Twitter’s threading of the @replies to a tweet, means we can read all of the reaction in a handy infinite-scroll, right? Unfortunately not. As we saw in the Quote Tweet post, a large proportion of Twitter users have now substituted the Retweet With Comment function for the Reply function, and that means their reaction won’t be included in the thread. So unless we already follow them, we won’t see what they had to say.
The “Quote Tweet”, or “RT with comment” function, is undeniably a useful facility on Twitter. Like many of Twitter’s functions, it became a trend in user behaviour first, and was then officially integrated into the platform’s toolkit. But many people have come to see the “quote tweet” as a monster. Why is that? And if it is a monster, might Twitter tame it with a system of reward-sharing?
HISTORY OF THE FUNCTION
Before 2013, the notion of a “quote tweet” was simply a user copying text from an original tweet, pasting it into their own tweet in quotes, and then adding their comment in the remaining space. Given that tweets were limited to 140 characters back then, the scope for combining both the original tweet and the comment in that hard one-forty was restrictive in the extreme. Continue reading Could Twitter Reward-Share on “Quote Tweets”?→
I wrote in my Old Usernames article about the importance of Twitter’s User ID in keeping tabs on slippery people’s behaviour. The User ID is a unique account identifier which remains the same however many times the user changes his or her @username. If you know the User ID, you will always be able to find a given Twitter profile (or at least find what’s happened to it) via its numerical URL. The Old Usernames article has more info on the basics.
But what happens if you discover that, say, a group of account @usernames have been switched, and you need to actually prove that the switch has taken place? This can happen with account networks when they try to cloak their origins. And it became important recently when the lead profile in a network of raving political activist accounts rebranded as the main promo feed for an alternative social media platform claiming to be politically impartial. I know, you couldn’t make it up, could you?
I’m not going to publicise the account in question, but it turned out to have gone through at least six @usernames, and it was originally a promo feed for a pitifully unprofessional “travel site”. I wanted, however, to be 100% sure that my old username tracking investigation was entirely accurate. Before I presented the info to anyone else, I needed to be right. And to be absolutely certain, I needed to retrospectively access the User IDs of accounts in the network – as they applied in the past. That would confirm beyond doubt that the usernames had been switched. But how would I get that confirmation?… Continue reading Twitter Detective MasterHack: How To Retrospectively Find A User ID Number→
When ManageFlitter and Crowdfire sat at the epicentre of Twitter follow management tools, usage of those apps helped spread a notion that one of the best targets for unfollowing was the inactive user. And the Twitter ‘manage’ apps made the process of following so-called “inactives” very, very simple.
But in January 2019, a range of Twitter unfollow apps, including both of the aforementioned, had their API access disabled by Twitter. This rendered the best known unfollow tools inoperable. And because these and other apps had such an enormous presence among Twitter users, the effective shutdown of their core functionality actually changed the Twitter landscape – even for those who never used them.
For example, you may recall that this time last year, if you went more than 30 days without updating your timeline, your mutuals would start to unfollow you. That was because ManageFlitter and its derivatives had an “Inactives” unfollow category, which used a 30-day filter to determine who was, or was not, still using Twitter. The implication was that app users should unfollow accounts in the “Inactives” category, and many did. Continue reading Twitter Unfollow Practices: Spammers Are The New Inactives→
One of the most fundamental changes in Twitter’s policy ever, was the introduction, at the beginning of March 2017, of proactive moderation. Previously, Twitter had responded to user reports of abuse, offensiveness and spam on an individual basis, but this had largely failed to tackle an endemic problem with low-quality profiles and annoying or distortive spam.
From the start, circa 1st March 2017*, a large number of Twitter profiles were auto-moderated, and dropped out of the search timelines for varying periods of time. The surreptitious measures which rendered many accounts widely invisible, quickly became known as shadowbans.
[*Update 16/4/2019 – I’ve now been able to confirm that tweets were being taken out of search based on shadowban criteria before 1st March 2017, but the measures had their publicised launch on that date.]
The future is female… That’s true in many areas of commerce, but the adult entertainment industry’s transfer of power from men to women has been truly dramatic.
Over the past twenty years, and particularly over the past decade, the business has evolved away from its old structure in which, typically, men hired, fired and made the decisions. The industry has progressively de-centralised, with many of the old centralised service/content vendors – basically ‘middlemen’ – not only losing power, but often either going bust, or refocusing on other markets.
Men still preside over much of the infrastucture, but it’s no longer so much an infrastructure that controls how women behave. Today, most women in adult services work independently and autonomously. So is this all good, or are there some drawbacks? And before we even get to that, how did such a major change come about? Continue reading The De-Centralisation of the Adult Industry: Part 1→
If you hit the Flickr Help Forum, you’ll currently find a thread of well over 8,000 posts relating to what some are describing as a blackmail scheme. Many of the comments do defend Flickr, although the defensive comments mainly come from a handful of supporters who post intensively. Whether that passes as credible support is open to debate, but there’s no doubt that a drastic policy change, announced by Flickr at the beginning of last November, has upset a lot of people. Have we really witnessed an extortion plot?…
WHAT HAPPENED AT FLICKR?
In May 2013, the then Flickr owners Yahoo scrapped a 300MB per month image upload limit for users with free accounts, and set an astronomical new maximum upload capacity of 1TB. Users with free accounts were told, at this point, that the new storage capacity was free to the photographer, and funded by the advertiser. No buts, no untils; that’s what they were told.
In spring 2018, SmugMug bought Flickr, expressing an intention to continue running the platform without significant change.
In November 2018, SmugMug U-turned on their previous assertion, warning that from January 2019, free Flickr accounts would have their maximum capacity limited to 1,000 photos in total, and threatening to delete all excess images after 5th February 2019.
In summary, users with free Flickr accounts were encouraged to upload a vast quantity of images on the basis that they would not have to pay, and then, after many had made major commitments to Flickr, they were told their work would be deleted if they did not pay. There isn’t even a way to put a positive spin on it. Continue reading Is Flickr Guilty of ‘Freemium Extortion’?→