481–490 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And reversely, it's incredibly creative for Trump to attempt to fit the entire USA diplomacy in 140 characters.
That's just a side effect of him trying to fit the entire USA diplomacy into his head, which has approximately the same capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't understand the criticism. If the world goes to nuclear war, it won't be because of a Tweet, it'll be because of a conflict going back to the 1950s, a lunatic dictator, and an elected maybe unstable authoritarian. You don't think those guys have lots of other ways of talking trash? Is the suggestion that banning Trump from Twitter will prevent nuclear war? That sounds like armchair virtue signaling of the highes…
Twitter enables the toddler in the White House.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shows that it can be successful if you use it like it's used in Japan . It does not show that it can be successful when it is used like English speakers use it. Twitter is unusual in that it is a pretty spare tool. They've added a number of small features in support of how people were seen to be using it. But what mainly defines it is the ways people use it, not the tool itself.
Meanwhile Facebook has added tons of features that no one wanted based on pure speculation and they've done much better. People will change how they use Twitter as Twitter changes. If that weren't true, no one would care about this.
I agree this will change how people use Twitter, so I'm not sure why you're saying that in a way that seems contradictory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile Facebook has added tons of features that no one wanted based on pure speculation and they've done much better. People will change how they use Twitter as Twitter changes. If that weren't true, no one would care about this.
They have introduced and removed many things because they have a culture of continuous experimentation, most of it very small. Twitter is much less good at that, and this is definitely not the sort of small, quiet experiment that has done so much good for Facebook. So instead of this being a step toward Facebook-style experimentation, I'd say it's a step away. I agree this will change how people use Twitter, so I'm n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have introduced and removed many things because they have a culture of continuous experimentation, most of it very small. Twitter is much less good at that, and this is definitely not the sort of small, quiet experiment that has done so much good for Facebook. So instead of this being a step toward Facebook-style experimentation, I'd say it's a step away. I agree this will change how people use Twitter, so I'm n…
Many of your comments have been about how 280 characters won't work well with the way English speakers currently use Twitter. As this won't be the way English speakers use Twitter going forward, none of those comments matter.
However, what you started out saying was that Twitter was even more popular in Japan, a place where the word count is higher. Given the context, it seemed like you were implying that this could or should make Twitter even more popular.
I'm saying that's poor reasoning, because Twitter's use in Japan is distinct not for reasons of word count, but because the culture of use is deeply different. There are deep sociological differences, likely driven by the substantially different Japanese culture, plus a different early history of use than in the Anglophone Twitter sphere.
280 may be better for English-speaking Twitter and it may be worse. But Japan proves nothing about English-speaking Twitter because actual use is too distinct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Took a look at your post history. It's rather negative and angry and projecting. This kind of anti-social speech is detrimental to a healty community and if you represent the average person on Mastodon then I will stay far away.
I have no idea what was written here before it was flag-killed, but "negative and angry and projecting" doesn't describe my experience with people on Mastodon. Very much the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with such "free speech" instances not being the norm is that the instances which do allow "hate speech" are going to be clustered with unsavory individuals. If toleration is not encouraged at the core, it is a useless service because I don't want to spend my time in a safe-zone where I have to preface anything I say with "I don't mean to offend, but I think..." any more than I want to hang out with a group…
> The issue with such "free speech" instances not being the norm is that the instances which do allow "hate speech" are going to be clustered with unsavory individuals. Hang on, I don't follow. Are you saying that free speech = hate speech = things from unsavory individuals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with such "free speech" instances not being the norm is that the instances which do allow "hate speech" are going to be clustered with unsavory individuals. If toleration is not encouraged at the core, it is a useless service because I don't want to spend my time in a safe-zone where I have to preface anything I say with "I don't mean to offend, but I think..." any more than I want to hang out with a group…
I totally agree with you that such instances may (and probably will) be "split" from the bigger federation, but that's the whole point of distribution. At that point we'll see multiple networks, each with their own rules and tolerance, and that is how federation thrives.