunity to Meta. There was a 314 00:19:06,880 --> 00:19:10,760 Speaker 1: clear space for the services that Twitter provided. People recognized 315 00:19:11,200 --> 00:19:16,040 Speaker 1: that what Twitter did was at least on some level valuable, 316 00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:19,119 Speaker 1: which meant there was potential money to be made with 317 00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:23,359 Speaker 1: advertisers who were concerned about associating their brand with Twitter 318 00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:26,720 Speaker 1: itself because it was such a volatile platform. So a 319 00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:30,440 Speaker 1: Twitter rival could help bring more folks into the meta 320 00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:37,000 Speaker 1: landscape and also bring potentially more advertising money into the company. 321 00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:41,320 Speaker 1: And as a bonus, it would allow one billionaire in 322 00:19:41,359 --> 00:19:44,480 Speaker 1: the form of Mark Zuckerberg to splatter mud on another 323 00:19:44,920 --> 00:19:48,639 Speaker 1: that of Elon Musk. By late twenty twenty two, Meta 324 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:51,280 Speaker 1: started work on this project, which was top secret at 325 00:19:51,280 --> 00:19:54,800 Speaker 1: the time. Early rumors outside the company started to really 326 00:19:54,840 --> 00:19:58,960 Speaker 1: get buzzing in the spring of twenty twenty three. Zuckerberg 327 00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:02,560 Speaker 1: also played a on the negative reputation of Musk's Twitter, 328 00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:05,520 Speaker 1: saying that there needed to be an alternative that was 329 00:20:05,600 --> 00:20:10,240 Speaker 1: less hateful and chaotic and mercurial. I think he at 330 00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:15,080 Speaker 1: one point used the phrase a sane platform. He also 331 00:20:15,720 --> 00:20:19,520 Speaker 1: indicated that one thing he thought Twitter always needed was 332 00:20:19,600 --> 00:20:23,639 Speaker 1: a billion users, which seemed to be shot spired at 333 00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:27,080 Speaker 1: the fact that Meta has so many active users across 334 00:20:27,119 --> 00:20:30,320 Speaker 1: its platforms. So earlier this year, word got out that 335 00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:32,639 Speaker 1: Meta was in fact working on its own take on 336 00:20:32,680 --> 00:20:35,639 Speaker 1: Twitter's approach, and Elon Musk responded to the news in 337 00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:40,640 Speaker 1: his mature way by challenging Mark Zuckerberg to a cage match. Zuckerberg, 338 00:20:40,680 --> 00:20:42,920 Speaker 1: who famously has been spending a lot of time working 339 00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:46,320 Speaker 1: out and training in martial arts, eagerly accepted the challenge. 340 00:20:46,560 --> 00:20:49,320 Speaker 1: At one point, Elon Musk's mom stepped in to say 341 00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:52,400 Speaker 1: the whole fight had been called off, But even since 342 00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:55,280 Speaker 1: then there have been more rumblings as Musk has grown 343 00:20:55,320 --> 00:20:59,320 Speaker 1: increasingly upset about Meta's launch of Threads version two point zero. 344 00:21:00,119 --> 00:21:02,560 Speaker 1: So in the first week of July this year, which 345 00:21:02,640 --> 00:21:06,720 Speaker 1: is last week as a record, this Meta launched Threads, 346 00:21:06,920 --> 00:21:11,240 Speaker 1: and like the previous incarnation, it's tied to Instagram, so 347 00:21:11,440 --> 00:21:14,359 Speaker 1: users need to have an Instagram account in order to 348 00:21:14,359 --> 00:21:17,600 Speaker 1: create a Threads account, and as of the recording of 349 00:21:17,640 --> 00:21:20,359 Speaker 1: this podcast, that connection between the two is such that 350 00:21:20,560 --> 00:21:24,879 Speaker 1: if you wanted to subsequently delete your Threads account, you 351 00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:28,199 Speaker 1: would first have to also nuke your Instagram account, so 352 00:21:28,280 --> 00:21:32,080 Speaker 1: you know you can't jump on threads, decide it's not 353 00:21:32,119 --> 00:21:33,520 Speaker 1: for you, and then say I want to wipe all 354 00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:36,040 Speaker 1: that off. I don't want it sitting there without also 355 00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:39,439 Speaker 1: killing off your Instagram account, and if you're a big Instagram user, 356 00:21:39,480 --> 00:21:42,679 Speaker 1: that's a non starter. I think. Now one of my 357 00:21:42,720 --> 00:21:45,160 Speaker 1: friends said this isn't really that big of a deal 358 00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:47,600 Speaker 1: because you could always just not use threads and just 359 00:21:47,680 --> 00:21:50,320 Speaker 1: let it lie dormant, and that is true, you could 360 00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:53,679 Speaker 1: do that. My concern is, let's say you've posted some 361 00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:56,720 Speaker 1: stuff on threads in the past that could potentially bite 362 00:21:56,720 --> 00:21:59,280 Speaker 1: you in the butt later on, because we've seen this 363 00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:02,080 Speaker 1: happen with Twitter over and over again. Right, Maybe you 364 00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:06,600 Speaker 1: criticized a company and now maybe you're interviewing with that company, 365 00:22:06,840 --> 00:22:08,600 Speaker 1: and so they do a deep dive in your social 366 00:22:08,640 --> 00:22:10,560 Speaker 1: and they're like, huh, we don't want to hire you 367 00:22:10,640 --> 00:22:14,120 Speaker 1: because five years ago you said that we are stinky 368 00:22:14,119 --> 00:22:17,920 Speaker 1: poop poopy pants and that we don't like that. Well, 369 00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:22,240 Speaker 1: you don't want that sticking around, Right. Maybe you said 370 00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:24,920 Speaker 1: some rude things about someone who now is an authoritarian 371 00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:29,320 Speaker 