6 ms·

People have a rose-tinted view of Twitter. And yet it is Twitter that has reaffirmed itself as the most powerful antidote to Facebook’s algorithm: misinformati

People have a rose-tinted view of Twitter. And yet it is Twitter that has reaffirmed itself as the most powerful antidote to Facebook’s algorithm: misinformation certainly spreads via a tweet, but truth follows unusually quickly; thanks to the power of retweets and quoted tweets, both are far more inescapable than they are on Facebook. What is the evidence of this? Even if "truth" follows misinformation on Twitter, there's so much noise, how do you find it? that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, Twitter isn't public discussion, unless you consider the following examples of discussion: Every time I speak of the haters and losers I do so with great love and affection. They cannot help the fact that they were born fucked up! - Trump Delete your account. - Clinton Riveting. Don't tell me that Twitter is a vital part of discussion when public discussion has gotten worse over the past 9 years. This is a long blog post and only the last few paragraphs even begin to touch on "why Twitter must be saved", but there's not arguments beyond the sentimental. Twitter has existed for less than a decade and society got along just fine without it. It's not as important as people think it is. The author is also absolutely wrong if they believe that Twitter isn't censored similarly to FB.

vvanders 10y ago
It's not just wide public discussion, when there's some large local event(weather, tornado, etc) I usually find the most up to date and accurate information on twitter 2-3 hours before any news site. It's the CB radio of social media and I find huge value in that.
- komali2 10y ago
  Does it function better for you than a google search or a news.google.com search?
  - vvanders 10y ago
    Yes, much better. All it takes is someone and their phone. Take for instance the recent tornado we had off the Oregon coast. I had video/pictures/reports showing up even ahead of the local NOAA site or google news.
    - athenot 10y ago
      Severe weather (tornadoes) is also the most important benefit I get from Twitter. Generally speaking, it's great for aggregating witness accounts of a real-time event that's going on.
    - wingerlang 10y ago
      Similar, there was a fire around my office a week ago and within minutes there were an image on twitter. Within 30 minutes multiple ones from various angles. Granted, it was the first time I ever went to Twitter for something like this, but I knew that it was /the/ place for the most up to date information. And I try to avoid Twitter as much as possible, too annoying to read in there.
  - snewk 10y ago
    how is news.google "social media" in any way?
    - criddell 10y ago
      It isn't. The person you replied to was responding to the idea that Twitter is a good source of news.
- niftich 10y ago
  > It's the CB radio of social media Amazing analogy, far better than any other metaphor I've previously heard applied to Twitter
- gaius 10y ago
  It's the CB radio of social media and I find huge value in that. We had that. It's called Usenet and IRC.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    If be "we" you mean a few highly invested tech people.
    - mrweasel 10y ago
      I don't know anyone besides "highly invested tech (and media) people" that uses Twitter, so... Usenet, IRC, Twitter, neither is really important for anyone besides are rather limited subsection of the general population.
      - zimpenfish 10y ago
        Most of the people I follow aren't "highly invested tech (and media) people", just normal people who happen to use Twitter to connect with others.
      - rahoulb 10y ago
        For some meaning of "limited subsection of the general population". I had 12000 followers for a twitter account about a specific football club - a specific subsection but not a technical or media one. I used to randomly look at my followers and while many were "highly invested tech and media people" - the majority were just people who wanted to stay up to date (in particular I used to live-tweet during games which lots of people really enjoyed). That was a few years ago though - personally I rarely use Twitter any more.
      - criddell 10y ago
        When CNN puts up a lower third scroll of Twitter commentary, do you think all those people are tech enthusiasts and media wonks? You might not know people personally, but certainly you're aware of Twitter's role in the Arab Spring. And you've heard of Black Twitter, right?
    - 10y ago
- hockeybias 10y ago
  Exactly.
- Senji 10y ago
  4chan/8chan. If there's a "HAPPENING", it will be posted there faster than the news stations can keep up.
guelo 10y ago
Twitter is absolutely essential if you prefer to get your information unfiltered from the source. Yes, that means that there's much more noise and you have to work hard to keep your stream info-dense and free from your own biases. But any other source will have someone else's biases and spin, an extra layer of fog that you have to work through.
- drdrey 10y ago
  By definition, isn't it impossible to be free from your own biases?
  - snewk 10y ago
    i always imagine'd you could get infinitely close to being free from your own biases, but never fully get there. of course, thats my biased opinion.
  - tpeo 10y ago
    By the definition of what? "Bias", "own bias", or "human"? I don't know about "human", but being "biased" is something like "consistently straying from the truth in spite of available information", but there's nothing right there that says that everyone must be biased. In so far as someone is biased, they cannot be free from their "own biases" only in the same sense that I cannot think anyone's thoughts but my own. Still, nothing stops them from trying to improve. Now, if you mean that we cannot avoid living in some particular information bubble, that's not a bias (at least in the psychological sense). That's an issue of incomplete information.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  If you prefer information from the source, wouldn't you prefer to actually get it direct from the source and not via twitter?
  - hk__2 10y ago
    > wouldn't you prefer to actually get it direct from the source and not via twitter? Unless you can meet the source in person every time you need a medium to get information, and Twitter serves that purpose.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
perseusprime11 10y ago
Good argument. A counter example is wikileaks this election cycle. They would not have had a platform if it were not for Twitter. Lots of great discussion was enabled because of the Twitter platform. I don't think people would have organically gone to their website.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Some of the wikileaks stuff was dynamite. E.g., the DNC deliberately undermined Bernie Sanders' campaign! Lots of different media outlets covered it and would have done so if they had to get that content via fax and carrier pigeon. Most people consumed that second-hand, so there was no need to drive traffic to wikileaks itself.
  - perseusprime11 10y ago
    I thought CNN & Donna Brazile's cheating scandal of leaking questions to Clinton Campaign was the biggest dynamite as the other corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation was more or less taken for granted.
- mrweasel 10y ago
  I think this is one of those examples where the platforms people use colour their opinion. From where I'm sitting Twitter and WikiLeaks aren't in anyway related. The Wikileaks stuff was all over the tech news sites, and more than anything: Reddit. That's not to say that Twitter was useful for wikileaks, but I don't believe that it was instrumental.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> Twitter isn't censored similarly to FB. All you have to do to confirm this is to visit their homepage and see all the left wing political ideology on it day in and day out. I haven't seen anything on the Clinton email saga that has dragged on for months now and not a peep on the home page about the rising costs of the ACA premiums. Nope, just love and happiness about having the first female president. Besides that, it was a constant stream of Trump hit pieces from traditional Liberal newspapers and media outlets. It's like they didn't even try to be objective. If you want to make your platform about public discussion, then maybe you aught to give a slightly more balanced view then the completely slanted, partisan garbage you post on your homepage. It might just give the appearance that you see things in a slightly more objective light.
- bennesvig 10y ago
  The author must not be familiar with shadowbanning: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151981022076/is-twitter-shadowbanning-me http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151981022076/is-twitter-shadowb...
Roarosaur 10y ago
The way you framed those two quotations is misleading to say the least. Clinton did not make that Tweet as a reply to Trump's tweet, his was from 2014, and hers was from 2016. So, your statement, "Twitter isn't public discussion, unless you consider the following examples of discussion:", does not follow. You also say that "unless you consider" the aforementioned quotations to be public discussion, you therefore can not possibly view Twitter as a tool for public discussion, which is a false dilemma. I agree with your last line though about Twitter being censored in a similar fashion to Facebook.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

