Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gavinlynch 5027 days ago
I think this "mark on humanity" talk is rubbish. I mean, what does that even mean? Twitter is just a service that allows people to connect and publicly talk to each other on the Internet. That's it.

There have been previous, less successful iterations of the same common idea. Twitter hit critical mass in terms of it's user base and has created neat and unique nuances that make it's version of human-human communication on the web innovative and fun and successful. Kudos to them. It's the social network du jor for fast communication. But there will eventually be other iterations in the future. Some more successful, some less. Perhaps some new incarnations from Twitter itself as they evolve their product over the next decade.

If Twitter has a "mark", it's that they created a way to "flatten the world of communication" and take discussions to a realm where everything and everyone are drawing on the same board at the same time.

But in the end, these are all services that facilitate human interactions that have existed for thousands of years. We've just taken those interactions and put them all on an even plane at the same time, and exposed them in a way that is amazingly accessible.

So when we talk about "Twitter changing the world", I get confused. It's always humans that change the world, we're just using a different vehicle and techniques to get there. So... Rhetorical flourishes and hyperbole aside... How was Twitter changing the world, and how is it not anymore...?

1 comments

> How was Twitter changing the world, and how is it not anymore...?

Twitter was a utility. Now it's ABC. It could have changed the world in the way that, you know, the web changed the world. But instead it's changing the world in the way that cable news changes the world. That's what's so bizarre about Ev Williams to me. He's so damn talented but he doesn't give a shit about anything but the flip. It's true of so many founders these days; everyone worships Steve Jobs and not enough worship Tim Berners-Lee.

>> "Twitter was a utility. Now it's ABC."

I honestly have no idea what this means. Twitter is still a utility for communication. ABC is a content provider, not a utility.

>> " It could have changed the world in the way that, you know, the web changed the world."

I am also scratching my head at this statement. Perhaps you could elaborate, I have no concept of how Twitter could have changed the world in the way that the World Wide Web did. WWW was an astronomical leap in the way we perceive and use the Internet. Twitter has been a revelation for many average consumers who did not take advantage of the social nature of the web as many people had previously, but to compare it to the creation of the WWW itself is--in my view--a little far-fetched.

>> "But instead it's changing the world in the way that cable news changes the world. "

I again respectfully have no concept of what you are talking about.

And finally, generally: All this hand-wringing about Twitter irrationally eschewing it's mantle as the savior of humanity and as the last true final hope for a social web and social networking services in general (or whatever values you are projecting on this company)....

Wow... I mean seriously guys? We're talking about closing down a few client-side API's among other things.

Don't you think this hyperbole is getting just a tad out of touch with reality?

Just playing devils advocate - but who wants to be a utility?
Playing the actual devil here, who doesn't?

Everybody needs you, low maintenance + reasonable income space on the Monopoly board.

I gave an example; Tim Berners-Lee.
I think thats a valid example/counterexample.

But to rephrase slightly, is that the exception that proves the rule?

[nb - I don't disagree with your point, but what is missing to encourage more things in this direction? Wikipedia is another utility example, but again is so rare]