1: dictator of a country and you'd rather they not notice you. 372 00:22:29,760 --> 00:22:32,639 Speaker 1: Or maybe you have grown as a person, but perhaps 373 00:22:32,640 --> 00:22:35,000 Speaker 1: in your younger days you posted stuff that at the 374 00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:37,800 Speaker 1: time you were thinking was really edgy, but really it 375 00:22:37,840 --> 00:22:41,760 Speaker 1: was just poorly thought out quote unquote jokes. We've seen 376 00:22:41,800 --> 00:22:44,600 Speaker 1: that come back to haunt people. You might want to 377 00:22:44,640 --> 00:22:47,040 Speaker 1: eliminate your thread's account, right. You might just say like, oh, 378 00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:49,000 Speaker 1: I don't want to hunt through everything and take out 379 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:51,359 Speaker 1: anything that could potentially be harmful to me. I just 380 00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:53,200 Speaker 1: want to get rid of the whole thing. But then 381 00:22:53,240 --> 00:22:55,320 Speaker 1: you would have to kill your Instagram account too, and 382 00:22:55,359 --> 00:22:57,680 Speaker 1: that could be a bridge too far, depending upon how 383 00:22:57,720 --> 00:23:01,760 Speaker 1: active you are on Instagram. Anyway, Meta claims that it 384 00:23:01,800 --> 00:23:03,840 Speaker 1: will change this further down the road, So that you 385 00:23:04,040 --> 00:23:07,960 Speaker 1: can eliminate your Thread's account without touching Instagram. But for 386 00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:11,119 Speaker 1: the moment, tying Threads to Instagram makes a whole lot 387 00:23:11,119 --> 00:23:14,879 Speaker 1: of sense. And why is that, Well, it's because Instagram 388 00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:19,080 Speaker 1: boasts more than a billion active users. In fact, depending 389 00:23:19,160 --> 00:23:22,480 Speaker 1: upon who's doing the reporting, it can go all the 390 00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:25,960 Speaker 1: way up to more than two billion users. By the way, 391 00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:28,399 Speaker 1: that is a heck of a discrepancy. A discrepancy of 392 00:23:28,840 --> 00:23:33,560 Speaker 1: a billion plus users is ridiculous. But you know, it's 393 00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:35,639 Speaker 1: one thing to go with the official statement and another 394 00:23:35,680 --> 00:23:39,359 Speaker 1: thing to go with the estimations that analts make. If 395 00:23:39,400 --> 00:23:42,160 Speaker 1: I'm going with the official statement, we just say more 396 00:23:42,200 --> 00:23:46,080 Speaker 1: than a billion, which is a whole bunch, right, So 397 00:23:46,160 --> 00:23:50,200 Speaker 1: it makes sense to tap into that already existing user 398 00:23:50,280 --> 00:23:53,760 Speaker 1: base of Instagram users rather than just build out a 399 00:23:53,800 --> 00:23:57,960 Speaker 1: brand new user base from scratch. And it is working, 400 00:23:58,080 --> 00:24:00,719 Speaker 1: as I record this, Threads as see more than one 401 00:24:00,840 --> 00:24:04,919 Speaker 1: hundred million people establish a Threads account. It took Twitter 402 00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:10,200 Speaker 1: five years to hit one hundred million users. Threads did 403 00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:14,680 Speaker 1: it in five days. Now, you could argue that Threads 404 00:24:14,720 --> 00:24:18,399 Speaker 1: is cheating because it's tied to an already insanely popular app, 405 00:24:18,440 --> 00:24:20,600 Speaker 1: and that's you know, a fair point, but at the 406 00:24:20,680 --> 00:24:23,560 Speaker 1: end of the day, it doesn't really matter how Meta 407 00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:26,480 Speaker 1: got there, at least not to Twitter. It doesn't really matter. 408 00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:32,440 Speaker 1: It's that here they are and they are getting wildly popular. Moreover, 409 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:35,679 Speaker 1: Instagram has one of the features that made Twitter so 410 00:24:36,160 --> 00:24:40,160 Speaker 1: enticing to large numbers of people, and that is celebrities. 411 00:24:40,359 --> 00:24:44,639 Speaker 1: Celebrities who are on Instagram now a lot of celebrities 412 00:24:44,680 --> 00:24:48,080 Speaker 1: have established a threads account as well. They can achieve 413 00:24:48,240 --> 00:24:51,439 Speaker 1: through threads what they were doing on Twitter, and they 414 00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:53,399 Speaker 1: don't have to go to Twitter to do it, and 415 00:24:53,480 --> 00:24:56,760 Speaker 1: so that's a huge blow to Twitter. Celebrities have an alternative, 416 00:24:56,800 --> 00:24:59,800 Speaker 1: and because they are one of the big draws on 417 00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:03,320 Speaker 1: any social networking platform, that's a big problem. If Twitter 418 00:25:03,400 --> 00:25:07,520 Speaker 1: sees celebrities jump ship for threads, then that's also going 419 00:25:07,560 --> 00:25:10,320 Speaker 1: to affect all the people who follow those celebrities. And 420 00:25:10,359 --> 00:25:12,640 Speaker 1: you know, there might be people who are only there 421 00:25:13,040 --> 00:25:16,119 Speaker 1: on Twitter to follow celebrities, so they'll also jump ship. 422 00:25:17,000 --> 00:25:19,520 Speaker 1: I'm not sure that news organizations are going to see 423 00:25:19,520 --> 00:25:22,880 Speaker 1: the same sort of success on threads. Not to say 424 00:25:22,920 --> 00:25:25,359 Speaker 1: that they won't be there. They will, I just don't 425 00:25:25,400 --> 00:25:28,400 Speaker 1: know if it will work as well as it had 426 00:25:28,480 --> 00:25:32,000 Speaker 1: on Twitter. We'll talk about a different Twitter alternative when 427 00:25:32,080 --> 00:25:35,080 Speaker 1: I where I think news agencies are seeing a bit 428 00:25:35,160 --> 00:25:39,359 Speaker 1: more comfort level with the way that the platform works. 