App.net is only going to be a "problem" if the alternatives, for some reason, cease to exist, and no-one decides to enter the vacuum (private or public).
But why stop there. Why not ask Twitter (and anyone else) to make everyone everyone else's followers. Is it fair to have to build your own followers? Isn't it unfair that only some people get to be trendsetters and leaders within those communities? What good is an open (or closed) platform if your voice is miniscule/diluted?
Is exclusivity a problem, if you can build your own (exclusive/inclusive) clubs?
Sure, the internet is nominally open, such that people are pretty much free to join G+, FB, Twitter, Blogger, etc. But in practice, most people self select and gravitate to their own places/groups/friends, etc.
If you want to ensure an alternative open platform, then go ahead and build your own, if you can't, then as in any case where one is underrepresented, clamor, get attention and get served. If people in third world countries can build apps and sites to support their needs, there is no reason people in first world economies cannot.
One point he made that resonated with me was how it was offensive to say that people wanting to support App.net are doing so to "flee from Twitter" based on the service being populist.
Even discounting the fact that the entire way you experience Twitter is exclusionary (based on the asymmetric follow model), it seems willfully disingenuous to ignore the main reason people are wary of Twitter (mainly, the companies current decisions around controlling the experience, and people's fear of what they will do in the future).
And catchy headline aside, if the "revolution" you're trying to start is one where people pay for the services they use instead of being at the mercy of advertisers, a country club isn't as bad a place to start it from as he makes out.
And I say that as someone who doesn't think App.net has a chance in hell of supplanting Twitter (which to be fair, isn't even their goal).
Agreed. Also stating svbtle is a tool that "improves and simplify the experience for writing and creating content online" made me quietly chuckle, knowing it's invite only.
But why stop there. Why not ask Twitter (and anyone else) to make everyone everyone else's followers. Is it fair to have to build your own followers? Isn't it unfair that only some people get to be trendsetters and leaders within those communities? What good is an open (or closed) platform if your voice is miniscule/diluted?
Is exclusivity a problem, if you can build your own (exclusive/inclusive) clubs?
Sure, the internet is nominally open, such that people are pretty much free to join G+, FB, Twitter, Blogger, etc. But in practice, most people self select and gravitate to their own places/groups/friends, etc.
If you want to ensure an alternative open platform, then go ahead and build your own, if you can't, then as in any case where one is underrepresented, clamor, get attention and get served. If people in third world countries can build apps and sites to support their needs, there is no reason people in first world economies cannot.