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.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496