I don't understand the question. IRC is a real-time chat protocol and twitter is a proprietary micro-blogging website. I don't see how the two are related, other than they are both something to do with the Internet.
The above commenter is correct, the original question is silly, however much flak they may get as people here love IRC.
Do you genuinely believe (1) IRC is anywhere near as usable as Twitter for the general population, or that (2) a real-time chat is an equivalent offering to Twitter?
I'll add (3) the only reason IRC isn't equally abused is because it's so bad that it can't attract enough people to justify any kind of ad-based (or otherwise) monetization model. IRC is the opposite of being a victim of one's own success.
EDIT: I should note that beyond being more usable than IRC, I have precious little good to say about Twitter.
I'm beginning to seriously believe the general population doesn't deserve services like Twitter and giving it to them was a mistake. When something can be had so easily there is no respect for it. A lack of respect for the technology and a lack of thoughtfulness into its implications have caused a lot of harm. The hope of the internet was that it would increase communication and understanding. But nobody is communicating. They are talking at each other. They should be listening but have just become more self absorbed.
So in a way IRC is better. If for no other reason because it required some personal discipline and will to learn to use and it segmented the internet to prevent these monstrous echo chambers. Humans aren't ready for a global forum. We are still only good at small communities.
My point isn't that meaningful conversation is impossible on twitter. Its that the majority isn't and most abuse the gift of an instant global platform. Its tragedy of the commons on an unprecedented scale.
Of course there are worthwhile interactions to be made. But the people making them would have been doing so on the less accessible older internet anyways.
These things existed, but you usually had to go seek them out specifically. You weren't reading a friend's, say, blog, when suddenly a link to some exciting online argument about some nonsense appeared. That does happen on ~all social media. Unfortunately, many news(paper) websites are baiting with "hot" controversial topics now as well.
No, it would be one channel per person. Only you would be able to talk (post) in your channel. People who want to read your posts would join your channel.
Private DMs easily map to one-on-one privmsgs. Public replies and threads won't have an equivalent unless there was some meta-protocol to temporarily allow another person to talk in your channel + duplicate your posts in your channel to theirs + expire that access eventually.
Also subscribing to tags won't work without a similar "copy all messages from one channel to another" relay.
Channels are basically tags, without history for those who join. Anyone can PRIVMSG a channel by default, it is prevented by setting the common +n mode.
It's not a silly response. The thing about IRC is that there's channels, and you chat with people in those channels. The deal with Twitter is you both publish and subscribe to short messages, but there's no enforcement of reciprocity -- I don't have to follow someone just because they follow me. There are replies, but that's not the same thing, and Twitter is starting to give people more tools to restrict replies to their Tweets, making the platform even less reciprocal. Everyone in an IRC channel gets the same experience, everyone on Twitter gets a unique experience.
If my only current understanding of a question is "that's a silly question," then I'm also going to assume first that it's my failure to understand rather than assuming something worse about someone else.
People say they want the old early-90s internet, but that internet only worked that way because almost nobody outside of universities was on it and nothing on it actually mattered to anybody.
It took me way too long to find the usage numbers (which ironically were within an arm's reach on my bookshelf most of the time), but ~1988 Usenet was under 1 million potential users, and fewer than 150,000 active readers. Even by the mid-1990s, it was under 1 million active participants.
Google+ was considered a failed social network with at least 10--100 million active users (by my own conservative estimates based on sampled profile data, independently verified by a much larger analysis). Facebook has 3 billion MAUs (monthly active users).
Until ~1992 (the Eternal September), Usenet users were largely represented as cohorts of a few hundred to low thousands, each subject to the disciplinary authority of university network administrators. Privileges could be and were revoked. Netadmins had a hardcopy directory in which everyone's number was listed twice (forward and reverse search). They talked to each other.
I'm active on Diaspora (for over a decade) and Mastodon (for about five years now). Both are far smaller than their comparable commercial equivalents (FB and Twitter, respectively). Each already strains under abuse, spam, and propaganda efforts, though Mastodon seems to have a more robust containment toolkit. Much resembles the old Usenet model: individual instance administrators can determine what users (locally or remotely) or instances (remote federation) can interact, and to what extent. It's high-touch, and has issues, but at present scale it mostly works. (Not perfectly, but it's not completely blown up yet either.)
Diaspora ... seems on far shakier grounds. User controls, admin engagement, reporting tools, and the culture of active management are all far weaker. The saving grace is the lack of algorithmic amplification, but bad actors are a distinct presence, if largely walled off into their own small, sad world.
On the google+ 99.99% if offered would gladly take google+ for free. It was a huge success.
Google closed it down because they realize they never needed it. You were rarely providing new information to google because you already had an account and they already were tracking you everywhere. Your posts on other social networking sites google knows about and uses. What sites you visit google knows about.
