The great blessing and curse of Twitter (TWTR) is that the people using the social media service care deeply about the company (the blessing) and they have a lot of opinions about it (the curse).
When Twitter dominates the news cycle, as it has been with the recent string of personnel changes, there is no stopping the armchair quarterbacking.
Take, for example, the New Yorker’s The End of Twitter.
Vanity Fair snaps back that Twitter isn’t dead yet. Save your RIPs, guys. Slate argues that The End of Twitter is a False Narrative. The problem is our own expectations.
On Medium, Anthony de Rosa offers a line-by-line response, concluding that Twitter is no less useful, or essential, than it ever was. Also on Medium, Jorge Barba writes, nice title, but Twitter isn’t in trouble if it sticks to, and evolves on, what makes it essential. Medium’s Karen Goel says your prediction of Twitter’s future is wrong.
I’m not really sure what this Guardian rebuttal is arguing, but another rebuttal from the Guardian says that Twitter should recognize it’s about content now, not just tweeting. In other Guardian takes, Twitter should focus on its strengths and stop trying to be what it is not.
Dear Twitter, writes Medium user Mankins, it’s okay that you lost your way. Medium user Vibor Cipan writes, Quo vadis, Twitter? And how do we fix you?
The Wall Street Journal thinks Twitter should eyeball Yahoo’s past. CNET thinks Twitter should learn from Beyoncé’s epic “Formation” weekend.
Tim Malbon believes that the only way to save Twitter is to let it die. What would Tony Stubblebine do if he were CEO of Twitter? He would fix the messages screen and then resign.
Motherboard chimes in with a classic angle: Twitter’s doesn’t know what it wants to be! Ryan Nadel thinks Twitter should stop trying to be a social network and instead be a conversation network. Mike Slagh believes Twitter can still be the portal to hundreds of other unique social experiences.
What is Twitter for? Dave Pell asks. Twitter faces “fresh hell,” Time writes.
Changing the “favorite” button to a heart is the final nail in Twitter’s coffin, according to which Medium user Martin Belam. Twitter needs a much more drastic plan to fix the social network’s toxic atmosphere and troubled business, according to Slate. Taylor Hughes thinks Twitter should focus on its superpower.
Expanding the character limit to 10,000 characters sparked outrage among users, but according to Medium user Eric3000, Your Twitter “beyond 140” outrage is lazy. Peter Gasston wants more than 140 characters so bad he made a slidedeck called The Twitter Problem to show how he’d implement the change. Twitter has more than 140 characters worth of woes, according to CBS News.
Changing the feed to an algorithm caused a small explosion on Medium: Such a change would “alter the deal,” and there are many things wrong with it. Others embrace the change: Twitter needs an algorithm. Please, Twitter, go algorithmic!
The Next Web wants everyone to calm down: Algorithms won’t ruin Twitter. Wait, never mind. #RIPRIPTwitter.
While we’re at it, don’t forget that Something was wrong on Twitter in 2014, and Good-bye to All That Twitter. (When you leave Twitter, you’re required to write about it.)
BBC News may be onto something with the suggestion that Twitter should ignore its users.
Thankfully, according to CNBC, The Twitter blood bath will end soon.
