Question for Evan Williams

What’s the difference between “content” and “advertising”?

(that’s it

I bet you and Mark Zuckerberg could go on and on about that (e.g. see also http://past.blog.com/2009/01/17/on-the-web-its-freedom-2-publishing-0 to refresh your memory

I hope that you two have a nice chat and look forward to what comes from it!

nmw

1. So of the 200 million users, how many use it on a daily/weekly basis?

2. What is the average number of followers and tweets per person?

Its power is not in its technology, nor particularly in its implementation.(though ultimately that’s a vital component)

Its power is in its user-base… and the timing of its launch within this new evolving landscape…

Because of the self-reinforcing nature of increasing size… these are niches which inevitably will tend to concentrate in only a few players…

(increased size increases utility)…

However here there is little to anchor the user to the service other than inertia and the presence of others also using the service. This may or may not be enough!

There are few things that will really ‘anchor’ a user to a particular platform or service.

I believe this is one:

The Commons-dedicated Account:

A self-supporting , neutral network of accounts for both political and charitable monetary contribution… which for fundamental reasons of scale must allow a viable micro-transaction (think x-box points for action in the Commons).

The resultant network catalyzes additional functionality for co-ordination of other ‘social energy’ utilization.

(If desired, It’s also the most neutral and ultimately politically viable method for the public finance of elections.)

Has just been GRANTED A PATENT by USPTO for its groundbreaking mechanism for political/charitable contribution and reporting! (no, this is not a software patent)

Enabling simple networked citizen lobbying… most essentially liberated by making an online political ‘micro-transaction’ easily feasible for the User… (without burdening it with the transaction costs which currently keep it off the table of consideration)…

catalyzes a network of accounts that, in turn facilitates opportunities for enormously reducing the costs of campaigning while bringing candidate selection closer to the people. (The political micro-contribution, even where only occasionally useful, drives the creation of a stable universally distributed network of primary importance for scaled association and decision.)

It may not be immediately clear why this DOES NOT encourage polarization but rather its opposite…

Why Politics MUST be Localized
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-politics-must-be-localized.html

Empowering the Commons: The Dedicated Account (Part I)
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/08/empowering-commons-dedicated-account.html

Political Fundraising: Act Blue, Facebook and the Missing Network Imperative
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/08/political-fundraising-act-blue-facebook.html

LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/in/culturalengineer

Demo & FAQ
http://www.Chagora.com

Hopefully USEFUL financial innovation will eventually find some support.

Developing a capable electorate involves much more than any single innovation can satisfy… however some innovations act as catalysts for greater change. This is just such a catalyst. While it may seem paradoxical… this is a lever which in time will (I believe) REDUCE the amount of money in politics, LOWER the costs of campaigns, AND lead to the development of a more responsible electorate.

Capability ENABLES Responsibility…

(Pssst… that’s why when people feel essentially disenfranchised and helpless they scapegoat and polarize.)

P.S. The political micro-contribution along with other system benefits and capabilities encourage the User to then use this system for ALL contribution political AND charitable.

I’m not going to write a hundred page piece here but that, in turn leads to some real opportunities for this enterprise… and especially for it’s users.

Its the key to a vital and very stable network.

There is no doubt that twitter showed a lot of promise because it was new and revolutionary. But at some point it seems like someone decided it should be mainstream — and that was probably premature.

What happened is that something potentially powerful was turned into something pretty passé.

I have no idea how “the new twitter” is doing because I haven’t tried it out yet — which is to say it doesn’t interest me. That ought to be a big warning signal — but unlike the early days, now it seems that the twitter vision is now uninspired and therefore not very inspirational.

If twitter hadn’t pandered to mainstream media, then it might have had a chance of becoming significant. Now it looks like it could be little more than lame.

IMO a huge missed opportunity.

nmw