There is stuff they could have done at every point, but they never get around to it till it's out of control and mostly as PR exercise. They're in over their heads and yeah it is a thorny problem. But who's gonna really do stuff when you're printing money & minting billionaires?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @antoniogm @balajis
They didn't have to have this scale and this business model. This level of targeting. This kind of expansion. Engagement algos. You are doing a ceteris paribus interpretation; if Facebook gets to design everything the way it wants, with groovy profits, what could it have done?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @antoniogm @balajis
Even WhatsApp has a lot of virality levers under it's control (which it finally exercised via forwarding limites etc) and there is a good argument that you don't get e2e in big enough groups because they are effectively public enough. Less friction is a design choice.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @antoniogm @balajis
Speed matters. Didn't need to as little friction as possible with engagement algorithms from zero to two billion in one decade except for the business model considerations. Other models would have had downsides but not this kind of rapid tribalization push.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Look at what the tribalization push is doing to US/Europe which has so much more slack and counter-institutions. There was no justification in unleashing it like this to everywhere else under this model. Wait, test, pilot, test, watch... But business model doesn't support that.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
More than one model fits a technology. We do it all the time. We even switch things around.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.