4 ms·
The tone of the article seems also rather biased against Twitter. For example, it mentions; > “Today, we announce a change in collections practice for Twitter.
by aylmao 9y ago
The tone of the article seems also rather biased against Twitter. For example, it mentions;
> “Today, we announce a change in collections practice for Twitter. Effective Jan. 1, 2018, the Library will acquire tweets on a selective basis—similar to our collections of web sites.” The phrasing was elegant, but the sentiment was nonetheless familiar: “Quitting this shit!!!!”
No. That's not at all the sentiment I get from that. The volume has probably grown too big and it makes little sense to archive spend money archiving all of it.
- teh_klev 9y agoYep, the New Yorker article seems to be trying to make a fuss out of something that isn't there.
- forgottenpass 9y agoThese days I find the relationship between writers and twitter more interesting than twitter itself. It's like they still haven't internalized the properties of the medium that were well-understood back in 2010. Maybe they're just the voice of perspectives that are more widespread, but every news or pop culture take I see about twitter seems to be born from the unexpectedly-complicated relationship they seem to have with becoming yet another head in an unimaginably large crowd of people. Where everyone can talk to everyone, anyone, or nobody in particular.