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

Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#21

Post by staz »

I don't think this is due to the limit of 140 characters (even if it doesn't help) but much more due to the audience of fanboys and crow cheered during a fight.

There is the same problem on Google+ where there is not 140 characters limit. Any discussions with Linus or any other "celebrity" in it and the comments thread will be full of : "+1", "M. Linus you are so smart, you are my hero", "Well said, ripe him a new one" etc... Which drown any constructed argument and render any constructed debate impossible.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#22

Post by ColinWright »

phaer wrote: post #19
hpaavola wrote: post #13

TWTR is no good for conversations because there is no way to explain something new or controversial in 140 chars. Yes, this fits in a tweet

I am quite skeptical about twitter myself but I never understood this argument: What stops you from explaining your new or controversial argument in (n * 140) chars, or multiple tweets?

The fact that people won't take time to piece together the separate parts, and will take each out of context. This is the whole point of the original submission.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#23

Post by _yosefk »

The average thing I publish on the Internet is thousands of words long. There was never a shortage of people taking some of those words out of their context, and arguing against what those words supposedly say. And I'm likely to have done it myself to someone else's writing. Certainly I pay attention to some things more than others when I read, especially if I come with some prior knowledge and opinions. I can easily fail to notice important things when scanning something quickly.

And the longer it is, the more likely I am to be scanning quickly, actually. On the other hand, shorter messages and less context result in things simply being omitted, even if you do read carefully.

Maybe Twitter is worse than average, but it's pretty bad with any medium.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#24

Post by phaer »

qznc wrote: post #20
phaer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's Twitters advantage over good ol' RSS or ATOM for this use case?

Non-techies understand it.

There were plenty of "non-techies" who used Google Reader before it shut down. And at least in my circles there are plenty of non-techies who say that they don't get the concept of twitter.

EDIT: Both, Twitter and RSS, have their own terms and concepts which need some kind of introduction for most, especially non-tech people. For Twitter its hashtag, TL, DM, etc for RSS its stuff like Feed, Reader, etc

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#25

Post by raverbashing »

What is it with Postgres fans that "have to" prove they're better?

I don't want to use Postgres. I want to use Redis. Postgres IS NOT the solution for a lot of things. Yeah, feel free to call me stupid for not knowing every nook and cranny of PGSQL. I don't care

"I love to argue, but this is just a futile exercise."

Very wise words

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#26

Post by davidw »

raverbashing wrote: post #25

What is it with Postgres fans that "have to" prove they're better? I don't want to use Postgres. I want to use Redis. Postgres IS NOT the solution for a lot of things. Yeah, feel free to call me stupid for not knowing every nook and cranny of PGSQL. I don't care "I love to argue, but this is just a futile exercise." Very wise words

I can't speak to Redis, because I don't use it, and mostly see it as being fairly distinct from Postgres, but with Mysql it's always frustrating to know that you could be using a tool that's generally better, but can't, because initially someone chose Mysql because they "heard it was fast" or "that's what the hosting company provided", and now they're stuck with it.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#27

Post by lotsofmangos »

golemotron wrote: post #15
lotsofmangos wrote: post #14

I think part of the problem is that Twitter is optimised for machine processing, more than it is for human conversation.

I think it was a beautiful "what if." What happens when we limit a message to 140 chars? The character of conversation changes - so do people's use patterns. The most wonderful thing about twitter is that you can't get lost down the rabbit hole of a three paragraph email. And there's pressure to reply quickly to stay part of the conversation. It's a genius example of design thinking.

What happens when you set a message limit of 140 characters is you end up with a database that is perfect for training computers about semantics.

It is a genius example of design thinking, I'll grant you, but twitter's priority as a business was to build a database for analysis and that was the design constraint which resulted in a 140 character limit to messages.

It is a communication platform, but only in as much as it fulfills its main purpose of generating datasets.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#28

Post by raverbashing »

davidw wrote: post #26
raverbashing wrote: post #25

What is it with Postgres fans that "have to" prove they're better? I don't want to use Postgres. I want to use Redis. Postgres IS NOT the solution for a lot of things. Yeah, feel free to call me stupid for not knowing every nook and cranny of PGSQL. I don't care "I love to argue, but this is just a futile exercise." Very wise words

I can't speak to Redis, because I don't use it, and mostly see it as being fairly distinct from Postgres, but with Mysql it's always frustrating to know that you could be using a tool that's generally better, but can't, because initially someone chose Mysql because they "heard it was fast" or "that's what the hosting company provided", and now they're stuck with it.

Yes, I agree with you, but comparing Redis to PGSQL is an Apples to Oranges comparison.

Too bad 99% of Redis users use it as a glorified cache, because it's more than that.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#29

Post by bhaak »

staz wrote: post #21

I don't think this is due to the limit of 140 characters (even if it doesn't help) but much more due to the audience of fanboys and crow cheered during a fight. There is the same problem on Google+ where there is not 140 characters limit. Any discussions with Linus or any other "celebrity" in it and the comments thread will be full of : "+1", "M. Linus you are so smart, you are my hero", "Well said, ripe him a new on…

I agree that this is not a problem that only affects Twitter.

Most of the current discussion platforms are way behind what was standard in Usenet or in your average Usenet client.

No threaded discussions, no filtering (not for the one who comments and doesn't want to read those +1 post and most often also not for the OP), not even blocking of people you don't want to read.

Re: Why I can't have conversations using Twitter

#30

Post by davidw »

raverbashing wrote: post #28
davidw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to Redis, because I don't use it, and mostly see it as being fairly distinct from Postgres, but with Mysql it's always frustrating to know that you could be using a tool that's generally better, but can't, because initially someone chose Mysql because they "heard it was fast" or "that's what the hosting company provided", and now they're stuck with it.

Yes, I agree with you, but comparing Redis to PGSQL is an Apples to Oranges comparison. Too bad 99% of Redis users use it as a glorified cache, because it's more than that.

I've been friends with antirez a lot longer than Redis has been around, and have a lot of faith in his abilities as a programmer. It irritates me to see the snark directed at him on Twitter.

But for most of what I do - smallish bootstrapped things - I want to build on Postgres, because I know I can take it a lot of different directions, as needs be. Unless I'm 100% sure that it's a bad fit for SQL and a great fit for Redis or something else, I'm going to consider Redis as a later optimization, not something to build on from the start.

Like you write though, I mostly view Postgres and Redis as Apples and Oranges that could probably work together quite well in the right circumstances. Most of my ire is directed towards Mysql :-)

Post reply on HN