• HeavyDogFeet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Given that Twitter’s already relatively tiny user base is dwindling, the platform is now account-walled, and Musk is a notorious liar, I doubt any prominent creators are going to even consider cross-posting to Twitter.

    A competitive alternative would be great, but Twitter isn’t going to be it.

    • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Twitter’s already relatively tiny user base

      Twitter’s MAU count is around 450 million active users. You’re not going to find many bigger user bases.

      • HeavyDogFeet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Where did you get that number from? Best I’ve seen is ~350M and dropping. For reference, Pinterest is ~465M.

        Twitter had an outsized impact but it’s not at FB or Insta or Youtube numbers, and it’s already struggling to keep working under the load of mostly text and static images.

          • HeavyDogFeet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Interesting. Looking into the sources that Statista uses, you find this graph that paints a very different picture.

            Also how has twitter been struggling to keep working?

            Did you not hear about all the limiting they had in place recently? 600 or 1000 posts viewable per day for non-paying users, 6000 for paying users. I know the official reason given was to (somehow) limit data scraping, but come on, we all know that’s bullshit. And outside of that, there have been a bunch of issues with outages, basic things like search breaking, etc. It’s a platform in decline.

            • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              That graph literally says “significant anomalies in source data”, so they’re even saying that it’s not an accurate picture though.

              Rate limiting isn’t “struggling to keep working”. It isn’t like it was crashing due to people using it too much. Saying “we know their reason is bullshit” doesn’t make it true. Nothing indicated that they were having trouble with uptime or performance.

              • HeavyDogFeet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, it says there are anomalies—that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just that it’s unusual. Almost like there was a moron in charge of the company who was making erratic changes to its infrastructure and driving a mass exodus of users. And even if that number is wrong (it probably is) it’s not like the previous number isn’t heavily outdated. There have been massive changes to Twitter since then, it would be stupid to assume old data is still accurate.

                It was crashing in part because Twitter was DDOSing itself. Twitter rate-limited itself on purpose because they were fucking their own system up, but they gave a BS reason because it would be embarrassing for Musk to have to admit he fired too many people and the skeleton crew that’s left can’t keep up with his stupid decisions.

                Remember, this is a website that primarily serves short text-only posts and was largely stable when it was bought. It’s not rocket science, and yet Musk’s still managing to make it look hard.

                • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I didn’t say it means it’s wrong, just that it’s not going to be an accurate picture. It might be right, it might be wrong, we have no idea - which is why they put that qualifier there.

                  There’s nothing indicating twitter isn’t still largely stable.

                  Also that’s not a DDOS since there was no denial of service. Those calls are likely all just getting stopped at a cloudflare (or alternative) level anyway.

                  • HeavyDogFeet
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    There was no denial of service because they rate limited accounts. That’s the entire point. Had they not done that, it’s likely they would have overwhelmed their servers and crashed the service, resulting in denial of service.

    • KaynA
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Twitter is not account-walled. Have you been keeping up with the news?

      • @Odo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        It hasn’t been making headlines this time (they’re only talking about Threads and the jet tracker guy), but it’s back to needing a login.

        • KaynA
          link
          English
          61 year ago

          Oh, in that case I’m the one who hasn’t been keeping up. Damn.