Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#51

Post by jcbrand »

SwellJoe wrote: post #32
kelukelugames wrote: post #29

My biggest regret is arguing with people on Twitter. It is not productive. Even less so than arguing on any other forum.

My biggest twitter-related regret is that my most liked tweet (by thousands) is a terrible joke about Trump. The reason I regret it so much is that within an hour or two, I realized that people weren't liking it because it was funny in an absurd "nothing matters" sort of way...they were liking it because they thought it was funny in a "yeah, that'd show'em" sort of way. I realized that people who took it as an opport…

> There should be a German word for that feeling.

Best I can think of right now is "fremdschämen", which literally translates into "foreign shame".

It means to be ashamed or embarrassed for other people's behaviour (as opposed to your own).

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#52

Post by austenallred »

I like how Benedict Evans describes the 140 char limit: lossy compression.

It's hilarious to me that a rule enforced by external technical reasons (length of SMS) has become so important to the product that it's non negotiable.

Why can't I even, for example, add a text "attachment" the same way I attach photo, video, links, etc.? There's something hilarious about the CEO of Twitter screenshotting the "notes" app on his iPhone in order to send a message.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#53

Post by Certhas »

supremesaboteur wrote: post #24
feral wrote: post #7

Tech design choices can have profound social impact. This is just a personal theory, but I suspect Twitter's choices have done huge damage to Western Civilization, by forcing, as a medium, a very short 'soundbite' structure onto debate. (Even more so than the media which gave us the term 'soundbite' ever did!) So that sounds like a very overblown assertion, right? But think about Trump. Twitter is his platform, and a…

> But think about Trump. Twitter is his platform, and arguably he is the sort of President a platform like Twitter most directly enables. He gets direct unchallenged access to a mass medium This is actually not true. Many of Trump's claims are challenged on Twitter and outside of Twitter. Maybe you don't like that he can directly talk to the people rather than twist his words to suit your narrative before heading it…

Sounds a bit like: "Just give me the facts and let me make up my own mind."

This is a stupid attitude. This should not even need elaborating. There are always more facts pertinent to the situation than any one of us can process. We will almost never have the correct background to correctly understand and interpret the facts.

Some people voted for Trump because he "tell's it as it is" when he has been lying demonstrably over and over.

I would rather have a journalist (or five) report to me what Trump said, together with context that makes it meaningful, and pointing out when he is lying. For the same time invested that will give me a vastly superior understanding of the situation than reading him directly.

I'm sure we'll figure out how to have a meaningful public discourse within the context of the Internet eventually, but as it was when other technologies came about, those who are fundamentally interested in _not_ having a reasonable discourse that is listened too, but want to get their superficially plausible demagoguery heard are having their field day right now.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#54

Post by jpalomaki »

From the comments in the article: " It certainly works much better as a broadcast medium and for giving occasional shout-outs, high fives, and anything you know isn't going to go beyond a short, positive interaction "

Looking at the Twitter design, this seems to be the intended use. At least in my stream almost all tweets are accompanied by a large picture. Quite often something that is not even very relevant, since they are auto picking the pictures for linked web sites. This makes very poor use of screen real estate. If conversations were a thing for them, I would expect a different design.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#55

Post by mst »

The newer tendency to mark threads with numbers so that people at least know there is context to a particular mid-thread tweet seems to help somewhat, but the general problem remains.

It also fascinates me how badly editors' choice of headlines to make people more likely to click can screw up the debate because many people respond to the clickbait headline without clicking, and end up drawing conclusions that aren't at all supported by the article. Presumably this is also a problem on facebook, but I deleted my account there some time ago.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#56

Post by eknight15 »

austenallred wrote: post #52

I like how Benedict Evans describes the 140 char limit: lossy compression. It's hilarious to me that a rule enforced by external technical reasons (length of SMS) has become so important to the product that it's non negotiable. Why can't I even, for example, add a text "attachment" the same way I attach photo, video, links, etc.? There's something hilarious about the CEO of Twitter screenshotting the "notes" app on h…

I like the idea of a text "attachment" but I could also see it being used negatively.

e.g. I tweet something positive in the 140 characters, and in the attachment I have something offensive. It's similar to the editing tweet problem.

There was some press about expanding the limit https://www.recode.net/2016/1/5/11588480/twitter-considering...

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#57

Post by jasonthevillain »

feral wrote: post #7

Tech design choices can have profound social impact. This is just a personal theory, but I suspect Twitter's choices have done huge damage to Western Civilization, by forcing, as a medium, a very short 'soundbite' structure onto debate. (Even more so than the media which gave us the term 'soundbite' ever did!) So that sounds like a very overblown assertion, right? But think about Trump. Twitter is his platform, and a…

I agree.

Other people are pointing out that soundbites existed before Twitter, but it opened up the ranks of the public babblerati to everyone, and promoted it as a platform for public discussion.

I dropped Twitter years ago, subscribed to a collection of newsletters to fill the gap in technical discussion, and honestly, I think I'm actually more informed for it.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#58

Post by the_af »

sitkack wrote: post #42

What Antirez describes is magnified on Twitter but no means isolated to it. Cherry-picking and un-charitably attacking someones statements is a human flaw that everyone should seek to suppress. And it happens for a couple reasons * Weak egos on part of the listener. They want to _take down_ or show their superiority by besting a famous or popular person. * Over Criticality. Instead of waiting for the entire argument…

> Cherry-picking and un-charitably attacking someones statements is a human flaw

I don't think that's exactly the situation Antirez describes. The way I see it, he's saying that Twitter makes it too easy for people to inadvertently pick isolated tweets out of context, mistakenly thinking they are seeing the whole context (because tracking down the full discussion on Twitter is very cumbersome and time-consuming), and then reply to something different than what was actually argued in the broader context.

That's different than cherry-picking on purpose in order to "win" an argument, which is indeed a human flaw and not a technological one.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#59

Post by lj3 »

the_af wrote: post #58
sitkack wrote: post #42

What Antirez describes is magnified on Twitter but no means isolated to it. Cherry-picking and un-charitably attacking someones statements is a human flaw that everyone should seek to suppress. And it happens for a couple reasons * Weak egos on part of the listener. They want to _take down_ or show their superiority by besting a famous or popular person. * Over Criticality. Instead of waiting for the entire argument…

> Cherry-picking and un-charitably attacking someones statements is a human flaw I don't think that's exactly the situation Antirez describes. The way I see it, he's saying that Twitter makes it too easy for people to inadvertently pick isolated tweets out of context, mistakenly thinking they are seeing the whole context (because tracking down the full discussion on Twitter is very cumbersome and time-consuming), and…

> That's different than cherry-picking on purpose in order to "win" an argument, which is indeed a human flaw and not a technological one.

As much as I want to believe that, it has not been my experience. I've found that if there's a possible way to misinterpret a statement, somebody on the internet will misinterpret it. They don't do it on purpose to win an argument most of the time, either. It happens everywhere on the internet (HN, Reddit, twitter, even blog comment sections) because communication is difficult and internet increases the exposed surface area of a statement. The more people to read a thing, the more likely it is somebody will interpret something that wasn't intended.

Re: Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014)

#60

Post by lyra_comms »

Twitter wasn't designed to enable good conversations - it was designed for rapid, viral growth thanks to a gimmick which limits message length and sensible, nuanced interaction.

Have a look at Lyra - it's a nonprofit conversation service designed with respect for language and attention.

www.hellolyra.com

Post reply on HN