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

31–40 of 198 posts

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

#31

Post by metalliqaz »

435rafwweeww wrote: post #29

Dorsey (from the article) : “I also don’t feel good about how Twitter tends to incentivize outrage, fast takes, short term thinking, echo chambers, and fragmented conversation and consideration.” But what has he done to fix the problem, besides tiny UX tweaks that go nowhere, and the occasional ban of a highly visible jerk? Twitter is on fire, and he just plods along. Dorsey, in this article, is about as believable a…

He doesn't feel good about it, but he also has to watch the bottom line. The only group he really fears are those to whom he owes a profit.

It's better if we don't make CEOs responsible for fixing our social problems. We have to do that ourselves. They will follow along ("give the people what they want")

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

#32

Post by Itaxpica »

Unfortunately, I don’t think this is really an issue that can be fixed technically. People go to Twitter to yell at each other; that’s basically the point of the platform. A Twitter where people don’t yell at each other is basically Mastodon, which is a lovely network that basically nobody uses.

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

#33

Post by skymt »

> Over several days this spring, BuzzFeed News met with Twitter’s leadership and watched as twttr’s team worked on its first big push: helping people better understand what’s being said in often chaotic conversations. The team thinks that if people took more time to read entire conversations, that would help improve their comprehension of them.

I had assumed that Twitter was aware of the implications of its design for conversation and had decided that the controversy boost to engagement numbers was worth creating a toxic environment. For real, consider these two basic elements of Twitter's design. First, any given post has a low maximum length, so any time you want to say more than a sentence or two it needs to be spread over multiple posts (a "tweetstorm"). Second, Twitter has two separate features that let anyone pull any part of a series of posts out of its original context: retweeting and quote-tweeting.

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

#34

Post by bob_doggo »

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…

Yes. Or when the opinion: "group x are idiots for having opinion y." is hundreds of times more common than someone actually claiming to be an x with opinion y.

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

#35

Post by Qwertystop »

Itaxpica wrote: post #32

Unfortunately, I don’t think this is really an issue that can be fixed technically. People go to Twitter to yell at each other; that’s basically the point of the platform. A Twitter where people don’t yell at each other is basically Mastodon, which is a lovely network that basically nobody uses.

It seems to work well enough for the people who are on it -- and that's enough, really. One-place-for-everyone isn't the goal. "Basically nobody" compared to Twitter can still be pretty sizable.

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

#38

Post by beepboopbeep »

ihuman wrote: post #30
beepboopbeep wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to that logic I should follow every single person I agree with as well. Which is silly, and I should not be encouraged to block every person I disagree with. The like button exists for a reason. It's a simple interactive button to register my positive feeling towards a given statement. That exists unto it self. Why should a dislike button not exist as well? With no way of showing disagreement with a stateme…

I never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing. I suggested unfollowing/blocking someone if you dislike their tweets. Your timeline only has posts written by or endorsed by people you choose to follow. If you don't like what they are writing or endorsing, you don't have to keep them on your timeline. There's no rule that says you have to listen to "people tak[ing] to words and... yelling at each other"; you have…

Or I could just click a dislike button and move on with my life, as is happening with my own posts

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

#39

Post by CharlesColeman »

metalliqaz wrote: post #31
435rafwweeww wrote: post #29

Dorsey (from the article) : “I also don’t feel good about how Twitter tends to incentivize outrage, fast takes, short term thinking, echo chambers, and fragmented conversation and consideration.” But what has he done to fix the problem, besides tiny UX tweaks that go nowhere, and the occasional ban of a highly visible jerk? Twitter is on fire, and he just plods along. Dorsey, in this article, is about as believable a…

He doesn't feel good about it, but he also has to watch the bottom line. The only group he really fears are those to whom he owes a profit. It's better if we don't make CEOs responsible for fixing our social problems. We have to do that ourselves. They will follow along ("give the people what they want")

> It's better if we don't make CEOs responsible for fixing our social problems. We have to do that ourselves. They will follow along ("give the people what they want")

CEOs are a subset of "we," and are in positions where their decisions have impact disproportional to their numbers.

Post reply on HN