429 00:25:39,359 --> 00:25:42,920 Speaker 1: But I don't think it's going to be the solution 430 00:25:43,119 --> 00:25:46,280 Speaker 1: to the issue of losing Twitter, So we'll talk about 431 00:25:46,320 --> 00:25:50,600 Speaker 1: that later. Though Musk has hurled some accusations at Meta. 432 00:25:50,960 --> 00:25:54,760 Speaker 1: He has said that that Meta is copying Twitter, and 433 00:25:54,840 --> 00:25:57,400 Speaker 1: that in fact it's not just copying, but it's making 434 00:25:57,560 --> 00:26:01,520 Speaker 1: use of Twitter's trade secrets. That He's also accused Meta 435 00:26:01,520 --> 00:26:04,480 Speaker 1: of hiring up former Twitter employees, who in turn had 436 00:26:04,480 --> 00:26:08,800 Speaker 1: possession of Twitter's devices and documents. So these traders who 437 00:26:08,840 --> 00:26:12,520 Speaker 1: got fired by Elon Musk ran to Zuckerberg and gave 438 00:26:12,560 --> 00:26:15,439 Speaker 1: them all the precious secrets. Meta, by the way, denies 439 00:26:15,480 --> 00:26:17,800 Speaker 1: all these allegations. He then has said that no one 440 00:26:17,840 --> 00:26:20,920 Speaker 1: at Twitter was part of the team that actually built Threads, 441 00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:24,600 Speaker 1: that Threads was built entirely independently of the people who 442 00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:28,240 Speaker 1: were let go from Twitter. We should also remember that 443 00:26:28,520 --> 00:26:33,000 Speaker 1: during the same time, Meta was famously holding huge rounds 444 00:26:33,040 --> 00:26:38,120 Speaker 1: of layoffs and firing thousands of employees, tens of thousands 445 00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:42,480 Speaker 1: of employees, so it's not like Meta was in the 446 00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:45,040 Speaker 1: mood to do a lot of hiring at the same time, 447 00:26:45,160 --> 00:26:50,439 Speaker 1: So I'm inclined to at least believe Meta on this 448 00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:55,159 Speaker 1: point that no one from Twitter was instrumental in the 449 00:26:55,200 --> 00:26:58,600 Speaker 1: building of Threads. Now, according to Reuter's, if Twitter does 450 00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:02,000 Speaker 1: in fact sue Meta for this kind of theft of 451 00:27:02,040 --> 00:27:04,800 Speaker 1: trade secrets, the burden of proof on Twitter is going 452 00:27:04,840 --> 00:27:07,320 Speaker 1: to be really high. Twitter would have to prove that 453 00:27:07,359 --> 00:27:10,719 Speaker 1: Meta took information that was both important economically to Twitter 454 00:27:11,119 --> 00:27:14,399 Speaker 1: and that Twitter had taken quote unquote reasonable efforts to 455 00:27:14,480 --> 00:27:18,520 Speaker 1: keep that information secret. That bit can be very difficult 456 00:27:18,560 --> 00:27:22,200 Speaker 1: to prove. Did Twitter actually use reasonable efforts to keep 457 00:27:22,240 --> 00:27:27,320 Speaker 1: these alleged trade secrets really secret? Or did Musk fire 458 00:27:27,359 --> 00:27:30,200 Speaker 1: a whole bunch of people who then subsequently helped Meta 459 00:27:30,240 --> 00:27:32,560 Speaker 1: build a service that can do much of what Twitter does, 460 00:27:33,080 --> 00:27:37,000 Speaker 1: or even did Meta just do this completely independently, And 461 00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:41,119 Speaker 1: because Twitter's been around forever and Elon Musk made some 462 00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:46,720 Speaker 1: of the code open source, they just built their own version. Now, 463 00:27:47,040 --> 00:27:48,800 Speaker 1: before we go to break, I do want to say 464 00:27:48,880 --> 00:27:53,080 Speaker 1: a few things about Threads that aren't positive right because 465 00:27:53,119 --> 00:27:57,520 Speaker 1: threads is incredibly popular right now, it's growing dramatically, but 466 00:27:57,640 --> 00:28:00,680 Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that Threads is necessarily good. It doesn't 467 00:28:00,680 --> 00:28:04,080 Speaker 1: even really mean that Threads is necessarily better than Twitter. 468 00:28:04,240 --> 00:28:09,000 Speaker 1: It is different, but it's also not. It's got its 469 00:28:09,040 --> 00:28:11,439 Speaker 1: own issues. So one of the big ones here is 470 00:28:11,440 --> 00:28:14,240 Speaker 1: that meta wants as much of your data as it 471 00:28:14,280 --> 00:28:17,480 Speaker 1: can possibly get. So if you look at the user 472 00:28:17,520 --> 00:28:21,080 Speaker 1: permissions for an app like Instagram, which you obviously have 473 00:28:21,160 --> 00:28:23,280 Speaker 1: to have if you want to have a Threads account, 474 00:28:23,680 --> 00:28:25,679 Speaker 1: you will see that meta pretty much wants to know 475 00:28:25,960 --> 00:28:29,119 Speaker 1: everything you do on that device. It wants to know 476 00:28:29,160 --> 00:28:32,280 Speaker 1: how frequently you use the app, It wants to know 477 00:28:32,400 --> 00:28:35,240 Speaker 1: how much time you spend there on average, what other 478 00:28:35,400 --> 00:28:40,320 Speaker 1: services you use, what your online shopping habits are, you know, 479 00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:44,640 Speaker 1: and more like. It can include things like location data. 480 00:28:44,680 --> 00:28:47,960 Speaker 1: Like it's so much about you that that meta wants 481 00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:50,840 Speaker 1: to scoop up whenever you're using these apps, or even 482 00:28:50,840 --> 00:28:53,560 Speaker 1: if you just install them on your device. So if 483 00:28:53,600 --> 00:28:56,320 Speaker 1: you are at all concerned with how large companies gather 484 00:28:56,440 --> 00:28:59,640 Speaker 1: and exploit your personal information, you need to understand that 485 00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:03,320 Speaker 1: Meta may well be the leader in gulping up user info, 486 00:29:03,840 --> 00:29:06,880 Speaker 1: though I don't know because Google is really really good 487 00:29:06,880 --> 00:29:11,680 Speaker 1: at doing that too. Also, Threads lacks some basic functionality 488 00:29:11,840 --> 00:29:15,560 Speaker 1: that Twitter has. Plus users on Threads see a real 489 00:29:15,800 --> 00:29:19,160 Speaker 1: fire hose of content, not just from the Instagram accounts 490 00:29:19,160 --> 00:29:22,000 Speaker 1: they already follow or the Threads accounts that they have 491 00:29:22,120 --> 00:29:25,320 Speaker 1: chosen to follow. I assume Meta chose to populate the 492 00:29:25,360 --> 00:29:28,280 Speaker 1: Threads feed with as much stuff as possible to make 493 00:29:28,360 --> 00:29:31,960 Speaker 1: Threads appear more like an active, vibrant community with early 494 00:29:32,320 --> 00:29:37,720 Speaker 1: sign ons, and to get enthusiasm from users. But this 495 00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:40,880 Speaker 1: also means that logging into Threads shows you tons of 496 00:29:40,880 --> 00:29:43,760 Speaker 1: stuff from accounts you don't necessarily know or follow, and 497 00:29:43,840 --> 00:29:45,760 Speaker 1: it makes it challenging to see the stuff from the 498 00:29:45,760 --> 00:29:48,880 Speaker 1: people you actually are interested in. And I imagine that 499 00:29:48,920 --> 00:29:52,640 Speaker 1: will change, and probably pretty quickly, because it feels like 500 00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:55,080 Speaker 1: the original intent was just to try and convince more 501 00:29:55,120 --> 00:29:57,280 Speaker 1: people to join the service, and now that there are 502 00:29:57,280 --> 00:29:59,800 Speaker 1: more than one hundred million users on Threads, there's less 503 00:30:00,120 --> 00:30:03,920 Speaker 1: of a need for that, so maybe they can pivot. 