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.
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.
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.
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.
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 And even if that number is wrong (it probably is) it’s not like the previous number isn’t heavily outdated.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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, definitely isn’t going to be Twitter.
Musk is too stupid for that.
Twitter’s MAU count is around 450 million active users. You’re not going to find many bigger user bases.
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.
Here’s one that puts it at 550mil MAU:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
Is it as big as YouTube or Facebook or Instagram? No. It’s still one of the biggest user bases on the internet though.
Also how has twitter been struggling to keep working?
Interesting. Looking into the sources that Statista uses, you find this graph that paints a very different picture.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Twitter is not account-walled. Have you been keeping up with the news?I just tried it. Twitter won’t let me view pages without an account. What do you mean exactly?
@HKayn @HeavyDogFeet
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.
Oh, in that case I’m the one who hasn’t been keeping up. Damn.