[scott_to_s]

Apart from the fact that it's extremely early days for App.net right now, this article assumes that Twitter will remain as it is now, and not deteriorate further with significantly increased levels of advertising and spam. App.net will likely become increasingly attractive as Twitter becomes more "manipulated" to deliver on those promised eyeballs.

I've paid up for App.net because I have a zero tolerance policy to advertising, and I don't want to be involved with services that have their primary business model built around marketing and advertising. In this case App.net is not aping Twitter, because Twitter will never indulge the idea of a world without advertising.

[jyap]

You also do not read magazines, newspapers or watch television?

You also do not use Google or Twitter (this isn't you? https://twitter.com/scott_to_s)?

[scott_to_s]

Yes, that's me. And no, I don't watch terrestrial TV, or read magazines.

Yes, I use Twitter now, but I'd like to move away from it, especially if it continues to move in the direction that it's going... hence my subscription to App.net and my comment that you're responding to.

The fact that I have a Twitter account means that it is curretly useful for me, but it doesn't change my stance on advertising, which I do not tolerate. I also use Twitter via a client that does not pollute my stream with advertising, but this cannot last.

I'm quite happy to pay for a service that doesn't advertise or sell eyeballs.