10 ms·

Twitter loves Trump. It's not just twitter... the whole profit center around online communities is based on active communities. Most topics are cyclical - on

Twitter loves Trump. It's not just twitter... the whole profit center around online communities is based on active communities. Most topics are cyclical - once the Superbowl is over, it's hard to keep a football community active. Only so many people are interested in the draft, in coaching changes, etc. But throw in some controversy and all of a sudden everything lights up again. The problem, or _a_ problem, is that people can only handle so much controversy. They have lives to lead. They _need_ to be happy. But as more and more profit centers are tied to active online communities, and as people who run those communities strive to keep people active, and since controversy is as easy a tool to use as there is in the toolbox... Well the end result is that online interaction shifts from being something that brings people together into something unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, Twitter is a great tool for getting up to the moment information out there and for consuming it. I just wonder what there bottom line would look like if Trumps Tweets weren't making headlines 3 times a week. The social health issue is one for all companies that compete in the social media space to figure out.

trs80 9y ago
>Twitter loves Trump. Hidden camera investigations[1] into Twitter employees suggest otherwise. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ
- Bulk70 9y ago
  Twitter staff != Twitter Inc
- orf 9y ago
  Seems like a lot of out of context clips to push a narrative, standard project veritas stuff. Like the clip about banning certain groups of people: the engineer says "it's going to ban a certain way of talking". You might take from this based on the video that he's talking about inadvertently banning right-leaning users. Well, what if he's talking about banning racism or messages that use ((subtle dog-whistles)) instead of overt racism? Also, not many people like Trump, especially not in left-leaning areas (like where Twitter is based). Are employees not allowed to voice their dislike of a very dislikable man, while drinking at a social event?
  - trs80 9y ago
    If you watched the whole thing you'd see the context of each interview.
    - orf 9y ago
      I did, and it's just longer out of context videos that cut off at convenient points: > Journalist: "Would you say the algorithms block liberal or conservative users?" > Engineer: "I would say the majority of it are for Republicans, because they are all from Russia and wanted Trump to win" > Journalist: "So you would mostly just get rid of Conservatives?" > Engineer: "Yes" > Immediate cut. Woah, what a compelling argument. The guy is saying they are using machine learning to block Russian bots masquerading as American conservatives that are influencing the narrative in favor of Trump (that totally don't exist btw because we love Russia now and they would never attempt to meddle in any other countries elections). The video attempts to twist that into him saying they block conservatives. This study is an interesting read: http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/ http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisansh... And an associated news article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford https://www.theguardian.com/technology/018/feb/06/sharing-fa...
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  It would've been more accurate to say, "Twitter accepts Trump as a necessary evil." Conflict -> emotional human response on social media is good for business.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- blowski 9y ago
  Unsurprisingly, Twitter is not a single person with a single opinion that can be reduced to a few words. Twitter’s shareholders love the fact that Trump uses Twitter in the way that he does. Many users love reading and discussing Trump’s tweets, precisely because they despise him.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  See... controversy inspires active discussion.
- augustt 9y ago
  Ah yes... this guy https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/30/james-okeefe-head-of-project-veritas-vows-further-undercover-operations-being-hated-is-a-sign-of-respect/?utm_term=.a105b5426472 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/3... Great source.
  - trs80 9y ago
    Being hated on the basis of something one says is a good heuristic for me, as a free speech advocate, to decide whether or not I respect someone for their courage. So long as someone says something they think is important. Perhaps you do not agree with their journalistic methods but you're attacking the messenger and not the idea presented.
    - SauciestGNU 9y ago
      Their "journalistic methods" are fraud, full stop. It's fabrication. Nothing they've ever released has been true, it's all either lies or heavily edited footage that draws a conclusion that is the exact opposite of the truth.
4lch3m1st 9y ago
While I expect a lot of people to not agree with what I am going to say, I believe this is much more linked to the political moment than to Twitter having a problem with "handling controversy". This just feels like an excuse to find a way to filter human communication, at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Brazilian and the latest years' politics headlines have been flooding Twitter around here too, but spurious political tweets tend to be much more boosted by people who don't agree with them -- they just feel that urge to answer it or create a hashtag against it -- than by people actually supporting said tweets.
