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

Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 198 posts

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#11

Post by save_ferris »

ve55 wrote: post #6
josefresco wrote: post #2

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter" or "everyone is saying" or "people are calling for" or "the Internet hates". Reference the actual person who said the comment and don't lump millions of users in with the comments of a few. Whenever I dig into an issue like this, I find maybe a handful of com…

It lets them constantly drag anything out of proportion. Very often articles are written titled "Xs are Ying", where less than 1% of Xs are even considered to begin with. This is BuzzFeed (not that they're even a worse offender than most others at this point), what does one expect?

It frustrates me how often arguments like these are made without considering the economic conditions which led to publishers adopting this clickbait behavior.

When the internet came in and destroyed print subscriptions and tech giants like FB/Google started controlling online advertising, getting clicks became the way to make money. We really only have ourselves to blame for choosing ad-driven media content at the expense of new dark patterns that help to prop the system up.

I hate clickbait headlines too, but they work. A/B testing shows publishers that they work.

What should a publisher do to create less sensational content without sacrificing revenue?

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#12

Post by [deleted] »

josefresco wrote: post #2

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter" or "everyone is saying" or "people are calling for" or "the Internet hates". Reference the actual person who said the comment and don't lump millions of users in with the comments of a few. Whenever I dig into an issue like this, I find maybe a handful of com…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#13

Post by minimaxir »

josefresco wrote: post #2

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter" or "everyone is saying" or "people are calling for" or "the Internet hates". Reference the actual person who said the comment and don't lump millions of users in with the comments of a few. Whenever I dig into an issue like this, I find maybe a handful of com…

The following sentence links to many tweets in Biz Stone's Twitter thread, which itself currently has 527 replies and 242 retweets ("ratioed").

It's a valid proxy for sentiment (in the majority of cases).

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#14

Post by tyfon »

yourduskquibble wrote: post #4
josefresco wrote: post #2

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter" or "everyone is saying" or "people are calling for" or "the Internet hates". Reference the actual person who said the comment and don't lump millions of users in with the comments of a few. Whenever I dig into an issue like this, I find maybe a handful of com…

HN'ers all agree ;) that modern day journalism is filled with hyperbole and unsubstantiated information.

This started a long time ago, I remember during the Bush/Gore election the media using "some people say" as a intro to a topic, as if those words validated the entire thing and had to be responded to. Might have started earlier as well but I didn't watch much US news before that.

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#18

Post by ihuman »

skybrian wrote: post #15

Simpler: stop showing tweets just because other people liked them. That's not a reshare, so it shouldn't be treated that way. More generally, discourage large conversations and encourage fragmentation.

> stop showing tweets just because other people liked them

There's already a way to do this: use any third-party client. You even get the added bonus of a reverse-chronological timeline!

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#19

Post by Dirlewanger »

minimaxir wrote: post #13
josefresco wrote: post #2

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter" or "everyone is saying" or "people are calling for" or "the Internet hates". Reference the actual person who said the comment and don't lump millions of users in with the comments of a few. Whenever I dig into an issue like this, I find maybe a handful of com…

The following sentence links to many tweets in Biz Stone's Twitter thread, which itself currently has 527 replies and 242 retweets ("ratioed"). It's a valid proxy for sentiment (in the majority of cases).

Except it's not. It's like every other Internet platform: it's the vocal minority, the 10% of the 10%. The average monetizeable Twitter user doesn't know/give a shit about this twttr redesign.

Re: Twitter’s Plan to Get People to Stop Yelling at Each Other

#20

Post by 52-6F-62 »

save_ferris wrote: post #11
ve55 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It lets them constantly drag anything out of proportion. Very often articles are written titled "Xs are Ying", where less than 1% of Xs are even considered to begin with. This is BuzzFeed (not that they're even a worse offender than most others at this point), what does one expect?

It frustrates me how often arguments like these are made without considering the economic conditions which led to publishers adopting this clickbait behavior. When the internet came in and destroyed print subscriptions and tech giants like FB/Google started controlling online advertising, getting clicks became the way to make money. We really only have ourselves to blame for choosing ad-driven media content at the ex…

I'm with you on this one.

Don't forget people rejecting subscriptions and demanding the journalism for free.

But it wasn't the internet and Google alone. It was greed, and the elevation of media properties as shareholder golden geese. They saw exponential returns in the late 90's. When revenue slowed, they lost favour with their new corporate owners and were alike choked that way.

Post reply on HN