a bit of a strange argument. Twitter's salty environment is the nature of the beast in many ways. He seems to have some idealized nature of "how it should be" vs "how it is". Also, make clear distinctions about where you feel Twitter went wrong as a business and where you just don't like it ( <- this is by far my biggest pet peeve of engineers talking about other products). Pretty pointless article.
Twitter's Fucked
151–160 of 398 posts
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#152> There are four types of content that can earn you retweets: > > 1. Indignant > 2. Insulting / Harassing > 3. Cute / Funny > 4. Insightful / Intelligent ... > Of these four kinds of content, two are inherently violent, > and the other two have the potential for violence (mean jokes, condescension). Today I learned that sharing an intelligent/insightful comment is potentially violent enough to be worth commenting on.…
This continued attempt to redefine violence to include words disturbs me in a very fundamental way. It's a legitimate attempt to make thoughtcrime viable by people who firmly believe all human ills can be solved if you just wag enough fingers in faces.
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#153Does Twitter have to be Facebook to not be "fucked"? I don't understand these statements that "Twitter is fucked". Twitter could improve filtering and safety but if it never changed I'd probably still get my news from it for the rest of my life. I just can't think of a better app for my use cases. I often like Twitter Moments, like something funny or some pop culture stuff I wouldn't have picked up on. Every time the…
The tension is that Twitter wants to be both a place for both news in the moment and for actual conversations. It's fine for the former but terrible at the latter. That itself isn't terrible -- they could just drop or de-emphasize conversation functions and call it a day. But Twitter is a public company that, rightly or wrongly, feels the need to boost engagement and you don't get great numbers if your users only log in when something big and important is happening.
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#154Every platform that is public and anonmyous runs afoul of this, this isn't just twitter. You can look at Youtube comments, reddit, pretty much any forum. What's missing is that other platforms, like Facebook, took a very hard stance on this and forced people to signup as their real identities. Twitter, can easily follow suit. That won't fix all of the problems, but it will go towards improving things and it won't req…
> Every platform that is public and anonmyous runs afoul of this, this isn't just twitter. You can look at Youtube comments, reddit, pretty much any forum.
We had ways of dealing with this on Usenet back in the day. 1) Thick skin, and 2) killfiles. Generally, killfiles weren't for people with whom you disagreed (though they could be, if you wanted), they were for people who were assholes.
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#155Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically." That gives said harassers surprisingly legitimate reasons to claim censorship by Twitter as a company, despite the fact that they were in clear violation of Twitter's ToS and deserved to be banned. I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation (edit:…
>The man deserved what he got
No. Twitter incorrectly used him as some kind of example. They had also did temp bans on him in the past and also the immature move of removing his check mark.
The harassment was happening WELL before Milo was tweeting the ghostbuster. Milo wrote the article. Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. And as many have already shown the ghostbuster herself was just as guilty in the past of attempts at brigading.
There's even some communication from her where she was actually thrilled the incident would give exposure to her and the movie. Whatever people think of this, Milo didn't cause her any suffering or feeling of being 'unsafe' Other harassers were deplorable. Milo was not in that category.
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, in both cases it's using violence as a rhetorical trick. Verbal and emotional abuse of children are serious issues, but they do NOT have to be violent for them to be horrible. The conflation of the two muddies the language that we have to describe the events that happen to us. If someone says, my parents were very violent to me, what would you assume happened? Doesn't knowing that there was physical abuse help…
Did you even read the links? 'Violent speech' and 'violent communication' are a form of violence. They have a nuanced definition. They can be used in multiple ways. Language is not strict. It is fluid, it changes over time, and in this case, totally applies to the subject. You are arguing for an unrealistic, unenforceable, overly-literal use of language.
Rhetorical nuances in the service of emotional manipulation are not yet considered definitional. You and others are free to misuse words, and I and others are free to point out it is rhetorical bullshit.
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#157My rule is that if nobody would pay for your service, you probably don't have a worthwhile business. If Google instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use Google search, people would line up to pay it. They don't have to, because their business model works differently, but they could do that, and it would work. I'd probably pay for an account. If Facebook instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use that, a lot of people would do…
"The idea these days is, get a bunch of users and introduce ads."
That's exactly what Google and Facebook did.
All I can take from your comment is "if hypothetical scenario then my opinion is true"
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#158My rule is that if nobody would pay for your service, you probably don't have a worthwhile business. If Google instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use Google search, people would line up to pay it. They don't have to, because their business model works differently, but they could do that, and it would work. I'd probably pay for an account. If Facebook instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use that, a lot of people would do…
[deleted]
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#159>This means if you follow someone for what they have to say about professional improv comedy, you also get to hear them trash your religion, berate the intelligence of people who vote the way you do, and otherwise rant about and retweet topics you don’t want to hear about.
Wow, this is a really impressive observation that I think I, and maybe others, have sensed but couldn't quite express. This is super relevant to me in the music sphere, as I enjoy the art form but find numerous "Twitter Winners" like Father John Misty toxic in the long term. Disclosure: I needled FJM on Twitter following his immature diatribe that dropped 7 F-bombs on an un-expecting family-oriented afternoon because its hurtful to fans and other artists.
Re: Twitter's Fucked
#160> (edit: I said the article didn't mention. I missed the mention.) Amazing your comment is top—given you didn't read the article. > The man deserved what he got From what I've seen (I'm no expert on the subject), that's debatable.
Wait, missing one mention equates to not reading the entire article? Amazing indeed.