View counts only reliably work when everything’s in a centralized database.

i agree, and I also see view counts as another impermanent tactic in Elon’s battle to tear down Twitter in order to rebuild it. 

like people, companies often need a near-death experience before they can really change. perhaps he’s laying bare all of its weaknesses (like 1% engagement levels) to accelerate the proc

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

co-founder stelo.com. theoretical cs phd dropout. into math, music, ml, macro, markets, surfing, writing amandhesi.net

not literally, but figuratively. look at the the outrage about it already from individuals.

on the flip side, views (and conversions) are most important for advertisers — which Twitter needs if it’s going to become a cash flow positive business. advertisers don’t care about likes unless more likes leads to more 

Building /bright-moments - minting onchain art IRL | /purple #15 | FID 129 #magikarp

wow, lots of fun data behind what you read on the internet.

I noticed most of that was about content creation (who is writing) vs. engagement, kind of like original tweets / replies vs. likes.

This graph shows Twitter has the worst engagement stats across platforms 🙈 thoughts? https://i.imgur.com/2x9ULYt.jpg

1% engagement is pretty standard across the internet. Services that exceed this at scale are the exception, not the rule. 

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written/

onchain money clubs @madfiprotocol // $bonsai summoner 🌳