Making selling funding talking
June 7, 2008
Using Twitter as a command line (Tw00ts) is something that I’m keen on exploring- there’s a bunch of ideas in notebooks just waiting to be pulled into prototypes – but in the meanwhile here’s an example that I just threw together a couple of weeks ago.
Now, as a command line it’s syntax is pretty complex.
Let’s break it down.
First, it’s a mix of English, with bad grammar, mixed in with machine code, and using a currency which is timestamped.
Second, no license used. Attribution in username
Third, the arguments and methods:-
1. ‘Why’
Initiating the command by invoking a question. This pulls in the attention of the user base, acting as a single central processor funnel, thus maximizing on chances of a responding message.
2. Dont
Spelling mistake, but dropping the unnecessary characters acts as data compression.
start argument with a negative, to a tune to early adopters curiosity
3. we all
Maximise audience
4. just
this is not going to steal loads of time
5. Twitter
no need for www or .com
6. $2
respect to the location of the company
small amount, minor tip, about £1
major currency, easy to convert with twitter timestamp
7. to just
any improvement would be good
8. stable
Stabilizing is the preferred task, we would all guess
URI, data compressed
Now, using twitter as a command line with such soft parameters, the service would have to be a complex system, superior AI, and capable of setting off a bunch of processes.
Fortunately, Chris Reed picked up the message and processed the command line, in a way pretty much as expected from the syntax. Though in hindsight, I should have appended the command with some extra parameters. More on that in a mo, for now, have a look at the response message.
It’s pretty clear to read, so I can judge that something is about to happen.
And the solution looks simple.
Twitterfund, the actualization of the command line I sent into Twitter, is in itself a curious project. I think it raises so interesting questions.
1. what happens when the community raises money, with or witout strings attached, to better a service and become more attractive then Venture Capitalist’s funds?
2. when running a campaign like this, who should be it’s Guardian’s, or do we really need them if we are all visible on teh interwebs.
3. What if Twitter doesn’t take the money: what do we do with the shared fund? Is it worth using it elsewhere?
4. Will people use the fund?
Chris and I had a couple of emails back and forth before all this was set up. I was keen on TweetCharity as a domain name so that we could use this piece of media.
But using the word Charity opens a another bag of worms.
So TwitterFund was selected.
Next, who owns the paypal account. You know, it’s like who has the ‘God like’ system admin password. I was keen on the hunt of for the most trusted twitter user, suppose it would have ended up with someone like Scobe. But at present Chris is holding the fort on this.
The additional parameters I need to think about compressing into Tw00ts are about tone. What happens when a project using a suite of online tools come together? Chris has Twitter, a blog, a domain name, a paypal account all sync’d. Sweet. Making the components come together, making them sing is another thing. This is now about art direction in 140 characters.
Anyway, let’s see what happens with the fund.
Follow the project’s Twitter feed and send what you think of the project to @fund.
Posted in Authentic Media, Language, Marketing, Media Commerce, Networks, social networks, Software | 14 Comments »




















![[Page 227] Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online [Page 227] Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3642/3507361849_5caa3d8dae_t.jpg)



June 8, 2008 at 2:34 am
[...] Zero influence — Making selling funding talking “… command line… syntax… Let’s break it down. #First, it’s a mix of English… mixed in with machine code, and using a currency which is timestamped. #Second, no license used. Attribution in username. #Third, the arguments and methods: …” literaryculturevsoralculture commandline crowdsourcing funding TwitterFund twitter [...]
June 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Why not use http://microPledge.com ?
June 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm
spilling mistake as data compression… like it
June 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Scripted.
wallet -= $bailout;
$twitterfund += $bailout;
}
?>
June 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Woah, your blog killed my script.
June 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm
@andrew My blog haz strong kung foo
June 8, 2008 at 10:54 pm
@crosbie Good point, no idea. Badger Chris with the solution.
June 9, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I have brought this opportunity to microPledge’s attention. I daresay they’d be happy to hear from any would be champions who’d front a project and would consider microPledge as the funding mechanism. Chris Reed perhaps?
June 10, 2008 at 12:01 am
@Crosbie.
You’re spot on again.
Would you say we’ll need press packs?
I’ll ask Chris.
June 10, 2008 at 12:05 am
I’ve asked Chris.
http://twitter.com/zeroinfluencer/statuses/830922004
June 10, 2008 at 8:03 am
Potential allies or contenders:
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/06/06/planB.html
http://blog.labnotes.org/2008/05/05/distributed-twitter-client-in-20-lines-of-code/
http://peeps.3greeneggs.com/joecblog/2008/05/06/distributed-twitter-the-hard-bits/
‘Press pack’? Do such things still exist?
June 10, 2008 at 9:12 am
Hi all
Just checked out micropledge – looks very good. Much better than PayPal for this sort of thing. will try and shift things across, probably tonight.
Might also be worth mentioning that in between our original tweets and me putting the site up, Twitter announced $15M in VC funding – which is, as you’d expect, deterring a few potential donors to the fund…
But micropledge opens another door I think. I’m increasingly interested in whether Twitter could run an ad-free, subscription-free business model just by accepting donations… Will explore that later on too. ZF – I’ll email you later.
June 10, 2008 at 10:08 am
$15m should thus demonstrate the public value of an open/public version of Twitter.
I am skeptical that the VCs will spend that sort of money on a p2p/distributed version of Twitter given the difficulties of retaining control over such a thing.
I guess they have the domain name, and like Wikipedia, that may be all that’s needed – despite both the content and technology being public. It’s eyeballs all the way down.
Anyway, this doesn’t prevent competition. :-\
August 23, 2011 at 1:05 am
The core of your writing while appearing agreeable at first, did not sit well with me after some time. Someplace within the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer unfortunately just for a short while. I still have got a problem with your leaps in logic and one might do nicely to fill in all those breaks. If you actually can accomplish that, I will undoubtedly end up being impressed.