51–60 of 369 posts
On Twitter, I follow people who post good stuff sometimes, but they also post other stuff that's irrelevant. Worse, I see stuff they "like" which is often inflamatory.
> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it — rather than a network where everyone feels like they need to follow a bunch of other accounts This is probably true for the majority of Twitter's users, but this is completely the opposite of what I want. Even with aggressively pruning the list of people I f…
Networks are trying to move away from long tail content since it is so expensive to moderate. I think in next 10 years expect social networks and video playing websites to become much like network television. Ie there will be a vetted list of large creators, and everyone else will be a consumer. To do that you need to take away peoples ability to control exactly whom they follow / subscribe to.
This concisely expresses many of my misgivings with the Internet today. Things have been dumbed down and often cater to the lowest common denominator that people share. Evolutionarily speaking, it's chasing after low-hanging fruit (cheap and easy) and then hyper-optimizing for it to the point that it's all that remains. The problem is that it's sterile and dumbed down.
I don't like that we can't customize things or get out of the sandbox anymore now that everything has been siloed. With email and RSS we could construct filters and programmatically access our data. We could change the interface, query, backup, share.
The platform powers that be are dictating how today's internet works. They're taking away our browser tech (Chrome everywhere, increasingly without add-ons). We can't export our data in meaningful formats.
This is the hell future 1990's Microsoft could only dream of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Networks are trying to move away from long tail content since it is so expensive to moderate. I think in next 10 years expect social networks and video playing websites to become much like network television. Ie there will be a vetted list of large creators, and everyone else will be a consumer. To do that you need to take away peoples ability to control exactly whom they follow / subscribe to.
Why can’t a network have self moderation at a global and local level? Reddit does this to an extent, with each community having its own separate moderation and culture, and the front page which is curated from a list of communities. The trick is have a moderation bottleneck, the curation, between the local and global stages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter how many times I click "Show less of this" it keeps coming back.
Anyone who's in a position to use Tweetdeck instead of Twitter's web UI will find a free, Twitter-maintained, product with no annoying algorithms and no advertising. It's the version of Twitter targeted at newsrooms, etc. I assume a lot of people already know and have reasons why they don't... but likely not everyone here has tried it so it may be worth repeating. https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/
I had heard of Tweetdeck, but I assumed that it was a third-party client which provided a better experience and was therefore at odds with Twitter's interests. You're telling me that, not only is Twitter okay with it, but that they built it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like that as well. Make the process so anybody can be verified then let me configure my client to only show stuff from verified users. I'd like to see them try other things too. One of the nice features in G+ was that the owner of a thread (the originator) could delete replies. I think that could work nicely in Twitter too.
> One of the nice features in G+ was that the owner of a thread (the originator) could delete replies. I think that could work nicely in Twitter too. Interesting; I think adding this feature without changing anything else would severely exacerbate the already intolerable echo-chamber effect. Sure, trolling and abuse would lose visibility, but so would even slightly contrary opinions. Thought bubbles would shrink even…
Take Maggie Haberman, NYT reporter. Her Twitter replies are always a cesspool...what if she could lock down her tweets so only a whitelisted group of users (say people she follows) could comment? You'd still (hopefully) get contrary opinions but none of the dreck that dominates her feed now.
I don't know if that's the answer. But I don't see Twitter even trying, just Dorsey waxing philosophical about it.
Translation: he doesn't think allowing you to decide who you follow will make Twitter as much money as he wants.
> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…
> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…
What I really dislike is the spam in the notifications section. If someone likes my tweet, replies to it or retweets it, that's relevant. I don't however want to see a notification for something Tweeter deems interesting under other people you follow liked/retweed this as a notification.
That notification was actually what slowly made me an active Twitter user, because they kept surfacing me interesting content and giving me a reason to come back and it became a gateway for me to discover other great content on Twitter
> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…
Algorithmic feeds are, in all cases, Satan's handiwork. What I want is to see posts from the individuals I have selected, interleaved in chronological order, with no tampering.
You can change it if you don't like it, click the sparkle button to do so, but don't think nobody likes it.