Well, it's role as an infrastructure provider is to not go bankrupt and shut down... in order to do this, it needs to make money somehow... they've chosen a two pronged approach to this. Someone/somewhere has to pay for it, and the end users simply won't do it...
1. Promoted tweeks - frankly, I find this kind of annoying, but I do understand.
2. Limiting high bandwidth streams to paid/commercial accounts, I'm not sure what they offer for NPOs, but I'd be surprised if they weren't lenient in their pricing structure.
Frankly, I understand it... At this point they aren't even breaking even iirc, so they need to make cuts to some deep cost centers that aren't facing end users.
TBH, I think they should also put methods in place of detecting bot networks, and freezing out those accounts.
If the value it offers to others can't be recouped then its meaningless in terms of investment.
Twitter, as it stands, is very useful to people in the media who use it as a free sentiment analysis and polling service during election cycles, and a free firehouse for unqualified reports that they can follow up on. However, Twitter doesn't receive remuneration on any of this value.
1. Promoted tweeks - frankly, I find this kind of annoying, but I do understand.
2. Limiting high bandwidth streams to paid/commercial accounts, I'm not sure what they offer for NPOs, but I'd be surprised if they weren't lenient in their pricing structure.
Frankly, I understand it... At this point they aren't even breaking even iirc, so they need to make cuts to some deep cost centers that aren't facing end users.
TBH, I think they should also put methods in place of detecting bot networks, and freezing out those accounts.