The Suggested Users List as a tool to control news?

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/09/22/theSulAsAToolToControlNews.html

by swombat • 17 years ago

36 25 17 years ago

jgrahamc2• 17 years ago

If Twitter did drop TechCrunch from the suggested users list at that point because of TechCrunch publishing internal Twitter documents obtained by a hacker then... I applaud ev and the Twitter team.

helium2• 17 years ago

Why? Because they're biased with the information they present to their users? When I see a suggested user list, I want the a list of users whom I would like to follow. Not a list of users who are popular and have not pissed of twitter.

Ok sure, I know this is techcrunch, but I despise it when information comes with hidden agendas. It just smacks of censorship.

jgrahamc2• 17 years ago

It just smacks of censorship

It is censorship which a private company like Twitter is perfectly entitled to perform. I have no problem with them doing this. Every company decides on its view of the truth to present to the world.

pyre2• 17 years ago

> When I see a suggested user list, I want the a list of users whom I would like to follow. Not a list of users who are popular and have not pissed of twitter.

Of course it's just going to be a list of popular twitter users... How else could they compile a list? It's not like you've taken some likes/dislikes survey. When you first join, they have no data on you at all.

How would you propose that given a completely random person (from anywhere in the world, any culture) you compile of list of 'interesting' people/website that are relevant to that person's specific interests? Oh, and by the way you're not allowed to know anything about that person other than their email address.

hanskuder• 17 years ago

All this article points out is that being on the SUL is a significant source of followers. There's no surprise that being removed from the SUL would cause growth to stagnate.

pmichaud• 17 years ago

Plus, it's their list, their service, they can decide who is on it for whatever reason they choose to.

ivankirigin• 17 years ago

SUL is editorial. Techcrunch made a dicked move against twitter. There is no story here. If they wrote an article saying "twitter is bad" it would be far worse.

cpr• 17 years ago

Poor Dave--he's obsessed with not being on that Suggested Users list.

EvilTrout• 17 years ago

Also, his own app ships with a hand picked suggested users list:

http://eyeonwiner.org/archives/2009/dave-admits-hypocrisy

jonknee• 17 years ago

... And even better he accepted money for listing on his suggested users list. Pay to play!

http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/2003/07/07.html#a4052

sabon2• 17 years ago

What's so unusual about it? Is there any imperative to list Techcrunch and keep it listed no matter what? Even after they publish confidential information that wasn't supposed to be published at all?

If one of your friends (like in real life, you know) stole your diary and started telling all your other friends everything from that diary, would you still be obliged to be friends with him? Pretty obvious, isn't it?

And keep in mind that Twitter's aim is not to be the most objective and complete source of news, you know? They just have a list of sources they think are worth checking.

doug_m5• 17 years ago

Sorry but the fact that twitter did this to Techcrunch must be masking people's views here, otherwise I can't understand the comparison with someone's diary.

At the end of the day I value journalism of this kind which is in part investigative and doesn't, to my uneducated eyes, appear to have any personal cost. I'm not sure how interesting it was in this case, but in general "wasn't supposed to be published" is about a fraction of the rationale that needs to be there for a media organisation not to publish.

At the end of the day, TC broke a story here and leaked something Twitter didn't want out in the open. They took a hit on traffic and, by extension, to their exposure which as a media company presumably is a measure that affects revenue. Therefore Twitter deprived TC of revenue as punishment for publishing information they didn't want to see in the public eye.

That's a bad thing, for me, for a media company to have done and it is unusual + interesting.

sabon2• 17 years ago

Well, so while Twitter "deprives TC of revenue as punishment" (can you even say this with a straight face? Really?) is a crime, but TC hurting Twitter's image is perfectly OK? I'm lost here...

Also keep in mind that providing TC with this revenue from Twitter is strictly their good will and should not be taken for granted. Do you really not see this?

unalone3• 17 years ago

So TechCrunch behaved like jackasses and showed stuff Twitter didn't want to have shown, while according to your theory using Twitter as a way to make money, and that's okay?

It's called biting the hand that feeds you, and it's an old old saying. If TC still hasn't figured out it's a bad idea, nuts to them.

adrianwaj• 17 years ago

Finally a way for Twitter to make money! Grabbing or securing spots in the SUL.

http://pulse2.com/2009/03/12/jason-calacanis-offering-twitte...

zck• 17 years ago

It was a while -- it looks like almost two weeks -- between TechCrunch publishing the article and twitter removing them from the suggested followers list.

I wonder if there are any more examples, or if anyone on the suggested followers list has been critical of twitter.

glower• 17 years ago

The problem is with the publications who accept positions on the SUL and then won't write a negative piece about Twitter for fear of being removed from the list. Those publications have an integrity issue. Most of you guys are looking in the wrong place. It's hard to argue that Twitter did anything terribly wrong. The ones you should be looking at are the journalists who are still on the list.

The Suggested Users List as a tool to control news?

Related Stories