[gotocake]

Instead of attacking the person who is making a fairly lengthy and supportable argument, and basing your stance on the notion of some nebulous value “people” find, maybe you could respond in kind? I have to say that I find myself in the camp of Twitter being silly, except when it’s being destructive. Instead of being dismissed as “empty-headed” I’d prefer some value proposition justifying the previous comparison to a phone number.

Twitter seems to be a rage factory and amplifier, a shitty blogging format, and very occasionally a way to twist the arm of recalcitrant customer service.

[kingaillas]

Twitter is a Rorschach test - all those things you criticize Twitter for seeming to be (rage factory, shitty blog, etc.)? That would be entirely the fault of the users in those specific circumstances.

The value proposition for me is receiving targeted news/information disseminated in a convenient format. As a concrete example, I'm crewing/pacing at a 100 mile trail run in two weeks, and I'm subscribed to that event's twitter feed. It's the Umstead 100 in case you are curious (@Umstead100). During the event, it will tweet out news and updates of interest to participants, volunteers, and others.

Yes, they could probably text everyone, or continuously update the website, or send emails - but Twitter is perfect for this situation and others like it: content/updates produces and consumed on mobile devices, sending frequent short updates with relevant info, etc.

Twitter has its abuses, but so does everything. Next time you're ready to shit all over Twitter, just remember that what you are likely ACTUALLY raging about is their userbase, i.e. the public.

[lmm]

> The value proposition for me is receiving targeted news/information disseminated in a convenient format. As a concrete example, I'm crewing/pacing at a 100 mile trail run in two weeks, and I'm subscribed to that event's twitter feed. It's the Umstead 100 in case you are curious (@Umstead100). During the event, it will tweet out news and updates of interest to participants, volunteers, and others.

> Yes, they could probably text everyone, or continuously update the website, or send emails - but Twitter is perfect for this situation and others like it: content/updates produces and consumed on mobile devices, sending frequent short updates with relevant info, etc.

Twitter is a poor choice for cases where you want to specifically subscribe to something, because it's deliberately designed as a global popularity contest/rage generator. A Facebook group, Discord, heck even Tumblr or Medium would be a better choice for that kind of use than Twitter.

> Twitter has its abuses, but so does everything. Next time you're ready to shit all over Twitter, just remember that what you are likely ACTUALLY raging about is their userbase, i.e. the public.

No, Twitter has a series of deliberate design decisions that result in worse interactions than any other platform. The limited message size strips away nuance and reasoned discussion, in favour of zingers and outrage. Their algorithmic feed shows the most "engaging" tweets while suppressing the follow-up discussion, so you'll see a controversial tweet without seeing the existing replies or subsequent retraction. The rage storms aren't just people being people, they're people being nudged into behaving a particular way by Twitter's optimized-for-engagement UI. There's a reason other platforms don't have these problems.

[identity-haver]

I've heard that even if you flip the "algorithmic timeline" switch off, you still don't see a linear feed of everyone you're following. It's still filtered and manipulated, just closer to linear.

Speaking of design decisions, here's a bit [1] about how the "quote tweet" encourages the behavior of "dunking", a usage I have only ever heard in regards to Twitter. Basically, if anyone with a Twitter account says something you think is stupid, you quote tweet them and "dunk" on them about how stupid it is and they are. Then everybody piles in and retweets the "dunk", perhaps adding their own riposte. And the original poster is only a click away in the quote, so you can then go to their profile and find other things to dunk on, send mean DMs, etc.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2017/12/dunking-is-delicious-an...

[anigbrowl]

the "quote tweet" encourages the behavior of "dunking"

Quoting people to negate or mock their argument has been around since Usenet - well, much longer in literary terms but I'm citing Usenet as an example of a system that's almost real-time and where it can be a spontaneous emotionally driven decision. It may not be called 'dunking' on every platform but the phenomenon is universal.

[lmm]

> Quoting people to negate or mock their argument has been around since Usenet - well, much longer in literary terms but I'm citing Usenet as an example of a system that's almost real-time and where it can be a spontaneous emotionally driven decision. It may not be called 'dunking' on every platform but the phenomenon is universal.

It may have occurred occasionally on other platforms, but the difference in degree is enormous enough that it's a de facto difference in kind.

[beaconstudios]

at the same time, the medium is the message. Twitter encourages this bad behaviour, not because of intent but because it's highly geared towards hot takes and doesn't provide the character space for the level of nuance required to take a serious look at real life. So people condense what could be a complex question into a strong statement, even better if it's provocative because as provocation draws eyeballs.