- blauditore 9y ago
  I think that's what the top comment was trying to say. High profile controversy like that prompts many people to react (either to disagree or to agree), which generates traffic and therefore helps the platform. In addition, just the huge media coverage of Twitter (in the slipstream of Trump) is like a massive free ad campaign.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  > This just feels like an excuse to find a way to filter human communication Interesting. I've modded a fair amount of communities and the censorship argument to moderated discussion comes up frequently as new rules are implemented. From an online discussion point of view I don't think it holds merit at all. If I run a football board and have a rule that says "no basketball talk" that's my prerogative. As long as it's not government driven, censorship is perfectly fine (if you don't like the rules of my service, you are free to use someone else's). When it is government driven, censorship is murky territory at best, but not immediately bad and illegal/unconstitutional. The FCC in some form or another has rules against broadcasting certain types of content. You can't swear, you can't show nudity (or certain types of nudity anyways). That's government driven censorship, and its largely accepted. Slashdot had a hands off approach for a long time. I couldn't go to their site without seeing a n-word reference in the comments because their approach was abused. If you go to reddit, facebook, twitter, snapchat, instagram, or any other major site you run into astroturfing campaigns. We've grown to accept that Microsoft is good at it and Sony is bad at it. But somehow when AT&T does it, it's evil. I don't know what the solution looks like. I just know that we need to evolve. Filtering communication is part of it. A bigger part of it would be finding ways to drive healthier habits.
cat199 9y ago
> The social health issue is one for all companies that compete in the social media space to figure out. The social media issue is one for all netizens that develop code and systems to figure out
Retric 9y ago
That line of thinking strongly reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc As a counter point, I think maximizing controversy is a short term optimization that reduces the number of users over time. Most people drop things at one point or another, and people are more reluctant to go back if their memories are stressful instead of fun.
- CM30 9y ago
  It's definitely a short term thing with unfortunate long term consequences. Indeed, I've seen tons of communities founded on drama and hate for something else, and the vast majority will die in a matter of weeks or months. That's because people get bored with bashing the same things all the time or trying to kill each in other in an online flamewar, and the community will need to either build a real focus or accept its defeat. Also, the more drama a site or service attracts, the more good members it'll inevitably lose. People with the kind of personality you want in a community aren't the kind to get into cat fights or attack people for months on end, and those you do attract with such 'content' tend to be the worst kinds of people. So yeah, it's definitely a short term optimisation which can blow up in their face further down the line.
brokentone 9y ago
I don't think this is an explanation for the current status and gains of Twitter. Trump has been president for over a year, and has been a prolific tweeter for far longer. If anything, Trump tweets are less novel and more common place then they've been to date.
- pessimizer 9y ago
  I think the activity on twitter being referred to is about Trump's presidency, not (mainly) about Trump's tweets. Same reason why cable news is raking it in.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ericmoritz 9y ago
I've pretty much dumped Twitter for Mastodon. My mental health couldn't keep up with the air of constant outrage on Twitter.
- indigochill 9y ago
  I don't really get this point about Twitter, as often as it's said. On my account I don't follow anyone I personally know. I only follow some infosec/tech people who consistently have stuff to say about infosec/tech that I find at least a little interesting. Maybe occasionally they'll make a slight political tangent, but a great majority of what I see is on topic because I only follow people who stay on topic (John Carmack for instance usually geeks out on there about stuff related in some way to VR).
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  I only use Twitter for NWS and local news/government information. I don't see my local news/government on Mastodon, yet, unfortunately.
- bdamm 9y ago
  Does Mastodon solve the problem of migrating from one server to another? Without that I don't see how users have gained anything over, say, facebook.
  - elago 9y ago
    How has it ever been a problem? Create a new account on a new server, post a message on your old account "hey I'm moving to <url of new account>". Conversations are usually only a day or two old before going stale, who cares whether or not toots from a year ago are linked to your account. What I gain over facebook: no ads, not being tracked across the internet via 'like' buttons, not contributing to a massive dataset exclusively available to potentially evil corporation, and interacting with interesting strangers.