504 00:30:04,640 --> 00:30:08,760 Speaker 1: We'll see. Threads is also somewhat limited in its rollout. 505 00:30:08,840 --> 00:30:11,040 Speaker 1: It will need to meet some strict requirements before it 506 00:30:11,080 --> 00:30:15,440 Speaker 1: can deploy in the European Union. The deep integration with 507 00:30:15,560 --> 00:30:18,840 Speaker 1: Instagram and the data collection policies mean that Meta's going 508 00:30:18,920 --> 00:30:22,520 Speaker 1: to need to make some significant operational changes before it 509 00:30:22,520 --> 00:30:26,800 Speaker 1: can receive approval for use in the EU. So in 510 00:30:26,880 --> 00:30:32,200 Speaker 1: some ways, Meta's Threads has a growth cap on it 511 00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:36,520 Speaker 1: right because until it does meet the requirements of the EU, 512 00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:39,880 Speaker 1: it can't launch there. So that does mean that there's 513 00:30:40,200 --> 00:30:43,560 Speaker 1: a whole audience that will be untapped until Meda can 514 00:30:43,560 --> 00:30:47,040 Speaker 1: figure out a way to present Threads so that it 515 00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:51,560 Speaker 1: meets EU regulations. Threads also has some strict rules about 516 00:30:51,560 --> 00:30:55,400 Speaker 1: what you can cannot post. That includes stuff like profanity, 517 00:30:55,480 --> 00:31:00,400 Speaker 1: for example, or other elements like misinformation things like that. Also, 518 00:31:00,520 --> 00:31:03,640 Speaker 1: some of those rules have rubbed certain populations the wrong way. 519 00:31:04,040 --> 00:31:07,560 Speaker 1: There are some conservatives already accusing Threads of being anti 520 00:31:07,680 --> 00:31:11,800 Speaker 1: conservative and that it is a quote unquote woke service. 521 00:31:12,120 --> 00:31:14,240 Speaker 1: Now I'm not going to dive into that because y'all 522 00:31:14,480 --> 00:31:17,520 Speaker 1: likely know how I feel about it already, and you 523 00:31:17,760 --> 00:31:19,960 Speaker 1: probably have your own opinions one way or the other. 524 00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:24,040 Speaker 1: So I'm just adding that in as another reason why 525 00:31:24,080 --> 00:31:28,880 Speaker 1: Threads is somewhat controversial at the moment. Now we're overdue 526 00:31:28,880 --> 00:31:30,840 Speaker 1: for another break. When we come back, I'm going to 527 00:31:30,840 --> 00:31:33,240 Speaker 1: talk about a couple of other Twitter alternatives that have 528 00:31:33,320 --> 00:31:37,840 Speaker 1: gained attention but not necessarily a ton of new users 529 00:31:37,880 --> 00:31:41,880 Speaker 1: and explain why that is. But first let's take another 530 00:31:41,960 --> 00:31:54,800 Speaker 1: break to thank our sponsors. So when it comes to 531 00:31:55,200 --> 00:31:59,800 Speaker 1: existing Twitter alternatives, there's more than just threads or even 532 00:31:59,840 --> 00:32:02,840 Speaker 1: the aforementioned Clerk, which is still around. Of course, jaiqu 533 00:32:02,960 --> 00:32:07,600 Speaker 1: is long gone. One of these alternatives is called blue Sky, 534 00:32:07,960 --> 00:32:11,160 Speaker 1: but I should add blue Sky is currently in an 535 00:32:11,240 --> 00:32:15,560 Speaker 1: invitation only beta. As I record this, it's a beta 536 00:32:15,640 --> 00:32:19,040 Speaker 1: that I only just recently joined after another tech podcaster 537 00:32:19,240 --> 00:32:23,600 Speaker 1: kindly extended one of the invites he had to me. Now, 538 00:32:23,640 --> 00:32:25,680 Speaker 1: I was not given any invites on my own to 539 00:32:25,720 --> 00:32:28,920 Speaker 1: hand out, So I think blue Sky is being very 540 00:32:28,920 --> 00:32:31,800 Speaker 1: methodical with how it adds users. So people who were 541 00:32:32,520 --> 00:32:37,400 Speaker 1: given a beta invitation when they applied for it, they 542 00:32:37,480 --> 00:32:40,520 Speaker 1: must have had invites of their own they could have extended, 543 00:32:40,680 --> 00:32:43,760 Speaker 1: Which makes sense, right. Your social network is not going 544 00:32:43,840 --> 00:32:46,520 Speaker 1: to be useful if all the people who join it 545 00:32:46,600 --> 00:32:50,040 Speaker 1: don't have any connections social connections with one another. Right, 546 00:32:50,080 --> 00:32:55,080 Speaker 1: There's no connective tissue there. You can't really expect conversations 547 00:32:55,080 --> 00:32:57,800 Speaker 1: to really bloom. So it makes sense to give the 548 00:32:57,880 --> 00:33:01,880 Speaker 1: early invites their own invitation so they can help populate 549 00:33:01,920 --> 00:33:04,400 Speaker 1: blue Sky with people who are likely to chat with 550 00:33:04,400 --> 00:33:08,720 Speaker 1: one another, but they didn't extend that another degree of separation. 551 00:33:08,880 --> 00:33:11,120 Speaker 1: I don't have any invites, I was never given any. 552 00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:14,680 Speaker 1: Blue Sky shares something in common with another alternative to 553 00:33:14,720 --> 00:33:17,840 Speaker 1: Twitter that we'll chat about that's called Mastodon, and that 554 00:33:17,960 --> 00:33:22,200 Speaker 1: both of these take a decentralized approach to social networks, 555 00:33:22,320 --> 00:33:25,400 Speaker 1: or a federated approach, is the way it's been described. 556 00:33:25,920 --> 00:33:28,920 Speaker 1: So blue Sky actually traces its history back to Twitter. 