Talk:Twitter

Revisions suggested 12/10/13

Please copy record tweet information from “Growth” section to the “Record Tweets” section. The heading “Record Tweets” only has two record tweets under it, and would be improved by adding more record tweets from the “Growth” section.

The first paragraph of the “Issues and Controversies” section should be altered. Most of the paragraph leads the reader to assume that Twitter has played a large role in the Arab Spring. Then the last sentence discredits that line of thought by stating only a small fraction of the population of Arab Spring countries are active on Twitter. Please revise to state a debate exists as to the size of the role Twitter has had in these revolutions. Twitter revolutions should possibly have its own heading, where this debate can be summarized.

The following text should be included to introduce the Arab Spring section of the first paragraph of “Issues and Controversies”. In 2009, the Western world projected Twitter onto the green revolution in Iran. Twitter did play a role in the uprising, but not to the extent the Western media said it did. An extreme minority of Iranians used Twitter at that point in time. Twitter did help publicize the events of the green revolution in an otherwise secretive and closed country, but Twitter did not drive the masses into the streets of Tehran. source: http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/morozovch1.pdf

Twitter and this article are awful. Where's the criticism and controversy section?

You were than happy to include one for FaceBook and MySpace, but nothing for this godawful social network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.207.205 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Don't expect to see it any time soon, though. Thatguytestw 03:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguytestw (talk • contribs)

Exactly what IS twitter?

your twitter will suck butt if you don't follow me, therefore, follow me @LovableMatthew

Exactly what IS twitter? ---Dagme (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

How would these 140 character messages that you can already send be read by many? If you're just sending a SMS/Text, then it's only readable by the list of people you send it to, and it's private. Nobody else gets to see it. Twitter is essentially a one-to-many relationship. With Twitter, their platform allws you to broadcast your tweets to everyone who chooses to listen (follows you). By using hashtags, you get to broadcast beyond your following audience even, and are broadcasting to all who follow the hashtag. On the receiving side, you choose who to follow and which hashtags you're interested in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.180.142 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a social network, even if some folks use it as one. It's a means of broadcasting messages on the web. All you do is public, so it's publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.253.87 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Change picture

Perhaps a timeline picture would be more useful than the log in?--88.104.132.120 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this--88.104.133.87 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This is Twitter's timeline, but I'm not sure if it works well as a thumbnail for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you should try it--88.104.133.87 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the infobox image requires WP:CONSENSUS, as it is not a good idea to go back and forth with different images. Other views on changing the infobox image are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How do we get consensus then?--88.104.138.119 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, no-one else has chimed in with a request to change the picture. The standard practice is to give a screenshot of the home page of a website in the infobox, such as at Facebook or YouTube. The screenshot of Twitter's home page isn't all that exciting, but I'm not sure that the timeline works better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree with the YouTube one as is still indicative of the use of the website, but I've asked what they think about the Facebook one now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.138.119 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC) * Sorry I forgot to sign.--88.104.138.119 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be difficult to get a consensus on changing the photo, however the current one is most widely recognized as Twitter. TrainsOnTime (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How would we get consensus?--88.104.132.1 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow

I think that this would benefit from a description of what it means to "follow" on Twitter. And that Follow (disambiguation) would benefit from a line pointing to that description. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Noah Glass

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Minimal notability outside of involvement with Twitter §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Noah Glass isn't a very long article, but as one of the founders of Twitter he is worth his own article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose He deserves his own article.--88.111.129.157 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose One of founders of Twitter definitely needs a separate article. CarnivorousBunny^talk 00:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Merge He lacks any notability outside of Twitter.--88.104.132.1 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge There is no biographical information about him worthy of being included in an article that doesn't have an association with Twitter per WP:BIO. Along with his article being short, I wholeheartedly agree that Noah Glass should be merged with Twitter. tgtw 02:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguytestw (talk • contribs)
• Oppose Noah Glass' article should be his own and contains information about him that doesn't fit in the Twitter article because it is not Twitter-related. Mechanic1c (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the point?

The article says:

"Twitter is an online social networking service that enables users to send and read short 140-character messages called "tweets"."