vvanders 10y ago

It's not just wide public discussion, when there's some large local event(weather, tornado, etc) I usually find the most up to date and accurate information on twitter 2-3 hours before any news site. It's the CB radio of social media and I find huge value in that.

komali2 10y ago
Does it function better for you than a google search or a news.google.com search?
- vvanders 10y ago
  Yes, much better. All it takes is someone and their phone. Take for instance the recent tornado we had off the Oregon coast. I had video/pictures/reports showing up even ahead of the local NOAA site or google news.
  - athenot 10y ago
    Severe weather (tornadoes) is also the most important benefit I get from Twitter. Generally speaking, it's great for aggregating witness accounts of a real-time event that's going on.
  - wingerlang 10y ago
    Similar, there was a fire around my office a week ago and within minutes there were an image on twitter. Within 30 minutes multiple ones from various angles. Granted, it was the first time I ever went to Twitter for something like this, but I knew that it was /the/ place for the most up to date information. And I try to avoid Twitter as much as possible, too annoying to read in there.
- snewk 10y ago
  how is news.google "social media" in any way?
  - criddell 10y ago
    It isn't. The person you replied to was responding to the idea that Twitter is a good source of news.
niftich 10y ago
> It's the CB radio of social media Amazing analogy, far better than any other metaphor I've previously heard applied to Twitter
gaius 10y ago
It's the CB radio of social media and I find huge value in that. We had that. It's called Usenet and IRC.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  If be "we" you mean a few highly invested tech people.
  - mrweasel 10y ago
    I don't know anyone besides "highly invested tech (and media) people" that uses Twitter, so... Usenet, IRC, Twitter, neither is really important for anyone besides are rather limited subsection of the general population.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      Most of the people I follow aren't "highly invested tech (and media) people", just normal people who happen to use Twitter to connect with others.
    - rahoulb 10y ago
      For some meaning of "limited subsection of the general population". I had 12000 followers for a twitter account about a specific football club - a specific subsection but not a technical or media one. I used to randomly look at my followers and while many were "highly invested tech and media people" - the majority were just people who wanted to stay up to date (in particular I used to live-tweet during games which lots of people really enjoyed). That was a few years ago though - personally I rarely use Twitter any more.
    - criddell 10y ago
      When CNN puts up a lower third scroll of Twitter commentary, do you think all those people are tech enthusiasts and media wonks? You might not know people personally, but certainly you're aware of Twitter's role in the Arab Spring. And you've heard of Black Twitter, right?
  - 10y ago
hockeybias 10y ago
Exactly.
Senji 10y ago
4chan/8chan. If there's a "HAPPENING", it will be posted there faster than the news stations can keep up.

