5 ms·

Twitter is an excellent venue for discussion. It's one thing to complain that you don't like it, and another to pretend it's widely agreed upon as an invalid so

Twitter is an excellent venue for discussion. It's one thing to complain that you don't like it, and another to pretend it's widely agreed upon as an invalid source.

lisper 9y ago
> Twitter is an excellent venue for discussion. I didn't say it wasn't. Is said it was a bad venue for substantive debate. It's a fine venue for banal chitchat and voicing unsubstantiated opinions, which is what makes it so popular because that's a lot easier and more fun than actually diving into the depths of an issue.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  Absurd. It's a fantastic venue for substantive debate, technical political and mediatic. You're speaking confidently about something you're ignorant about.
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    Can you supply examples? Twitter, by virtue of being Twitter, is not a good medium for substantive debate. The forum is the most populated one in the entire world. It is amazing for equalizing influence and allowing democratic propagation of information (which would otherwise be under the control of media firms), but this also means the bar for voicing one's opinion is in the Mariana's Trench. Anyone can butt in an derail the debate. Twitter moderation is also very clearly biased in one direction (if you were to simply compare how often each side's individual account's are banned) and thus not an open medium where those debating can speak freely without consequence. There's also the greater scheme of digital communications which are notorious for not being in anyway productive. Debate online just simply does not work with the way human communication biologically evolved.
- notreallythough 9y ago
  I like it because it essentially forces "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" — I've read more than enough "limitless" threads of utter rubbish, longer garbage is still garbage. There are positives and negatives of every platform.

Twitter is an excellent venue for discussion. It's one thing to complain that you don't like it, and another to pretend it's widely agreed upon as an invalid source.

lisper 9y ago

> Twitter is an excellent venue for discussion. I didn't say it wasn't. Is said it was a bad venue for substantive debate. It's a fine venue for banal chitchat and voicing unsubstantiated opinions, which is what makes it so popular because that's a lot easier and more fun than actually diving into the depths of an issue.

RodericDay 9y ago
Absurd. It's a fantastic venue for substantive debate, technical political and mediatic. You're speaking confidently about something you're ignorant about.
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  Can you supply examples? Twitter, by virtue of being Twitter, is not a good medium for substantive debate. The forum is the most populated one in the entire world. It is amazing for equalizing influence and allowing democratic propagation of information (which would otherwise be under the control of media firms), but this also means the bar for voicing one's opinion is in the Mariana's Trench. Anyone can butt in an derail the debate. Twitter moderation is also very clearly biased in one direction (if you were to simply compare how often each side's individual account's are banned) and thus not an open medium where those debating can speak freely without consequence. There's also the greater scheme of digital communications which are notorious for not being in anyway productive. Debate online just simply does not work with the way human communication biologically evolved.
notreallythough 9y ago
I like it because it essentially forces "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" — I've read more than enough "limitless" threads of utter rubbish, longer garbage is still garbage. There are positives and negatives of every platform.