I don't know much about Twitter, but I knew that. My question is: I understand that images can be sent on twitter. Clearly any reasonable image would have a far larger file size than a 140 character text file. So, my question is: What is the point? ---Dagme (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You can send images on Twitter

This is confusing.Please clarify--88.104.132.1 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be mean, but this is not what talk pages are used for. Talk pages are used for discussions for improving the article that the talk page attributes to, not general talk about the article. The yellow banner/cluster-of-infoboxes at the top of every talk page, (the last bulletin of) WP:TPNO and (the second bulletin of) WP:TALK#USE all state this. Sorry man. tgtw 02:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguytestw (talk • contribs)

CEO

Dick Costolo will no longer be CEO. Instead interim CEO will be Jack Doresy as of July 1 Tweet Manuels World (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So he's still CEO at this point, and will be until July 1. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Twitter Section re: Proposed legal class action to regulate Twitter

Advice needed on a proposed addition to the Twitter page.

Lawyers are currently investigating proposed Class Actions in respect of Twitter activities. These will include allegations of Abuse of a Dominant Position with a complaint to the EU Commission; and a separate European Court of Human Rights action alleging Censorship and thereby contravention of Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression). The basis of this is that Twitter has suspended the Write feature on 2 accounts which published INDEPENDENT Opinion Polls and Public Opinion Surveys on the forthcoming EU Referendum in the United Kingdom. It is suggested that Twitter came under pressure from British Government agencies as these public opinion surveys were potentially damaging to the position of UK Ministers.

Arguably such an addition of information on the Twitter page would be in the public interest, and thus comments and suggestions on how best one might include this information on the Twitter page would be greatly appreciated. BDFPLAW (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)BDFP Law Firm--BDFPLAW (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDFPLAW (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015

Please add this (if appropriate) to the “Issues and controversies” section:-

Censorship Issues

On or about the 17 June 2015 Twitter, Inc. (and/or other Twitter operating entities) censored or blocked 2 Twitter accounts operated by Journalists which published or disseminated independent Public Opinion Polls and Surveys derived from original data researched by an independent Public Opinion / Surveying research company. It was originally reported that Twitter had been coerced by the British Government because these surveys concerned public opinion regarding the Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union. Subsequently a British Government official confirmed to journalists that the censorship was orchestrated by UK Independence Party (UKIP) political activists whom are anti-UK government and anti-European Union. The British Government’s GCHQ agency monitors all Twitter activity, including the UKIP activists.

The Twitter General Counsel, Vijaya Gadde, was contacted by a law firm, and then a journalist covering the story; however Twitter failed to respond. An investigation is now being conducted into Twitter companies, inter alia, Twitter Inc, Twitter International Company, and associated entities, in respect of breaches of European Union, Council of Europe, and national legislation and provisions.

The basis of this investigation is to evaluate evidence which impacts on one or more Class Actions which would allege:

1. Abuse of a dominant position, contrary to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2. Censorship or Restriction of Freedom of Expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Given Twitter’s precarious finances any adverse publicity which would impact on potential advertisers, and/or any substantial fine imposed on Twitter by the European Commission for breaches of Article 102, may drive the company out of business. If the matter reaches the European Court of Human Rights, as with the Google case, Twitter will be subject to more regulation and will have to make significant changes in their operating procedures and public accountability.

BDFPLAW (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done From reference 3, you appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to promote your law company, whilst much of the latter half is pure speculation.
Please also read the warning about your unacceptable user name on your user page here - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bravo. To hell with potential threats to Freedom of the Press. Long Live Pedantry. BDFPLAW (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Awaiting an acceptable user name

Logo and main page appearance

This is how I am currently seeing the main page https://twitter.com/ . It uses a blue bird on a white background. I am puzzled by File:Twitter homepage.png which is used in the infobox, because I have never seen this. Can anyone explain why this discrepancy is happening?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is how archive.org saw the page on 2 July 2015. It is possible that people in the USA are seeing this, but not in other countries. I am in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your link is the older design; I currently see the 2nd link in the US. Possibly it's being rolled out in the US before other countries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's right, I found this in the official Twitter blog from April 2015. The page says that "We’re introducing the new twitter.com on desktop to U.S. users first, and intend to bring it to more places over time." So there is a discrepancy at the moment in how users in different countries are seeing the main page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)