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

We Don’t Need a New Twitter

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#51

Post by Exuma »

dsr_ wrote: post #40
Exuma wrote: post #32

Headlines like this make me not read the article, because anyone who actually writes this headline seems to lack the unawareness that his opinion is literally 1 insignificant stupid opinion floating in a sea of 10 billion shitty opinions. Headlines like this are an immediate benefit to me because it allows authors to filter themselves out. There are so many better ways to offer takes on things that don't depend on th…

"An Essay In Which I Present Points About The Social Media Service Formerly Known As Twitter, Arguing That Newer Systems Should Not Attempt To Duplicate It Because That Would Reduce Their Value To Society." or "We Don't Need A New Twitter" and trust that people will supply context.

So ... someone or some entity should not attempt to start a new Twitter-style because Cal Newport says it will emphasize negativity?

Surely the vast amount of brainpower could go into perhaps modifying the style or the algorithm, or tweet length, or some variable to help? Surely there is an embedded solution, somewhere in there.

That's why I'm saying headlines like this are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes. This opinion as a statement of "what is best" is literally useless, like what true value does it offer? Do you think companies read Cal Newports blog and are like "gee I guess building a new twitter clone exactly like it is could lead to increased world negativity... better not do it"

I would read this article if it were like "Ways to Reduce Negativity in Twitter-Like Algorithms." Now THAT would be useful, and interesting.

Or even, if he doesn't want to think about solving it, then "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity". Now it's a statement of fact and its up to the reader to use the information usefully, ("Hmm.. maybe I shouldnt build this new platform, or I should change how I look at it") rather than treating the user like a bumbling child.

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#52

Post by brandonagr2 »

bowsamic wrote: post #35
Exuma wrote: post #32

Headlines like this make me not read the article, because anyone who actually writes this headline seems to lack the unawareness that his opinion is literally 1 insignificant stupid opinion floating in a sea of 10 billion shitty opinions. Headlines like this are an immediate benefit to me because it allows authors to filter themselves out. There are so many better ways to offer takes on things that don't depend on th…

It's physically painful to you when people have opinions about what is not useful for other people? If that is so, you really need to see a doctor

It is painful when the link is a clickbait blog intro linking to actual article that is paywalled

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#53

Post by macintux »

rvz wrote: post #46
losteric wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post basically says "it's bizarre you're expressing your opinion, don't do that" - that is not healthy for productive conversation (ironically op's point about those products) It's ok to express negative opinions about why one doesn't use something. Other people benefit from learning from a valid dissenting view

> Your post basically says "it's bizarre you're expressing your opinion, don't do that" - that is not healthy for productive conversation (ironically op's point about those products) No it doesn't. They're just saying, millions are still using and enjoying Twitter / X and that is fine. If you don't like it, that is also fine and you can still be happy anyway. I don't see a problem with that. There is no need to misin…

The fact that Twitter and Facebook are driving divisiveness and misinformation definitely impacts my life, regardless of my lack of engagement with the platforms.

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#54

Post by randomdata »

dragontamer wrote: post #33
randomdata wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What says that Wikipedia is successful and not just existing like Twitter and Reddit are likely to continue to?

For better or for worse, Wikipedia is devoid of advertising revenue, and therefore seemingly immune to these ups and downs to the ad-tech market like Twitter/Reddit have been this past year.

Meaning that the marker of success is stable revenue? In other words, someone who keeps a minimum wage job their entire life could be the most successful person around?

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#55

Post by jabroni_salad »

bowsamic wrote: post #34

Twitter went downhill as soon as it became socially acceptable to have conversations on it. When it was pure status updates and quick information bursts, it was fine. Basically, bring back the 140 character limit. EDIT: got a bad source on the old character limit which claimed it was 120

It was 140! and the interface used to be SMS. It basically was for multicast text messaging and I really liked that.

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#56

Post by Clubber »

losteric wrote: post #18
leetharris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find comments like that your last sentence so bizarre. Just don't use them and you can still be happy? Millions of people use and enjoy X, it's ok if you don't.

Your post basically says "it's bizarre you're expressing your opinion, don't do that" - that is not healthy for productive conversation (ironically op's point about those products) It's ok to express negative opinions about why one doesn't use something. Other people benefit from learning from a valid dissenting view

>Your post basically says "it's bizarre you're expressing your opinion, don't do that" - that is not healthy for productive conversation (ironically op's point about those products)

Ironically, you just did the same thing to his post.

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#57

Post by brandonagr2 »

7e wrote: post #3

Twitter need distributed editorship. If a tweet is inflammatory, viral, or incorrect, a group of respected users can suppress it or edit them to remove bait headlines. This would be similar to the Wikipedia editor model. Editors can be elected and their actions would be a matter of public record. This would give us a democratic republic of tweets. Eventually users would learn to tweet quality items.

Have you not heard of Community Notes? https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/about/introducti...

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#58

Post by gochi »

sbszllr wrote: post #20

Twitter’s real value was its “global RSS” nature. You could get short, quick updates about local news, published papers, sports events, political happenings, and more. It made it easy to source info from your followers (or their followers) quickly. Think Ask HN but broader. Activity on Twitter is down now, mastodon and threads aren’t cutting it. There’s more activity on LinkedIn but it’s quite phoney. I genuinely fee…

Why aren't mastodon and threads cutting it? They provide exactly what you claim you want.

Leads me to believe for a lot of people, the allure of Twitter isn't actually anything intentional, but just the combination of being at the right place at the right time - that feeling you got, the relationships you fostered. Just like if you were on Tumblr during its independent peak.

Re: We Don’t Need a New Twitter

#59

Post by pavlov »

waihtis wrote: post #41
waihtis wrote: post #39

The people demanding a "new twitter" are those who set up weird hierarchies and benefitted from the obscure, hidden "blue checkmark" game - more often than not, their only tweets were lukewarm pro-current thing babble. I don't miss old twitter a bit.

.. and of course, the "rocket man bad" crowd are very anti X for obvious reasons.

> "the "rocket man bad" crowd are very anti X for obvious reasons"

Who's "rocket man"? Isn't that what Trump called Kim Jong-un?

I guess you're right and there's probably a substantial overlap between those who don't like North Korea and those who don't like Musk's Twitter.

Post reply on HN