It's a change in behavior for Twitter, which was built with content and threads in the open.

It's ok for people to say, "I like how it was before."

It's political, doesn't have to make sense.

I'll do both.

People that create twitter accounts do so because they want reach. They want to be able to publish freely, to the internet, to share ideas, information they have, memes, whatever. But now, their reach is limited to other twitter accounts. Their voice is no longer public on the internet.

Twitter has some inertia that will carry this new model for now, there's a lot of twitter accounts, so many that most people won't know the difference at first. But as time goes on and people want to make things public and people slowly stop posting twitter links everywhere because they're useless (only useful to people with twitter accounts, so why share them outside of twitter in the first place) and every reference to something on twitter becomes a screenshot, people will look for alternatives to broadcast their thoughts.

Twitter is supposed to be a website where people can share ideas. You need an account to share ofc, but it's still supposed to be a website, you go there and read things. That's not possible anymore. Reading what someone has to say is only "using it" in the most tenuous sense. Using twitter is posting to it. People being able to read what you say is the whole point. They think they're forcing the whole world to get twitter accounts, but what they're really doing is forcing twitter users to share their ideas in more than one place, it's not going to turn out good for the company in the long run.

> They want to be able to publish freely, to the internet, to share ideas, information they have, memes, whatever.

Is this necessarily true? At this point, I would figure that people who continue to publish on Twitter are aware of its restrictions and continue to communicate there with that knowledge. If anything, one could argue that trying to access Twitter content without an account is what's actually inappropriate here, as posters can no longer trust the guarantees of the platform.

> Twitter is supposed to be a website where people can share ideas.

Twitter used to be a website where people can share ideas. Twitter currently is a website where people can share ideas with other Twitter users. If you post on Twitter now with the intention of being truly public on the internet, I'd say you're using the wrong tool for the job. Whether that's a good business decision or not is irrelevant; the fact is that Twitter has changed its purpose, and users should update their expectations accordingly, however they see fit.

Yeah, and I'm saying this was a mistake. People continue to use it thinking it gives them the most reach, because most people don't understand networks. I'm sure some like it locked down, but most people still think it's a place to publish because they don't really understand the magnitude of the change. It's not a small change; it is a fundamental change in the game dynamics of the platform. For now people can't tell that their audience is restricted. They're used to not knowing who saw it except for their feedback from other accounts. It still looks the same from their perspective. The apparent impact will be delayed, but it will happen. First, twitter links in the news will become screenshots, then they'll become quotes, then engagement outside will evaporate and people will begin feeling the need to publish blogs and the like. It's already beginning to happen. Twitter is much less useful if it's walled off.

I completely agree that the change was an overall negative one that has resulted in Twitter being much less useful, and my point is that it's up to users to decide how to engage with the platform given these changes. For me, Twitter went from being an app that I checked and refreshed several times a day to one where I maybe open it once a month. I'm disappointed in the new direction but I updated my usage patterns accordingly.

Your point about other users potentially not understanding the change is well-taken, and some of the other comments in this thread prove it (like a city's police department communicating exclusively via Twitter), but trying to make an open platform out of one that's fundamentally not (anymore, at least) seems like the wrong way to solve the problem.

Then something else will emerge (even something that already exists) and people using it will have more reach. Once the people of Twitter realize that, they will transfer to the new platform.

No. Now stay mad.

>Don't like the platform? Then don't use it! It's not mandatory.

Sorry, my public officials seem to be using it as an official communications platform. For many people, it is in fact mandatory.

>You can find content elsewhere online.

Not if someone sends you a link to a twitter thread and you can only see the first tweet without logging in. You can only see that content right there.

> I have an account that I use solely for reading. The overwhelming number of similar comments actually makes me want to use it more.

This attitude will make you fit right in there.

As an example, local police here sent out urgent missing person reports and the "more information" link was a twitter link (behind a bit.ly shortener if you can believe it)

I can't help but contrast this response with the dismissive reactions towards censorship and the Twitter Files. Turns out, it actually is an important source of information. Are we about to see op-eds about how it needs to be public or regulated like utility companies? :)

Aside from that, critical information is not exclusively posted on Twitter, although it used to be "locked" behind a radio or a TV receiver. An online account is not the insurmountable hurdle that you paint it as.

TV receivers didn't come with built-in user tracking.

You could get user tracking added by a company called Nielsen but they actually paid you a small sum for your data.

I think this is quite different.

Sure, I do not have a Facebook account for similar reasons despite hearing that a lot of valuable information and networks are on that platform. Ten years ago I might have complained about it loudly, but nowadays I tend to think about things more pragmatically. Or at least that's what I tell myself after I caved and bought a smartphone after resisting for over a decade since they became ubiquitous :)

I didn't use Twitter for the better part of the last decade and don't feel like I missed anything important. Idem with Facebook that I haven't touched in over ten years. If I cared enough about defeating trackers I could spin up a personal Nitter instance with a pseudonymous account, otherwise I see it as the price to pay to have access to such a large volume of information instantaneously, and I would rather be tracked by private interests than by the government.

I also find it frustrating when any organization, government or otherwise, only publishes information on restricted channels, but that is nothing new.

>I also find it frustrating when any organization, government or otherwise, only publishes information on restricted channels

Then we agree :)

> my public officials seem to be using it as an official communications platform

Oof

>Sorry, my public officials seem to be using it as an official communications platform. For many people, it is in fact mandatory.

I don't believe that anyone but Elon Musk use twitter as its only communicatuon platform.

Does the name ‘Donald Trump’ ring a bell?

Is he still using twitter?

Also: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ (which includes a news section)

No but for a time it was his primary news distribution platform, which means it’s reasonable for some other important person to also use it as their platform.

Except for sharing his mug shot, even he hasn't posted on Twitter since Biden's inauguration.

I’m responding to the parents ‘ I don't believe that anyone but Elon Musk use twitter as its only communicatuon platform.’ - at some point trump did use Twitter as his primary communication platform, whether he still does or not is largely irrelevant to the point.

what is important is that you changed the goal post.

I said "only" and you moved it to "primary".

Primary meaning first and possibly only - I really don’t know if trump had secondary platforms, but people would talk about his Twitter, not his blog.

Proving it to be his only source is likely impossible to do, but also has little value (do you want to learn the latest news now or in a weeks time when secondary sources catch up?)

And to follow up, my understanding is that trump would post personally, not one of his PR staff, I’m not aware of him personally posting elsewhere until after he was banned from Twitter.

That's present tense though. It was more popular in the past, but today, it's been relegated.

> "I don't like twitter, I don't want to have an account on twitter, yet I demand to be able to read content posted on twitter" Honestly, I cannot understand the point of view of some commenters here.

Why is it surprizing? What's there to understand? It's web. Twitter used to be a decent web citizen, and allowed you to read its posts like you would read web pages. I don't want an account on Mastodon; yet I can read content posted to Mastodon. I don't want an account on Bluesky; yet I can read content posted to Bluesky. Twitter used to be like that, and we got used to it, and now it's not, and it's infuriating.

I agree. It's not hard to make an account to "lurk". I'm sure most of those complaining have accounts at various other social media websites. It may cost some privacy, but I find the content more than worthwhile.

There is content on Twitter that is not available anywhere else. It frequently breaks news faster than any other source, and there are many high profile posters who use it as their only broadcast source. Some memorable examples include the FTX and OpenAI fiascos.

The website isn't stellar, but it is functional. Lists are a great feature to separate content into custom feeds.

Maybe there will be something in the future that can serve as an alternative, but there is none currently.