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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.