557 00:33:29,280 --> 00:33:32,960 Speaker 1: It is a Twitter offshoot. It started as a side 558 00:33:33,000 --> 00:33:35,360 Speaker 1: project at Twitter, just as Twitter started as a side 559 00:33:35,400 --> 00:33:38,840 Speaker 1: project of Odio, and it's spun off of Twitter a 560 00:33:38,880 --> 00:33:41,360 Speaker 1: few years ago. Now, I think back in twenty nineteen 561 00:33:42,040 --> 00:33:45,720 Speaker 1: and Twitter co founder Jack Dorsey is actually on Blue 562 00:33:45,760 --> 00:33:49,840 Speaker 1: Sky's board of directors. The vision of blue Sky is 563 00:33:49,880 --> 00:33:52,840 Speaker 1: to have a collection of social networks, each with its 564 00:33:52,840 --> 00:33:56,960 Speaker 1: own policies and approaches to moderation and such. And you 565 00:33:57,040 --> 00:34:00,320 Speaker 1: probably know that all the big social platforms out there 566 00:34:00,360 --> 00:34:03,960 Speaker 1: rely on algorithms to serve content up to users, and 567 00:34:03,960 --> 00:34:07,920 Speaker 1: they have their own content moderation policies. And maybe you 568 00:34:08,000 --> 00:34:11,560 Speaker 1: want for a pure chronological approach where you only see 569 00:34:11,560 --> 00:34:14,080 Speaker 1: the stuff you're interested in and it's presented in a 570 00:34:14,160 --> 00:34:18,040 Speaker 1: timeline that's linear, so that way you can easily follow 571 00:34:18,200 --> 00:34:21,000 Speaker 1: the people who you're interested in and the topics you're 572 00:34:21,040 --> 00:34:24,239 Speaker 1: interested in. But the reality is most of the platforms 573 00:34:24,239 --> 00:34:27,719 Speaker 1: out there serve up a collection of stuff to you 574 00:34:27,880 --> 00:34:32,080 Speaker 1: that the platform has chosen via algorithm. Some of that's 575 00:34:32,080 --> 00:34:34,799 Speaker 1: going to include the things that you're actively following, and 576 00:34:34,880 --> 00:34:37,480 Speaker 1: some will be outside of that group, and it's all 577 00:34:37,520 --> 00:34:40,640 Speaker 1: in an effort to drive engagement, which when you really 578 00:34:40,719 --> 00:34:43,759 Speaker 1: really really boil it down, just means keeping you on 579 00:34:43,800 --> 00:34:47,239 Speaker 1: the platform for as long as possible, typically to maximize 580 00:34:47,280 --> 00:34:51,000 Speaker 1: revenue opportunities. Blue Sky is meant to allow for the 581 00:34:51,040 --> 00:34:56,200 Speaker 1: growth of lots of different social platforms that all share 582 00:34:56,239 --> 00:35:00,160 Speaker 1: the same basic bone structure but have different features, so 583 00:35:00,320 --> 00:35:03,759 Speaker 1: users can opt to join whichever one of those communities 584 00:35:03,800 --> 00:35:07,640 Speaker 1: they like, and these social network communities will be able 585 00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:11,160 Speaker 1: to interconnect through a common set of standards, so that 586 00:35:11,239 --> 00:35:13,080 Speaker 1: we don't end up with a bunch of social network 587 00:35:13,160 --> 00:35:16,399 Speaker 1: silos or you know, sequestered islands where you can only 588 00:35:16,480 --> 00:35:19,080 Speaker 1: chat with the people who are in your silo, or 589 00:35:19,320 --> 00:35:22,799 Speaker 1: you know, on your island, you can actually chat with 590 00:35:22,920 --> 00:35:26,120 Speaker 1: other users who are on other islands. It's just your 591 00:35:26,200 --> 00:35:28,480 Speaker 1: island has its own culture and its own set of 592 00:35:28,600 --> 00:35:31,720 Speaker 1: rules that it follows, and you've joined that island because 593 00:35:31,760 --> 00:35:34,759 Speaker 1: you like that culture and you like those rules, and 594 00:35:35,000 --> 00:35:37,799 Speaker 1: maybe the other island over you're like, those people are cool, 595 00:35:37,840 --> 00:35:39,600 Speaker 1: but I don't like the way they run things, So 596 00:35:39,640 --> 00:35:41,480 Speaker 1: I don't want to belong to that community, but I 597 00:35:41,480 --> 00:35:43,160 Speaker 1: do want to still be able to chat with them. 598 00:35:43,760 --> 00:35:46,640 Speaker 1: That's what blue Sky and Masadon both try to do 599 00:35:46,920 --> 00:35:51,720 Speaker 1: by using this common set of standards but individual instances 600 00:35:51,800 --> 00:35:55,799 Speaker 1: of these social platforms. So you have one smaller kind 601 00:35:55,840 --> 00:35:59,200 Speaker 1: of local community, and then you have the larger global 602 00:35:59,239 --> 00:36:02,439 Speaker 1: community of all the other communities that interconnect with each other. 603 00:36:03,000 --> 00:36:05,640 Speaker 1: Now I've only been on blue Sky for a short while, 604 00:36:05,719 --> 00:36:08,319 Speaker 1: and I don't really have a very strong opinion one 605 00:36:08,320 --> 00:36:11,080 Speaker 1: way or the other about it. In some ways, it 606 00:36:11,120 --> 00:36:13,680 Speaker 1: reminds me a little bit of the beta days of 607 00:36:13,719 --> 00:36:17,000 Speaker 1: Google Plus, because I was fortunate in that I got 608 00:36:17,040 --> 00:36:21,120 Speaker 1: an invite to participate in that beta. And a lot 609 00:36:21,160 --> 00:36:23,280 Speaker 1: of the people I see on blue Sky are either 610 00:36:23,400 --> 00:36:26,560 Speaker 1: in the tech sector, or more specifically, they're in the 611 00:36:26,600 --> 00:36:30,840 Speaker 1: tech news sector. But there's a trend in the folks 612 00:36:30,880 --> 00:36:32,600 Speaker 1: that I keep seeing on blue Sky that I do 613 00:36:32,680 --> 00:36:34,880 Speaker 1: find tiresome. I'll talk about that at the very end 614 00:36:34,920 --> 00:36:38,040 Speaker 1: of this episode, because it's a trend I'm seeing on 615 00:36:38,480 --> 00:36:41,279 Speaker 1: numerous platforms and I'm just so tired of it. But 616 00:36:41,640 --> 00:36:45,800 Speaker 1: that's some foreshadowing anyway. Blue Sky's features are very similar 617 00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:48,040 Speaker 1: to what you would see on Twitter. Like you would 618 00:36:48,080 --> 00:36:49,799 Speaker 1: look at Blue Sky and say, yes, I get this, 619 00:36:49,920 --> 00:36:52,480 Speaker 1: because it is so similar to the way Twitter works. 620 00:36:53,000 --> 00:36:55,200 Speaker 1: There's a web based version of blue Sky. There are 621 00:36:55,280 --> 00:36:59,800 Speaker 1: also apps for Android and iOS. You can follow folks, 622 00:37:00,040 --> 00:37:02,400 Speaker 1: can post public messages to your followers. You can do 623 00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:04,520 Speaker 1: most of the stuff you can do on Twitter. But 624 00:37:04,600 --> 00:37:07,400 Speaker 1: because we're talking about a beta program here, the population 625 00:37:07,480 --> 00:37:11,720 Speaker 1: at blue Sky is pretty darn small. Reportedly, around April 626 00:37:11,719 --> 00:37:14,800 Speaker 1: of this year, it had hit around fifty thousand users. 