Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Only follow accounts with small numbers of followers, and you'll find the discussion is a lot more worthwhile
Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
11–20 of 21 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#12Twitter is the outrage mob distilled in 140 characters. (now 280 but it didn't change anything)
There is very little of value on twitter and if it disappeared tomorrow I don't think most people would notice or care. It's the niche communities that provide value, like the AnandTech forum members cataloging m.2 usb enclosures.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#13I wanted to use Twitter to follow researchers in my area (machine learning), but despite heavy moderating from my side, I was never able to make it work. Non-relevant posts (this is a movie/game I like! this is happening in my personal life!), political stuff, random thoughts. On the other hand, when something interesting is written, it is retweetted by 20 people and Twitter can not bundle these together. But what's even more depressing, there is no other way of keeping up with some top-notch institutions and individuals. It's actually kinda crazy that this is what we got after 20 years of Web, completely useless tool.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#14Twitters sweet spot is for keeping up and reacting to live events.
It’s probably a must for journalists and activists. And the “reacting to live events” ramps up the anxiety, and necessarily dials back thoughtful, reflective conversation.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#15[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#16I wanted to use Twitter to follow researchers in my area (machine learning), but despite heavy moderating from my side, I was never able to make it work. Non-relevant posts (this is a movie/game I like! this is happening in my personal life!), political stuff, random thoughts. On the other hand, when something interesting is written, it is retweetted by 20 people and Twitter can not bundle these together. But what's…
It's very much as if people are slowly being introduced to the idea of a .plan file (though with more centralization).
They don't have decades of experience getting bored with poorly-organized thoughts, it's all new. And the algorithm and interface hide the simplicity of their communications, making it into a product they have to take or leave, rather than a process we can tweak to our desires.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#17My twitter is about 90% writers, mostly fiction. I find it pleasant and informative. I did alot of cleanup to get there. I do sometimes run into Awful Twitter clicking through from news stories and blogs, so I can see that not everyone's experience is the same.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#18Drives me crazy reading discussions or long "posts" on Twitter - who in their right mind uses such a platform for such things? We have links. Post a link to a proper web page.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#19I use twitter via RSS feed in inoreader only. Looking at it naked is too confusing but consuming it via twitter is manageable as it allows you to see the whole tweet on a single line.
Re: Ask HN: Is Twitter Dead for Interesting Discussion?
#20Inverting the question might be more useful:
- What are the characteristics of interesting discussion?
- What are the requirements necessary to meet those characteristics?
The DL;DR: is that conversation is hard, and it scales poorly. Twitter meets the fundamental requirements poorly. As to most technological platforms.
The underlying question and problem is the one that philosophers have tried to address for millennia, in particular the distinction between the philosophers and the sophists (dialectics and rhetoric). Twitter is principally a rhetorical channel.
I think it's Juergen Habermas who has done some work on participative democracy / group truth-seeking, though I've been at a loss for the specific reference or terminology, or even if he's the key figure in the movement. That said, there are domains, particularly truth-and-reconciliation movements, which also apply similar principles.
If you're looking for informed expertise, some level of reputation, garbage collection, and gatekeeping is required. Soft methods work better than hard ones (see HN's own moderation policies and practices for an excellent example). Ungated forums tend toward noise.
The flipside is that gated forums tend toward groupthink and self-selection mechnisms, typically favouring conformity over correctness or truth value.
And there are other goals of various communities. There's story-telling, community-building, support and encouragement, entertainment, teaching, demonstrating capabilities (and its flipside: "virtue signalling" or "alliegience signalling").
My best results have been with smaller groups of reasonably-well selected people. Anything much over 50 people seems to fall apart fairly quickly. HN itself isn't perfect, but among larger forums is among the best I'm aware of, and has been for over a decade, whcih is a remarkable record.
Communications turns out to be complicated. Especially between people.