Why I can’t have conversations using Twitter (2014) • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by bsenftner » Sat, Jul 15, 2017, 6:05 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #62

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. But I don't think it's Twitter's fault per se. It's just a tool. Sure it can influence, have an effect, but I'm not so sure it's powerful enough to create something from nothing. Especially given the fact it has a limit heavy user base, a fair number of casual and then a whole lotta non users. My point is, I think the tendency for sound-bite intelligence (hold the applause, you heard it here first. Lol) was…

Twitter is a more powerful a tool than most realize; twitter enables anyone with a public following to direct that public following as a shit-show army destroying any online presence of their opposition. Powerful twitter users direct their followers like an army, and quite effectively. One is POTUS now.

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

#72

Post by bsenftner » Sat, Jul 15, 2017, 6:11 PM UTC

SonOfLilit wrote: post #11

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…

Is it Twitter's choices, or society's choice to use Twitter? i.e. do you think Twitter would have reached the status of presidential communication platform had it not made this choice?

There is a fallacy that society had a choice. News organizations are struggling for any means to hold readership interest, and twitter's format forces nuanced, complex issues to be shorthanded and misunderstood to readership outrage revenue increasing levels. Just follow the money.

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

#73

Post by SonOfLilit » Sat, Jul 15, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

bsenftner wrote: post #72

SonOfLilit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it Twitter's choices, or society's choice to use Twitter? i.e. do you think Twitter would have reached the status of presidential communication platform had it not made this choice?

There is a fallacy that society had a choice. News organizations are struggling for any means to hold readership interest, and twitter's format forces nuanced, complex issues to be shorthanded and misunderstood to readership outrage revenue increasing levels. Just follow the money.

Society doesn't choose the same way one rational might choose, but it definitely chooses. It chose facebook over myspace over not having a social network, for instance.

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

#74

Post by wyclif » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 3:13 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #27

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…

You might find Elizabeth Eisenstein's work of interest: The Printing Press as an Agent of Change I think we might see "Twitter as an Agent of Change" from a future historian. If we have future historians. Oh, here it is, from 2013: https://earlyamericanists.com/2013/04/29/twitter-as-an-agent... Eisenstein: Book 1979: http://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-press-as-an-agent-of-... Preliminary article, 1968: http://www…

Eisenstein's work is getting more attention this year, because it's the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Which, of course, couldn't have happened without the printing press and mass publication. It's a great book worth reading if you're into the geekier aspects of print history.

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

#75

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 3:15 AM UTC

wyclif wrote: post #74

dredmorbius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find Elizabeth Eisenstein's work of interest: The Printing Press as an Agent of Change I think we might see "Twitter as an Agent of Change" from a future historian. If we have future historians. Oh, here it is, from 2013: https://earlyamericanists.com/2013/04/29/twitter-as-an-agent... Eisenstein: Book 1979: http://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-press-as-an-agent-of-... Preliminary article, 1968: http://www…

Eisenstein's work is getting more attention this year, because it's the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Which, of course, couldn't have happened without the printing press and mass publication. It's a great book worth reading if you're into the geekier aspects of print history.

Quite honestly, I just happened to stumble across it last November. It strikes me as highly appropriate.

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

#76

Post by tluyben2 » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 9:15 AM UTC

astrobe_ wrote: post #67

SonOfLilit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it Twitter's choices, or society's choice to use Twitter? i.e. do you think Twitter would have reached the status of presidential communication platform had it not made this choice?

It's just one popular platform at the moment. If it was IRC, Trump would have his IRC channel. Had Myspace survived long enough (in terms of popularity, that is), he would have a Myspace page. Politics and companies go where the most people are and use that platform to the best of their own interests. If they don't have the knack for long analytical articles or short witty comments, they just hire people who do.

> If it was IRC

I think that is something to doubt; IRC was made for discussion and even long winded discussion. That would not work for Trump as far as I can see. The format of Twitter makes discussion hard / impossible. To really create proper reasoning, you need to link a blogpost and most people simply will not click on it.

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

#77

Post by lyra_comms » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 10:22 AM UTC

DelightOne wrote: post #69

lyra_comms wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of research showing that the patterns and atmosphere a platform promotes can have huge effects on conversation and discourse. This is what we're doing with Lyra (www.hellolyra.com): using a respect for language and cognitive load to create an open, sensible conversation platform.

As far as I understand you can chat to exchange news or chat to learn. Twitter is to exchange news. What is yours for and is it any good at that?

Lyra isn't designed with any particular context in mind. We aim to allow the full expressive power of language, not imposing any ethos, topic or atmosphere. Lyra is a communication tool, not an opinionated social space.

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

#78

Post by lyra_comms » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 10:23 AM UTC

lyra_comms wrote: post #77

DelightOne wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand you can chat to exchange news or chat to learn. Twitter is to exchange news. What is yours for and is it any good at that?

Lyra isn't designed with any particular context in mind. We aim to allow the full expressive power of language, not imposing any ethos, topic or atmosphere. Lyra is a communication tool, not an opinionated social space.

You don't converse just to exchange news or learn. People converse to tell stories, to laugh, to discuss, to exchange points of view, to convince, to refute, to pass time, to plan, to reminisce... Lyra is like a blank sheet of paper. It doesn't tell you what to talk about. That's up to you.

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

#79

Post by epoch1970 » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:09 PM UTC

The big problem I have with having conversations on Twitter is that I wasn't even able to sign up for a Twitter account the last time I tried. It wanted me to provide a phone number. I refuse to do this, as they have no legitimate need for that information, even if it is just a lousy technique to try to avoid spammers from using their service. I think the account was automatically canceled or locked or something like that, just a few minutes after opting not to give my phone number. I don't know if this is still the case, but it turned me off of Twitter.

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

#80

Post by awkwarddaturtle » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

It's funny how similar the people on the left are to the people on the right. 9 years ago when Obama was elected with deft use of social media, the right was saying "myspace/youtube/social media" has damaged western civilization.

Now the left is blaming social media for the election of trump and damaging western civilization.

> But think about Trump. Twitter is his platform, and arguably he is the sort of President a platform like Twitter most directly enables.

Were you complaining about twitter when obama used it well to push his agenda?

> He gets direct unchallenged access to a mass medium, a mass medium which makes it particularly hard to counteract false claims or have reasoned debate.

You mean people have direct access to what the leader thinks? Is that so terrible? Do you really prefer a system when a handful of like-minded editors in media companies frame everything to their agenda?

> I don't have evidence to support my theory, all I can say is I don't think I want Twitter to succeed.

Because free speech is such a horrific thing when you don't get your way?