627 00:37:15,520 --> 00:37:17,600 Speaker 1: That is a drop in the bucket compared to the 628 00:37:17,640 --> 00:37:22,040 Speaker 1: one hundred million people who joined Threads as of the 629 00:37:22,400 --> 00:37:26,160 Speaker 1: day I'm recording and publishing this episode. The current Blue 630 00:37:26,160 --> 00:37:29,120 Speaker 1: Sky social app is really just a preview of what 631 00:37:29,239 --> 00:37:32,800 Speaker 1: Blue Sky is meant to become. Now, whether it actually 632 00:37:33,120 --> 00:37:36,160 Speaker 1: becomes anything at all remains to be seen. It has 633 00:37:36,239 --> 00:37:40,200 Speaker 1: received a lot of funding, but Threads could serve as 634 00:37:40,200 --> 00:37:43,359 Speaker 1: a fairly significant threat to blue Sky because it could 635 00:37:43,440 --> 00:37:47,719 Speaker 1: discourage people from adopting yet another social network. Once blue 636 00:37:47,719 --> 00:37:50,040 Speaker 1: Sky is finally ready to come out of beta, we'll 637 00:37:50,040 --> 00:37:52,480 Speaker 1: have to see because maybe by that time people will say, no, 638 00:37:52,560 --> 00:37:54,920 Speaker 1: I'm good, I'm on threads already, why would I join 639 00:37:54,960 --> 00:37:59,200 Speaker 1: another one. Another alternative to Twitter is Masedon. Like I 640 00:37:59,320 --> 00:38:02,640 Speaker 1: just mentioned this, this is another approach to decentralized social networking. 641 00:38:02,920 --> 00:38:05,759 Speaker 1: It actually predates blue Sky by several years. I think 642 00:38:05,800 --> 00:38:10,800 Speaker 1: it launched in twenty sixteen. Twitter is a centralized service, right, 643 00:38:10,920 --> 00:38:14,120 Speaker 1: so you log into Twitter. Everybody logs into Twitter. It's 644 00:38:14,239 --> 00:38:17,560 Speaker 1: all on this collection of servers that are centralized, but 645 00:38:17,640 --> 00:38:22,040 Speaker 1: Mastedon consists of different instances or servers of social networks. 646 00:38:22,800 --> 00:38:26,000 Speaker 1: And you choose a home server to belong to that's 647 00:38:26,200 --> 00:38:28,960 Speaker 1: kind of your home base, and you still, just like 648 00:38:29,000 --> 00:38:31,440 Speaker 1: with blue Sky, you can still communicate with users who 649 00:38:31,440 --> 00:38:34,960 Speaker 1: have chosen a different home base. But this way, users 650 00:38:34,960 --> 00:38:37,600 Speaker 1: can select a server that aligns with their own personal 651 00:38:37,719 --> 00:38:41,200 Speaker 1: values or preferences while still interacting with people who are 652 00:38:41,239 --> 00:38:45,160 Speaker 1: from the larger Mastdon community. And again, think of it 653 00:38:45,200 --> 00:38:47,240 Speaker 1: as like a series of islands. You join the island 654 00:38:47,400 --> 00:38:50,040 Speaker 1: that is run the way you like but you can 655 00:38:50,080 --> 00:38:52,480 Speaker 1: still send messages to people who are on different islands. 656 00:38:53,360 --> 00:38:55,799 Speaker 1: It does take a little bit more work to talk 657 00:38:55,840 --> 00:38:59,320 Speaker 1: to the larger community and follow people from the larger 658 00:38:59,320 --> 00:39:02,000 Speaker 1: community who are not on your server. That's really the 659 00:39:02,040 --> 00:39:05,080 Speaker 1: tricky part is if you're on one server and your 660 00:39:05,239 --> 00:39:08,239 Speaker 1: friend is on a different server, finding them takes a 661 00:39:08,280 --> 00:39:11,800 Speaker 1: little bit more work so that you can follow their messages. 662 00:39:12,200 --> 00:39:15,440 Speaker 1: It is built into the system, but it's a bit 663 00:39:15,440 --> 00:39:18,440 Speaker 1: of a barrier to entry. So one challenge with mastdon 664 00:39:18,600 --> 00:39:21,560 Speaker 1: is that it's just not as intuitive as something like Twitter. 665 00:39:21,760 --> 00:39:24,680 Speaker 1: The concept of a federated social network is also a 666 00:39:24,719 --> 00:39:27,000 Speaker 1: little tricky to explain to someone who's more of a 667 00:39:27,000 --> 00:39:31,360 Speaker 1: casual user. It's not as slick or as user friendly 668 00:39:31,480 --> 00:39:34,120 Speaker 1: as the corporate offerings that you'll find with Twitter or 669 00:39:34,120 --> 00:39:37,239 Speaker 1: with Threads. But on the other hand, it's also crowdfunded, 670 00:39:37,320 --> 00:39:40,719 Speaker 1: which means there's no advertising over at Masdon. It's more 671 00:39:40,760 --> 00:39:43,600 Speaker 1: about creating the means of communication, and you could argue 672 00:39:43,600 --> 00:39:47,040 Speaker 1: that Threads, for example, doesn't exist to give users the 673 00:39:47,120 --> 00:39:51,160 Speaker 1: chance to express themselves or to follow others. Instead, Threads 674 00:39:51,200 --> 00:39:55,279 Speaker 1: exists as another means to gather information about users, which 675 00:39:55,320 --> 00:39:58,000 Speaker 1: then can be sold in ad deals. That's the reason 676 00:39:58,080 --> 00:40:01,960 Speaker 1: threads exist, and the way exists is because Twitter is 677 00:40:02,320 --> 00:40:06,920 Speaker 1: failing so spectacularly. Without the failure of Twitter, there probably 678 00:40:06,960 --> 00:40:09,240 Speaker 1: wouldn't have been as big of a push for threads, 679 00:40:09,760 --> 00:40:15,040 Speaker 1: just because there would have been less of an opportunity there. 680 00:40:15,520 --> 00:40:19,759 Speaker 1: But with Twitter kind of going up in flames, at 681 00:40:19,880 --> 00:40:23,680 Speaker 1: least from the perspective of advertisers, there is an opportunity there. 682 00:40:23,760 --> 00:40:25,959 Speaker 1: If you can lure the advertisers who would have spent 683 00:40:26,000 --> 00:40:29,919 Speaker 1: money on Twitter to spend money with you instead, that's 684 00:40:29,920 --> 00:40:33,600 Speaker 1: a huge win for Meta. Macedon doesn't deal with that. 685 00:40:34,120 --> 00:40:38,000 Speaker 1: It leans on crowdfunding. Now, Macedon did experience growth as 686 00:40:38,000 --> 00:40:40,799 Speaker 1: a result of Musk taking ownership of Twitter. There are 687 00:40:40,800 --> 00:40:42,680 Speaker 1: a lot of people who jumped ship and decided they 688 00:40:42,680 --> 00:40:47,680 Speaker 1: would make an account over at Mastadon instead. This was 689 00:40:47,680 --> 00:40:51,360 Speaker 1: a big enough concern that briefly Twitter actually censored tweets 690 00:40:51,400 --> 00:40:54,640 Speaker 1: that included Mastodon links in them, because, as I mentioned before, 691 00:40:54,719 --> 00:40:58,359 Speaker 1: free speech means something quite peculiar to Elon Musk, and 692 00:40:58,400 --> 00:41:02,759 Speaker 1: it doesn't necessarily include you in that definition. I think 693 00:41:02,800 --> 00:41:06,319 Speaker 1: Mastodon is a noble cause. I think it's also a 694 00:41:06,320 --> 00:41:09,400 Speaker 1: bit clunky to use, and as such may discourage a 695 00:41:09,480 --> 00:41:12,759 Speaker 1: lot of casual users. I have to admit I haven't 696 00:41:12,760 --> 00:41:15,480 Speaker 1: actually really checked on my own mastadon account in more 697 00:41:15,520 --> 00:41:17,560 Speaker 1: than a month, so I'm part of the problem here. 698 00:41:18,640 --> 00:41:22,960 Speaker 1: Then we've got another alternative. This one's hive Social. Now 699 00:41:22,960 --> 00:41:26,040 Speaker 1: I have to tell y'all, I have never used hive Social. 