Who rules Twitter?

Wired explores the clashes between Twitter users and staff

There's a fascinating piece on Twitter in the latest issue of Wired, highlighting the creative tension between the site's users and managers. The user-driven evolution of Twitter (responsible for innovations such as retweets and hash tags) has left the site's adherents acutely sensitive to any formal changes.

For instance, a Suggested Users List, a collection of around 200 celebrities, companies and thinkers for newcomers to follow, prompted an outraged reaction from users who felt it to be unreasonably hierarchical.

The article also explores the perennial question: "How will Twitter make money?" The site's executives reasonably remind us that Google and Facebook (which turned a profit for the first time last year) didn't begin with a business model, either.

According to the piece, Twitter is on track to bring in $4m in revenue this year. Does anyone know where the money will come from? Is it just interest from the capital they've raised?

One possibility canvassed by the article is that Twitter could make money from analysing the information contained in the billions of tweets on its site. I still think that targeted advertising offers a far more reliable revenue stream, albeit one likely to lead to further user disquiet.

The site's cute image certainly belies a remarkable ambition. As the Twitter chief executive, Evan Williams, puts it: "We want to make Twitter indispensable, so it tells people what they need to know and what they want to know and hopefully not much else."

Should he succeed, it will be a remarkable victory for simplicity. As Wired's Steven Levy writes: "Essentially, Twitter left a ball and a stick in a field and lurked on the sidelines as its users invented baseball." How to referee this unending game is the challenge the firm's leaders now face.

 

Follow the New Statesman on Twitter

Sign up to the New Statesman newsletter and receive weekly updates from the team

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.