AT&T did it as Ma Bell, Microsoft did it, AT&T and Apple are doing it again, it seems monopolies of one form or another are all the rage today and everyone from the FCC to David Pogue wants answers. But who is crying out against the Twitter monopoly?
Twitter’s closed social network is a monopoly and this week we have two major demonstrations of why this is bad for everyone.
First, because there is no Twitter alternative, there is no recourse when Twitter is taken offline by a DDoS attack. Months ago Barrett Lyon was pointing out Twitter’s vulnerabilities and arguing that as a communication service Twitter had an obligation to provide a better network infrastructure. Obviously Twitter, as a money losing proposition, has to balance survival with investment, but in the long run competition is good for technology and business.
Second, there is no alternative to the unfiltered mess that is Twitter. As a result we are starting to see bans on Twitter. Whether it is the Marines banning social networking, the NFL banning tweets from the sidelines or your own company banning Twitter in the workplace to protect trade secrets the result is the same, all or nothing. Twitter being offered only as a monolithic service provides no opportunity for enterprise monitoring and filtering.
I have argued in the past that an appropriate business model for Twitter would be to sell their software after making it conform to open microblogging standards following in the footsteps of companies like sendmail. They could also sell Twitter as a service. A network of microblogging servers running different software would be more fault tolerant and would allow enterprise filtering of Tweets, permitting open communication while protecting everything from trade secrets to national security. It would allow consumer choice of providers and encourage innovation and reliability.
Tags: twitter