700 00:41:26,080 --> 00:41:28,439 Speaker 1: I do not have a hive Social account. I've never 701 00:41:28,600 --> 00:41:32,000 Speaker 1: downloaded the app. I'm only tangentially aware of this one. 702 00:41:32,080 --> 00:41:36,040 Speaker 1: I heard about it when everyone was talking about jumping 703 00:41:36,080 --> 00:41:39,040 Speaker 1: ship off Twitter back at the end of twenty twenty two. 704 00:41:39,880 --> 00:41:43,600 Speaker 1: This app was initially released in twenty nineteen for iOS. 705 00:41:43,760 --> 00:41:47,040 Speaker 1: The Android version would wait until late twenty twenty two, 706 00:41:47,200 --> 00:41:51,200 Speaker 1: when again Musk had taken over Twitter and hive Social 707 00:41:51,360 --> 00:41:53,960 Speaker 1: is another micro blogging service, so it does make it 708 00:41:54,000 --> 00:41:58,040 Speaker 1: an alternative to Twitter. Like Mastadon, they saw a growth 709 00:41:58,080 --> 00:42:02,160 Speaker 1: spurt as a result of elon musk take over. Unlike Macedon, 710 00:42:02,640 --> 00:42:05,920 Speaker 1: it is not a federated social network, so it is 711 00:42:05,960 --> 00:42:09,799 Speaker 1: not taking that decentralized approach. It is more similar to 712 00:42:09,840 --> 00:42:13,000 Speaker 1: Twitter in that way, and that's a centralized social network. 713 00:42:13,200 --> 00:42:16,000 Speaker 1: From what I've read, Hivesocial allows stuff on the platform 714 00:42:16,120 --> 00:42:19,600 Speaker 1: that is against the policies at other places, like you 715 00:42:19,640 --> 00:42:23,840 Speaker 1: can post images of an explicit nature on Hive Social. 716 00:42:23,880 --> 00:42:27,239 Speaker 1: To put it delicately, it is meant for users who 717 00:42:27,280 --> 00:42:30,120 Speaker 1: are above the age of seventeen. I think there is 718 00:42:30,200 --> 00:42:33,880 Speaker 1: a filter you can select about whether you want in 719 00:42:34,080 --> 00:42:37,719 Speaker 1: SFW material to show up or not. Also, I mean 720 00:42:37,760 --> 00:42:41,440 Speaker 1: it all depends on the accounts you're following. It is 721 00:42:42,080 --> 00:42:47,560 Speaker 1: also taking a strict chronological order to displaying messages, so 722 00:42:47,560 --> 00:42:49,560 Speaker 1: you see the most recent posts and then you can 723 00:42:49,600 --> 00:42:51,719 Speaker 1: go back in time, but it's not like served up 724 00:42:51,719 --> 00:42:54,799 Speaker 1: by an algorithm, which is a huge departure from the 725 00:42:54,800 --> 00:42:58,040 Speaker 1: way Twitter does things. So you know, you would be 726 00:42:58,120 --> 00:43:02,560 Speaker 1: able to more quickly catch with the accounts you follow 727 00:43:02,880 --> 00:43:04,759 Speaker 1: just by scrolling down a bit and reading on the 728 00:43:05,200 --> 00:43:08,160 Speaker 1: last one that you had not read and then working 729 00:43:08,160 --> 00:43:10,919 Speaker 1: your way up to the most recent, which I think 730 00:43:11,000 --> 00:43:13,239 Speaker 1: is a huge thing. It's something that a lot of 731 00:43:13,280 --> 00:43:15,120 Speaker 1: people have been asking about. You hear about all the 732 00:43:15,120 --> 00:43:18,440 Speaker 1: time with Facebook as well, where you try to sort 733 00:43:18,520 --> 00:43:22,080 Speaker 1: things by most recent, but even that is algorithmically driven, 734 00:43:22,600 --> 00:43:27,280 Speaker 1: so it's not really most recent, it's just slightly more 735 00:43:27,360 --> 00:43:31,440 Speaker 1: than the other alternative view, and this is really frustrating 736 00:43:31,440 --> 00:43:34,120 Speaker 1: for a lot of people, so Hive Social took that 737 00:43:34,640 --> 00:43:37,840 Speaker 1: to heart and they went with the strict chronological approach 738 00:43:37,880 --> 00:43:42,640 Speaker 1: to displaying messages. Hive Social did run into a massive 739 00:43:42,760 --> 00:43:45,920 Speaker 1: security issue just a couple of months ago, when security 740 00:43:45,960 --> 00:43:49,160 Speaker 1: researchers found that flaws would make it possible for a 741 00:43:49,200 --> 00:43:54,160 Speaker 1: bad actor to potentially access a person's Hive information, which 742 00:43:54,160 --> 00:43:56,919 Speaker 1: would include being able to read any private messages they 743 00:43:56,960 --> 00:44:00,880 Speaker 1: had and even potentially overwrite messages that they had written, 744 00:44:01,520 --> 00:44:05,160 Speaker 1: which is kind of crazy. So Hive Social shut down 745 00:44:05,360 --> 00:44:09,839 Speaker 1: temporarily in order to address these security problems. It did relaunch, 746 00:44:10,520 --> 00:44:13,120 Speaker 1: but now some of the features that had been present 747 00:44:13,200 --> 00:44:16,160 Speaker 1: in the earlier version of Hive Social are no longer 748 00:44:16,960 --> 00:44:20,799 Speaker 1: on the current Hive Social, and probably that has to 749 00:44:20,800 --> 00:44:24,520 Speaker 1: do with the issues with security. Whether those will come 750 00:44:24,560 --> 00:44:27,400 Speaker 1: back or not, I don't know. I think Threads remains 751 00:44:27,400 --> 00:44:31,359 Speaker 1: a huge threat to these smaller social networks which don't 752 00:44:31,360 --> 00:44:34,239 Speaker 1: have the benefit of this enormous established user base in 753 00:44:34,280 --> 00:44:37,359 Speaker 1: the form of Instagram users to give them a leg up. 754 00:44:37,960 --> 00:44:40,800 Speaker 1: I would actually love to see mast On and probably 755 00:44:40,880 --> 00:44:44,840 Speaker 1: blue Sky in particular, evolve, but at the moment, I 756 00:44:44,880 --> 00:44:48,680 Speaker 1: don't know how much they'll grow due to Threads dominating 757 00:44:48,719 --> 00:44:53,040 Speaker 1: this conversation. Twitter is likely very concerned about threads, but 758 00:44:53,239 --> 00:44:58,879 Speaker 1: I think these smaller social networks also are in that camp. Now, 759 00:44:58,880 --> 00:45:01,160 Speaker 1: speaking of all that, I you want to finally address 760 00:45:01,200 --> 00:45:04,920 Speaker 1: what my biggest pet peeve on these platforms is right now, 761 00:45:05,480 --> 00:45:10,880 Speaker 1: and that's most of the posts I'm seeing are complaining 762 00:45:10,920 --> 00:45:15,760 Speaker 1: about micro blogging services in general. Sometimes it's a complaint 763 00:45:15,760 --> 00:45:18,440 Speaker 1: that's about the platform I'm currently on, Like if I'm 764 00:45:18,480 --> 00:45:22,040 Speaker 1: on Twitter, people are complaining about Twitter, which I mean, 765 00:45:22,120 --> 00:45:24,799 Speaker 1: I get it, But more often than not, I see 766 00:45:24,800 --> 00:45:28,560 Speaker 1: people complaining about one of the other micro blogging platforms. 