Why Twitter Can't Monetize

Block Together is shutting down, which sucks, so I looked for potential alternatives.

I was directed to Secateur. Maybe give that a try?

View tweet on twitter for context.

I saw several of this kind of tweet, but since I don’t use the official Twitter client or web site, it didn’t work at all.

Yet again, my recommendation stands. Do not use the official Twitter client or web site. I use Tweetdeck and Tweetbot. Yes, I am aware that Twitter owns Tweetdeck.

I don’t understand. What are they trying to do?

EDIT: okay I get it. What part of the full image does Twitter show in the crop.

I will not be paying people I follow for exclusive content.

There was other news out saying they might sell TweetDeck+ for some amount of money. I might be willing to pay for that if it included the right features at the right price.


So patreon but for influencers

“For $5 you get…280 characters of text!”

Last month Twitter acquired Revue, a service for creating newsletters. They are going to compete with Substack, allowing readers to support writers for, I guess, 5 dollars a month for their long form writing.

There’s no need to speculate, as Twitter put it in writing:

And for those looking to generate revenue, we’re creating a durable incentive model through paid newsletters. Bringing Revue to Twitter will supercharge this offering, helping writers grow their paid subscribers while also incentivizing them to produce engaging and relevant content that drives conversations on Twitter. You can expect audience-based monetization to be an area that we’ll continue to develop new ways to support, whether it’s helping broaden revenue streams or serving as a cornerstone of someone’s business.

Jack is a huge coiny.

Companies are “investing” in bitcoin because its speculation bubble generates more revenue than actually selling products…


I’m sure that’s fine and is in no way indicative of deeper problems with the economy.

1 Like

$2 million for a Tweet. smh

These NFT things would almost make sense if they actually granted the person who owns the NFT actual meaningful ownership of the thing the token represents.

If you “own” the first tweet, what do you get? You get the mathematical ability to prove with basically no doubt you were the doofus who paid $2 million. That’s it.

But what if you actually owned the tweet for real? You got royalties every time it was displayed. People couldn’t reproduce or use the tweet in anyway without purchasing a copyright license from you? You could force Twitter to take down the tweet. This might actually be worth paying for. Not $2 million, but not $0.

Of course, I say almost, because using NFT for this is still pointless! You could just setup a normal relational database, have people make user accounts, and then just keep track of which user accounts currently own which tweets. Done and done.

The NBA NFT thing is even more ridiculous.

People buy and sell highlight clips, which are sold in random packs like collectible cards. Again, if this granted actual ownership, such that nobody could so much as see the clip without your permission, it might make sense. You get to upload the clip to your own YouTube channel and make money off of it because you own it for real. No longer NBA property. But no, that’s not what it is. And again, database does it better.


The coin aspect of these things exists for two reasons. (They are both bad reasons).

  1. Hype machine for fools
  2. Plausible existence of a secondary market which implies resale value to these bullshit assets, but at the same time absolves them of having to run it or deal with crimes/consequences of it existing.

NFTs are, in every use case I’ve seen, either a primary scam (sell them to fools for a profit) or a front for money laundering (see the big ticket art trade).

1 Like

I keep saying over and over again, a database can do the same thing, assuming whoever controls the database can be trusted.

Maybe I should just make a database that does NFT. I’ll generate a set of unique jpgs somehow. Then with normal old e-commerce people can come to the site and buy as many as they want for $X each while supplies last. If you own one, you can login to the site and access the ones you own. The site will have a feature where you can exchange them with other users for their jpgs and/or normal currency. If one of the jpgs gets out into the world, that’s on the owner (or previous owner).

But this is still better than the NFT system where everything is out in the world to begin with!

So we’ve reinvented Pokémon cards, but with a cryptographically secure way of proving yours isn’t a cheap fake.

EDIT: I guess baseball cards, as there is no gameplay utility, just ownership.

It’s even worse than that. Imagine a baseball card. Everyone in the entire world who wants one has a perfect copy of the baseball card. The company that made the baseball card and the photographer who took the photo on it still own the actual rights to that card.

The NFT is just a one of a kind certificate that says “lukeburrage owns that card” where owning has no actual meaning other than the value assigned to it by humans who feel like they are or are not the “true” owner.

People keep comparing it to owning the real Mona Lisa vs owning a print of it. That is very wrong. If I own the real Mona Lisa, I can take it down from the Louvre and hang it in my own gallery and charge admission. I could reframe it. I could even do bad things to it. If you have an NFT of an artwork, you can’t do anything with that art that anyone else can not do.