> 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.
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.