The only thing google+ gives google is your social graph. But not your friends/family social graph more of your professional social graph. I don't think there was a way to target that info through ads into more profit. They probably leveraged access to facebook's data for ads in exchange for shutting it down.
And again, you're talking to the guy who ran that experiment.
Eric Enge of (then) Stone Temple Consulting independently replicated my analysis using a much larger sample of 500,000 profiles, confirming the results I'd found and providing additional details:
I had absolutely no idea Enge was doing this until he published his results. They're a completely independent validation. Which is how science is supposed to work.
Your other comments about G+ are at best speculation, and largely fail to match my knowledge and understanding of the site and service.
> Someone should come up with a pub-sub distribute micro blogging service like how emails work.
As well as NNTP (mentioned in a sibling comment), listserves work for that (and don't just work like email, they use email.) And both have been around longer than the web.
The only way to do this is with blogrolls/linkrolls and other decentralized mechanisms. Making a centralized repo of links like a Yahoo! style web directory is only going to lead to that directory monetizing its gatekeeper status.
You don't have to be on twitter. If we can get more people off that platform, then the world has become a better place. I deleted mine years ago. Never felt better.
It is immune, precisely because it's a protocol. Freenode is dead but switching to another network is literally as simple as pointing the client to a different domain name.
It's not apples to oranges, it's directly analogous: both represent federated networks on the internet where users have the freedom to decide which client they want to use and which servers they want to connect to.
They are not analogous. IRC is a chat protocol with semantics suitable for a chat protocol. HTTP is at this point just a transport level thing for whatever you want to send. It doesn't have any significant semantic implications for sites like Twitter.
Because IRC hasn't meaningfully improved in about 30 years. There have been attempts to make it friendlier with things like IRCCloud, but then the beards just scoff at the idea of a $5/month bouncer-as-a-service and go right back to wondering why the protocol is dying.
Can't tell if you're being ageist on purpose but "the beards" don't _have_ to use IRCCloud and can just keep using their TUI clients and bouncer daemons if they want instead of having their UX change weekly at the whim of some resume-driven front-end team.
Well, here's one issue: I can tell you what a reply and hashtag is but I'm going to fail the quiz that asks me to define a TUI client. (And don't get the Chrsmistian Fundamentalists hellbent on taking downn Tumblr et al. starter anything involving a "daemon".)
The point was that the stereotypical "beards" in question can continue using their TUI clients, not that someone who doesn't know what a TUI client is should be forced to use one.
I think my point was that the insistence on interface purity is part of what (or emblematic of the ethos that) killed the chance of the protocol reaching mainstream adoption. But I take your point.
Me being far too confident in Samsung's spellcheck, is what. It's too late to edit but you get the gist: nerd stuff must don user-friendly garb for to not scare the customers. UX.
I think the lack of channel history is a big showstopper for many people but personally I think that's a feature. The idea that I should have to dig through slack history and its rambling conversation format to find information pertinent to my work is downright dumb.
I often hear people suggest that the internet couldn't exist without corporate interests and surveillance capitalism.
usually along the lines of "If there were no ads, we wouldn't have any internet at all!"
That's an example of what corporate interests have brainwashed people into thinking. They didn't have to turn us against IRC. Most internet users don't even know it exists.
So, in this fictitious world where IRC is a stable protocol and easy enough for the average layperson to use, who pays for the IRC server bills and how?
At one point it was easy enough for the average person to use, because the average person had to deal with a command-line. But tech, in its infinite quest to Make More Money, keeps chasing the dumbest of the dumb so that it can expand its market into an imagined infinity. It kinds of reminds me of the windshield repair shop that takes a baseball bat to nearby windshields at night to drive business
How about we work towards unwinding this whole mess and meet users in the middle??
FOSS and open protocols are criminally undervalued because of greed, and all the fake newbie empathy it generates
Really? We almost saw a resurgence with the chatbot craze that recently passed. And frankly command-line is something that GUIs do easily, or have we as a field forgotten that too?
People have such a gap-filled view of the past. I barely had to learn any IRC command-line stuff because of mIRC
IRC is an instant-messaging platform, while Twitter is a microblogging platform that was available to anyone in the pre-smartphone era as it was initially tailored for SMS message length.
IRC requires a client (okay, you could use a web gateway), and you somewhat need to know what you're doing (not saying it's hard, but the average user might not even care about accessing IRC if it requires a minimum of effort), while Twitter could be used through a flip-phone or accessed simply through a web browser, which you can assume everyone have.
plenty of people never left IRC, but Twitter right now is probably a thousand times larger than IRC was at its peak. IRC is a niche community for nerds, not a platform with mainstream appeal. The same is even true for more user friendly, modern services like Mastodon.
99% of users just don't value the things you value in these services.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/how-saud...