The dark side of Twitter likes

Twitter's Shadowy Side: What Companies Should Know

Twitter is the talk of the web right now when it comes to marketing. The use of the elegantly simple social media point has skyrocketed unlike anything in recent memory, and it's businesses that are springing onto the Twitter crusade.

The New York Times calls Twitter" one of the fastest-growing marvels on the Internet." A recent study( pdf) determined that at least five million people are using the service, and new members are signing up at a clip of 10,000 per day. And unlike other" then moment, gone hereafter" services, Twitter seems to have staying power. As companies strain their announcement spending, affordable social media is easily the next marketing frontier. As with any new mode, there are enormous openings and large risks that must be avoided.

For this composition, I spoke to some marketing professionals who've been exploring the Twitter terrain for a while. My hunt was to identify the Twitter landmines so you could geo-track your adventure into this vast new frontier. First, though, a little tale to illustrate Twitter's influence.

The Shot Seen Around the World

Flash back the downed airplane.

Floating on the Hudson swash? How could anyone forget the picture of people crowded on the street as the airplane gently floated in the frigid January waters. Janis Krum's was hard as US Air Flight 1549 fell from the sky that day. Janis used his iPhone to take a picture of an oncoming ferry shortly after the incident, and he shared it on Twitter with the following caption:

• There is an airplane.
• In the Hudson. To pick up the people, I'm on the ferry. Absurd.

The many hundred people following Janis began spreading the word to their Twitter followers. Janis could not have imagined what was about to happen.

Within 30 twinkles, he was live on MSNBC and CNN. Good morning. America invited him to its plant. Also, the BBC, 20/20, ABC, and Inside Edition followed. The morning after the crash, his picture was on the front cover of major journals across the earth, and his dispatch inbox had more than 4,000 emails. Many days after the shooting, he posted this comment on his blog: "To say that the last couple of days have been crazy, violent, or whatever adjective you want to use is an understatement.” easily Twitter can be a rapid-fire catalyst for good news. And now for the dark side of Twitter.

Be careful what you say. The FedEx Story

"Everything you chitter is searchable on the web. This can be good or bad. Good if you are strategically using crucial words for which you want to be set up, and bad if you are not aware that if you are not nice, it can come back to suck you!" said blogging expert Denise Waksman. And that bite has come back hard lately for PR agency Ketchum.

An employee working for the establishment landed in Memphis to deliver a donation to more than 150 people at FedEx. On appearance, he wrote the following on Twitter: "True concession, but I am in one of those municipalities where I scratch my head and say,' I would die if I had to live then!'"

It just so happened that a FedEx staffer saw the communication and encouraged it to multitudinous company directors. FedEx drafted a response to the Ketchum hand. The last line of the letter says it all: "True concession, numerous of my peers, and I do not see important applicability between your donation this morning and the work that we undertake." The tale took off on Twitter and the Internet in no time.

Twitter restricts access, causing wide knockouts.

First, Twitter limited how many characters could go into your posts, stripping the public of any remaining nuance. Now it wants to portion the number of tweets you can see in a day. To ward off "extreme situations of data scraping" from "several hundred associations," per proprietor and current CTO Elon Musk, Twitter on Saturday introduced "rate limits" on how numerous tweets individual druggies can see in a day—all of which, some experts hypothecate, may have touched off the effective point-wide knockout for most druggies for roughly 24 hours.

The limit does exist.

With the announcement of profit in the tank, Musk and Co have looked for new ways to make some money. With its plan to charge druggies $8 a month for a coveted blue check proving largely unprofitable, Twitter’s turned to charging third-party inventors extravagant freight—over $42,000 a month—for access to operation programming interface (API) software, aka, the tools used by third-party inventors to pierce Twitter data and make new apps that affiliate with the platform.

The preliminarily free API keys have entered the limelight lately thanks to their part in training large language models similar to ChatGPT. To combat the data scraping, Twitter assessed tweet-viewing limits of 6,000 posts per day for Blue Checked members, 600 posts for non-paying druggies, 300 posts for brand-new members, and zero access for users who don't have a Twitter account at all (although Musk claims that these limitations have since been raised). And also came what can only be described as a specialized hiatus that more or less crashed the entire site. The Brainiac's who cut the matrix that's Twitter’s back-end law have some sound propositions on what exactly happened. • "It appears that Twitter is Dosing itself," web inventor Sheldon Chang posted on over-start Twitter rival Mastodon this weekend after observing a bug in Twitter’s web app in which the point inadvertently overfilled itself with requests, much like how vicious hackers frequently designedly attack websites. • The new rate limits "likely created some hellish conditions that the masterminds never envisaged, and so we get this comedy of crimes performing in the most grand of tone-owns, the tone-DDOS," he wrote, adding, "It's an amateur hour." The bug was observed by at least one other software mastermind. 

Twitter's own former head of trust and safety, Yodel Roth, developed the proposition. "The limiter was among the internal tools with the highest level of security for a reason. Futzing around with rate limits is presumably the easiest way to break Twitter. ” I avoided writing this post because I knew the consequences. I'll presumably admit nasty commentary on the post and nasty tweets in my inbox, which is one of the reasons why I didn't name this person. But it's wrong, people. As a mortal being, it's wrong to use Twitter or any form of social media to bully or hang others. There are daises of maters.

Who is fighting online bullying? So what's this you haters are tutoring kids? You're obviously pro-cyberbullying. You're teaching that if you don't like someone, you attack them online. That will show them. You attack them so fiercely and so much that bots take their Facebook runner down. You continually shoot pitfalls so real about their family, their kids, and their loved ones that they live in fear.

 Think about it before you chitter or post the communication you're transferring—the negative air you're putting out into the world. Does it really need to be said what you believe?