guelo 10y ago

Twitter is absolutely essential if you prefer to get your information unfiltered from the source. Yes, that means that there's much more noise and you have to work hard to keep your stream info-dense and free from your own biases. But any other source will have someone else's biases and spin, an extra layer of fog that you have to work through.

drdrey 10y ago
By definition, isn't it impossible to be free from your own biases?
- snewk 10y ago
  i always imagine'd you could get infinitely close to being free from your own biases, but never fully get there. of course, thats my biased opinion.
- tpeo 10y ago
  By the definition of what? "Bias", "own bias", or "human"? I don't know about "human", but being "biased" is something like "consistently straying from the truth in spite of available information", but there's nothing right there that says that everyone must be biased. In so far as someone is biased, they cannot be free from their "own biases" only in the same sense that I cannot think anyone's thoughts but my own. Still, nothing stops them from trying to improve. Now, if you mean that we cannot avoid living in some particular information bubble, that's not a bias (at least in the psychological sense). That's an issue of incomplete information.
tedunangst 10y ago
If you prefer information from the source, wouldn't you prefer to actually get it direct from the source and not via twitter?
- hk__2 10y ago
  > wouldn't you prefer to actually get it direct from the source and not via twitter? Unless you can meet the source in person every time you need a medium to get information, and Twitter serves that purpose.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

perseusprime11 10y ago

Good argument. A counter example is wikileaks this election cycle. They would not have had a platform if it were not for Twitter. Lots of great discussion was enabled because of the Twitter platform. I don't think people would have organically gone to their website.

jessaustin 10y ago
Some of the wikileaks stuff was dynamite. E.g., the DNC deliberately undermined Bernie Sanders' campaign! Lots of different media outlets covered it and would have done so if they had to get that content via fax and carrier pigeon. Most people consumed that second-hand, so there was no need to drive traffic to wikileaks itself.
- perseusprime11 10y ago
  I thought CNN & Donna Brazile's cheating scandal of leaking questions to Clinton Campaign was the biggest dynamite as the other corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation was more or less taken for granted.
mrweasel 10y ago
I think this is one of those examples where the platforms people use colour their opinion. From where I'm sitting Twitter and WikiLeaks aren't in anyway related. The Wikileaks stuff was all over the tech news sites, and more than anything: Reddit. That's not to say that Twitter was useful for wikileaks, but I don't believe that it was instrumental.

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> Twitter isn't censored similarly to FB. All you have to do to confirm this is to visit their homepage and see all the left wing political ideology on it day in and day out. I haven't seen anything on the Clinton email saga that has dragged on for months now and not a peep on the home page about the rising costs of the ACA premiums. Nope, just love and happiness about having the first female president. Besides that, it was a constant stream of Trump hit pieces from traditional Liberal newspapers and media outlets. It's like they didn't even try to be objective. If you want to make your platform about public discussion, then maybe you aught to give a slightly more balanced view then the completely slanted, partisan garbage you post on your homepage. It might just give the appearance that you see things in a slightly more objective light.

bennesvig 10y ago
The author must not be familiar with shadowbanning: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151981022076/is-twitter-shadowbanning-me http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151981022076/is-twitter-shadowb...

Roarosaur 10y ago

The way you framed those two quotations is misleading to say the least. Clinton did not make that Tweet as a reply to Trump's tweet, his was from 2014, and hers was from 2016. So, your statement, "Twitter isn't public discussion, unless you consider the following examples of discussion:", does not follow. You also say that "unless you consider" the aforementioned quotations to be public discussion, you therefore can not possibly view Twitter as a tool for public discussion, which is a false dilemma. I agree with your last line though about Twitter being censored in a similar fashion to Facebook.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]