The tumult around Twitter’s intentions to change its timeline is a perfect case to ask to what extent the Silicon Valley has to decide in the place of its users?
Jack Dorsey tried to put a stop to the tumult #RIPTwitter with conciliatory words: “I want you all to know that we are always listening. We never planned to rearrange the timeline next week, “he wrote, of course, in a tweet. A perfect non-denial to try to appease the storm started Friday night when BuzzFeed revealed that Twitter would introduce the timeline in a reordered algorithmic, and therefore showed the tweets according to different criteria from the classic dynamic chronological order. The tweets flow “here and now”, which is poured on the timeline in perfect temporal order has always been one of the defining features of Twitter and a much-loved feature of its historical users: Twitter no chronological order is not Twitter, they say.
rELATED But the tweets in chronological order they are also one of the anemic growth of the social network of causes: cow new users and make it difficult to orient themselves in the middle of the input avalanche that assails you. They are less effective in economic terms: tweet targeted on the needs and tastes of individual users could make more in terms of advertising revenues. So the company for some time is testing the application of an algorithm to its timeline, that tweet orders based on what the camera thinks that we’d like to see. The scoop of BuzzFeed, which left to assume a sudden change and compulsory for everyone, however, has sparked uproar started the #RIPTwitter campaign to declare the end of the social networks, thousands of users have threatened to leave, the CEO Dorsey was forced to reassure not deny.
in the head of Dorsey these days is over the question that at some point in their career become an urgent matter for all the great leaders of technology companies, especially for those who run a social networks: the user needs a nudge? An algorithm could save Twitter and push millions of new users to sign up for the company. But users who already are enrolled reject him violently. Dorsey should ignore them and impose from the news, or listen to them and put off the reforms, which seem ever more urgent given that the stock exchange Monday the title of the company reached its lowest ever. But the problem is precisely: the average social network user must be helped or not? He knows what he wants, or rejects the changes of habit? Includes the flow of news? Simply put: we must treat users as if they were a bit ‘stupid, and gently guide them for they know not what is best for them, or let an environment like Twitter to grow in a more or less anarchic as it has done so far, becoming yes a bastion of free discussion, but also a place difficult for new users, and therefore for new gains?.
It ‘a question that you could repeat throughout the business world as well as in the management of public affairs, and the very concept of “nudge”, a nudge in fact, has become all the rage recently in the field of behavioral economics. But let’s keep on social networks, taking the most illustrious precedent, Facebook. To hear Mark Zuckerberg, or at least to judge by his actions, the user is much idiot. The story of Facebook, since the mid-twenty-first century, has a history of major changes imposed from above, of riots and discontent on the part of users, finally, joyful or resigned acceptance. The Facebook timeline, the periodic changes to the algorithm that manages the requirement to use the real name, the decision to separate the mandatory app messaging: Zuckerberg in years has always imposed its own rules, those who oppose it can also go, and the subtext is always: I know what you want, you do not. The result is that today Facebook is the largest social network in the world, with over one billion active users and sensational growth rates. Listen to me, would say to Jack Zuck, users do not know what they want. Even the biggest tech entrepreneur of his era, Steve Jobs, was famous for creating the public needs that this still does not know he had.
This goes against everything that the purists of the internet are preaching for thirty years. The libertarian vein network is never exhausted, and on Twitter the simple idea that a large American corporation should decide without consultations the way in which it discusses online does come hives to a flood of historical users – those who have protested in mass with the hashtag #RIPTwitter. But if you want to save Twitter, Jack Dorsey will ignore the users and treat them as idiots. They will remain the freedom to leave. Perhaps on Reddit.
->‘); function ed_Related_Box_Image(){try{ed_Related_Counter=eDintorniRelated.Link.Record.length}catch(e){ed_Related_Counter=0}for(ed_Related_Div=document.getElementById(“ed_Related_Box”),ed_Related_I=0;ed_Related_I
No comments:
Post a Comment