767 00:45:28,880 --> 00:45:32,480 Speaker 1: So it's usually either Twitter or Threads. That's usually the 768 00:45:32,520 --> 00:45:34,799 Speaker 1: two that are really being called out. But even on 769 00:45:34,840 --> 00:45:38,560 Speaker 1: blue Sky people will complain about blue Sky occasionally, and 770 00:45:39,040 --> 00:45:43,280 Speaker 1: it all feels really insular and self referential and ridiculous 771 00:45:43,800 --> 00:45:46,279 Speaker 1: that really it starts to feel like the only thing 772 00:45:46,320 --> 00:45:48,960 Speaker 1: people are talking about on these micro blogging sites is 773 00:45:49,000 --> 00:45:52,920 Speaker 1: about how terrible micro blogging sites are, which makes you 774 00:45:52,960 --> 00:45:57,000 Speaker 1: wonder why are you even on them? Then, But on Threads, 775 00:45:57,000 --> 00:45:58,960 Speaker 1: I would say there is a difference. About half of 776 00:45:59,000 --> 00:46:02,239 Speaker 1: the posts I see are not complaining about Twitter or 777 00:46:02,280 --> 00:46:07,520 Speaker 1: even complaining about Threads. There instead a blatant grab for engagement. 778 00:46:08,400 --> 00:46:11,239 Speaker 1: You might see something like I always thought cartoon hot 779 00:46:11,280 --> 00:46:14,560 Speaker 1: dogs looked amazing. What cartoon food would you most want 780 00:46:14,560 --> 00:46:18,880 Speaker 1: to eat? Which is not saying anything interesting. It's obviously 781 00:46:18,960 --> 00:46:20,600 Speaker 1: just trying to get a lot of folks to chime 782 00:46:20,640 --> 00:46:23,360 Speaker 1: in on the topic and to quote unquote engage with it, 783 00:46:23,400 --> 00:46:28,000 Speaker 1: which boosts the visibility of that post and potentially brings 784 00:46:28,040 --> 00:46:31,000 Speaker 1: more people in to become followers. It's just a very 785 00:46:31,840 --> 00:46:36,680 Speaker 1: strategic approach to getting more clout by getting that follower 786 00:46:37,120 --> 00:46:40,839 Speaker 1: count to grow. I mean, on the very first day 787 00:46:40,880 --> 00:46:44,680 Speaker 1: of Threads, I saw people talking about they wanted to 788 00:46:44,719 --> 00:46:46,960 Speaker 1: become the first person to hit a million followers, which, 789 00:46:46,960 --> 00:46:49,319 Speaker 1: by the way, that didn't take long at all for 790 00:46:49,400 --> 00:46:54,080 Speaker 1: that record to get broken. And it just made me tired, y'all, Like, 791 00:46:54,200 --> 00:46:57,160 Speaker 1: once upon a time, I was really eager to see 792 00:46:57,200 --> 00:47:01,920 Speaker 1: my numbers grow for my Twitter audience, for example, and 793 00:47:02,000 --> 00:47:06,239 Speaker 1: now I just find it exhausting and kind of discouraging, 794 00:47:06,320 --> 00:47:08,880 Speaker 1: like there's more to life than just building your following 795 00:47:09,400 --> 00:47:14,319 Speaker 1: and trading upon clout is so exhausting and it's discouraging, 796 00:47:14,360 --> 00:47:17,960 Speaker 1: I think, because I think it discourages actual good material, 797 00:47:18,040 --> 00:47:21,000 Speaker 1: whether you want to call it content or writing or 798 00:47:21,080 --> 00:47:24,080 Speaker 1: videos or whatever. When you're spending so much time just 799 00:47:24,120 --> 00:47:26,480 Speaker 1: trying to get that number to go up, you're not 800 00:47:26,520 --> 00:47:30,160 Speaker 1: spending as much time working on the actual quality or 801 00:47:30,320 --> 00:47:33,279 Speaker 1: art of the thing you're doing. And I've been just 802 00:47:33,320 --> 00:47:36,520 Speaker 1: as guilty about that as anyone else. I'm not here 803 00:47:36,560 --> 00:47:39,160 Speaker 1: to say that I'm better than anyone at that regard. 804 00:47:39,600 --> 00:47:43,279 Speaker 1: I'm just tired of it. Anyway. That's kind of the 805 00:47:43,360 --> 00:47:47,480 Speaker 1: current state of microblogging. It will be interesting to see 806 00:47:47,480 --> 00:47:51,040 Speaker 1: what the long term effects of threads is on this sector, 807 00:47:51,680 --> 00:47:56,440 Speaker 1: whether it will be like the doom of Twitter or 808 00:47:57,000 --> 00:48:00,640 Speaker 1: of any of these other smaller platforms, or if it 809 00:48:00,680 --> 00:48:04,560 Speaker 1: will just bring more issues to Meta itself. Like I 810 00:48:04,640 --> 00:48:08,040 Speaker 1: still think a lot of ugly stuff is gonna unfold 811 00:48:08,520 --> 00:48:12,640 Speaker 1: as a result of Meta getting into this space, and 812 00:48:12,680 --> 00:48:14,880 Speaker 1: a lot of that's gonna reflect poorly on Meta. But 813 00:48:14,920 --> 00:48:20,040 Speaker 1: then like that, that's not a really dramatic prediction. Meta 814 00:48:20,080 --> 00:48:23,560 Speaker 1: has a very long history of digging a hole for itself, 815 00:48:23,800 --> 00:48:26,640 Speaker 1: so if threads were any different, it would shock me. 816 00:48:27,560 --> 00:48:30,239 Speaker 1: That is it for this episode. I hope you are 817 00:48:30,440 --> 00:48:34,200 Speaker 1: all well. If for some reason you want to follow 818 00:48:34,239 --> 00:48:38,160 Speaker 1: me and you're on Threads or Blue Sky. Just look 819 00:48:38,200 --> 00:48:43,720 Speaker 1: for John Strickland. That's Joen Strickland, and you'll find me there. 820 00:48:44,200 --> 00:48:49,080 Speaker 1: I don't post very much, but I do check the platforms, 821 00:48:49,320 --> 00:48:51,839 Speaker 1: you know, at least once a day, so that is 822 00:48:52,000 --> 00:48:54,399 Speaker 1: a possible way to get in touch with me, and 823 00:48:55,080 --> 00:49:04,680 Speaker 1: I will talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff 824 00:49:04,760 --> 00:49:09,279 Speaker 1: is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit 825 00:49:09,320 --> 00:49:12,880 Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to 826 00:49:12,920 --> 00:49:13,840 Speaker 1: your favorite shows.