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

Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 369 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#61

Post by ordinaryperson »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #38
ordinaryperson wrote: post #8

I don't understand why Twitter hasn't implemented some kind of reputation gradient that would allow users to filter by levels. Yes, I realize they are tricky to implement and subject to abuse but imagine you got points for using your real name, real photo, demerits for insults etc, then users could filter out hordes of trolls and gutter nonsense and instead focus on the meaningful conversations that do actually occur…

> Even HN has a more sophisticated system HN has such low volume that it can be centrally curated by a few people who enforce policies like "no flame bait -- and I'll know it when I see it." Or, for example, when someone writes a quick attack on HN, they are encouraged to flesh out their point with substance which is something that Twitter fundamentally discourages. It's hard for me to see any way forward for Twitter…

Your point about Twitter's scale is fair, but I personally don't think the situation is hopeless, as you seem to suggest.

If you have troll engagers in your feed, unfollow them. But right now I have no way of filtering replies...it's frustrating. No system is perfect but let's at least TRY to improve the status quo.

If Twitter is consistently beta-testing new features to improve the quality of the UX/tweet replies, I personally am not seeing it.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#63

Post by bhargav »

jsnell wrote: post #2

> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…

During the Joe Rogan podcast, he mentioned that what they are trying to attempt to give people the "other side" of the story rather than promoting creation of echo chambers.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#64

Post by erentz »

robrtsql wrote: post #54
richmarr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who's in a position to use Tweetdeck instead of Twitter's web UI will find a free, Twitter-maintained, product with no annoying algorithms and no advertising. It's the version of Twitter targeted at newsrooms, etc. I assume a lot of people already know and have reasons why they don't... but likely not everyone here has tried it so it may be worth repeating. https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/

Wow--this exists? I had heard of Tweetdeck, but I assumed that it was a third-party client which provided a better experience and was therefore at odds with Twitter's interests. You're telling me that, not only is Twitter okay with it, but that they built it?

> but that they built it?

It was independent then Twitter bought it.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#65

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

jsnell wrote: post #2

> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…

Don't worry kid, we'll tell you what you want to see!

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#67

Post by ricefield »

gfodor wrote: post #41

Dorsey to me has it half right. Twitter should just follow with what we typically do in real life: "follow" people, but masked by interests we trust those people about. I want to read about politics from the political analysts I follow, but don't care about their cooking adventures on the weekend. I want to read about tech from the software folks I follow, but don't want to hear about their politics. I sure as heck d…

> Beyond that, I'm generally disappointed that we never hear about features that try to get users to act better, by their own volition, vs reactively shutting them down.

I think the problem with this approach is that it assumes that typical users like you and me, not bots or people with a particular agenda or goal (i.e. brigading) are the primary sources of abuse.

Unfortunately I think it's much more likely to be the latter section of highly motivated users or bots that are responsible for a disproportion volume of abuse, and there's little incentive Twitter can create to motivate them otherwise

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#68

Post by hombre_fatal »

ordinaryperson wrote: post #61
hombre_fatal wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even HN has a more sophisticated system HN has such low volume that it can be centrally curated by a few people who enforce policies like "no flame bait -- and I'll know it when I see it." Or, for example, when someone writes a quick attack on HN, they are encouraged to flesh out their point with substance which is something that Twitter fundamentally discourages. It's hard for me to see any way forward for Twitter…

Your point about Twitter's scale is fair, but I personally don't think the situation is hopeless, as you seem to suggest. If you have troll engagers in your feed, unfollow them. But right now I have no way of filtering replies...it's frustrating. No system is perfect but let's at least TRY to improve the status quo. If Twitter is consistently beta-testing new features to improve the quality of the UX/tweet replies, I…

But people like the drama even if reluctantly.

It's like how you can /ignore someone on IRC and phpbb, but nobody actually does. They only threaten it. Hell yes they want to be clued in when you open your mouth so they can bark back! Humans love it.

Look how many people waste their time responding to Donald Trump's tweets with things like "RESIGN!" They could unfollow Trump. But they choose to spend their precious time on earth bickering about Trump because it's pure entertainment.

What also happens though is that we kinda know this. The more astute/introspective people will realize Twitter isn't bringing out the best in us. Sam Harris lamented this a while back and was able to quit Twitter for a couple days before being driven back to the crack.

I find myself doing this on HN too. Ever read a headline like "Javascript sucks", know the arguments you'll find in the HN comments, and click in to respond to one? The whole reason I'm here is to socialize, so I don't think filtering can be very effective. I'm not going to filter out the very things that draw me like the opportunity to call someone out on the internet, which is the same reason why nobody uses the ignore feature on forums.

Nobody would use the block feature on Twitter if it didn't tell the other person you blocked them.

There are some bugs in basic human psychology that I'm not so sure technology is ready to solve. Maybe this is the Great Filter that no civilization can surpass in the Fermi paradox.

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#69

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

jkchu wrote: post #21
jsnell wrote: post #2

> He suggested that the service works best as an “interest-based network,” where you log in and see content relevant to your interests, no matter who posted it Yeah, no thanks. Has anybody ever been happy with Twitter's attempts to force content from non-followed users into the feed? A couple of times a year they'll opt everybody back into whatever crappy experiment they're running ("hey, we'll put some posts to your…

Honestly, if the relevant content they showed be was actually relevant and interesting, I wouldn't mind at all. That is a big "if" though.

Even IF it was relevant sometimes/mosttimes/alltimes... Why would you ever allow someone else to choose what you see?

Do you not realize the massive avenue for abuse? How about come election time and the impossible scenario where your "curators" don't agree with your opinions?

Google, Twitter, YouTube and Reddit are already creating/supporting bubbles. How would you know if you are in one?

Re: Jack Dorsey says it’s time to rethink the fundamental dynamics of Twitter

#70

Post by clusmore »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #36
baggy_trough wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algorithmic feeds are, in all cases, Satan's handiwork. What I want is to see posts from the individuals I have selected, interleaved in chronological order, with no tampering.

If that maximized user engagement, then that is the UI they would present. The fact that they don't do that should tell you that their tests have shown algorithmic feeds are more engaging for users.

If the feed shows me a pseudo-random sample of recent tweets, and each time I refresh I get a slightly different view, of course I'm going to keep refreshing to see if there's anything new or anything that I haven't been shown yet. But most of the time, I just keep seeing the same thing over and over. Imagine if your email client did this.
Post reply on HN