- bowlich 9y ago
  I've been on Mastodon for a week now and loving it. But it's a different beast from Twitter. I find it much more socially engaging and interactive. On Twitter, I mostly just followed people and consumed their posts the way I consume an RSS feed. I re-tweeted, but never really posted much on my own or engaged in any kind of dialogue with anyone else. On Mastodon, I don't really follow anyone. I post a lot of random thoughts on my mind, watch the local timeline and jump into impromptu conversations with people about whatever is striking our fancy at the time. I use it more like an threaded IRC channel or a very ephemeral/rapid-fire bulletin board.
vermontdevil 9y ago
Reminds me of local news. "Could this drink be killing you? Watch at 10!" After a while it seems people have ditched local news save for weather. Now it's mostly "Will tomorrow polar vortex freeze your testicles? Watch tonight at 10"
- rhizome 9y ago
  Which is why they do "stay tuned" weather bits three or four times per newscast.
jedberg 9y ago
> The problem, or _a_ problem, is that people can only handle so much controversy. They have lives to lead. You're so spot on. You know how everyone says, "Seinfeld is a show about nothing!" It wasn't about nothing, but what did make it different is that the characters never changed. They didn't have these huge arcs and defining life moments. They just went about their lives and we watched. People say "it was about nothing!" in shock, as if its incredulous that a show without drama in the characters lives could be so popular. But that was why it was popular -- because most people's lives, most of the times, are not filled with drama. They just go about their day. And most people like it that way.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  > But that was why it was popular -- because most people's lives, most of the times, are not filled with drama. A lot of the story arcs involved situations that people loved to gossip about. Like the woman who wouldn't wear a bra, or the whole "regifter" episode.
  - wickawic 9y ago
    Put another way; Seinfield was about how people react to a breakdown in social conventions, and really small ones at that. The types of things that happen in Seinfield were the types of things you would go home and talk to your spouse about. "Someone at work today was standing really close to me!" "I was driving through an exit ramp and two cars tried to merge into the same space!" etc.
    - sanderjd 9y ago
      This is such a good way of putting it, and despite having watched every episode two or three times, I had never quite thought of it this way. I think this is best captured by the moment (which I think about all the time) is when George gets so mad at the person hogging the phone at a Chinese restaurant and yells, "you know we're living in a SOCIETY!". After reading your comment, I realize that complaint could be applied to most of the story lines in the show.
- 9y ago
zhte415 9y ago
Trump... Superbowl... Look seasonal, and more importantly seasonally adjusted. What do you see there? Anything underlying? [Not just seasonal events, like Easter, everything to adjust for, weather, etc...]
- blowski 9y ago
  Celebrities
  - dootdootdoot 9y ago
    Is Trump not a celebrity?
md224 9y ago
I have a different perspective: Twitter is a digital Public Sphere, and Public Spheres are always noisy. "Controversy" is just another name for clashes of opinions that have occurred since the beginning of humankind and will likely continue to occur until the extinction of our species. These clashes occur within discursive spaces, and Twitter is one such space. This is why I'm bullish on Twitter. It's a space for conversation, and people want to converse. (Also, it occupies a unique middle ground between message boards and real-time chat.) The other two spaces I can think of are Reddit and Facebook, and there's enough differentiation to allow all 3 platforms to peacefully co-exist.
- jmfayard 9y ago
  The parent comment was not about Twitter Reddit Facebook coexisting or not peacefully, but about the logic of all of them competing against our public health. IMHO we should regulate the hell out of them each time a significant harm on society can be proved, like we did for any other things that humans ever invented. But tech evangelists will say that time is different because 0 and 1 are being exchanged
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    regulating speech is a practically and legally thorny issue not just because tech bros are dumb and lazy
    - iamdave 9y ago
      I'm not immediately seeing the connection between legal arguments of curtailing speech and "tech bros" and their intellect or work ethic. Can you clarify what you mean?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
mywittyname 9y ago
> Twitter loves Trump. A number of Twitter holdouts that I know finally created accounts this year. While they don't explicitly credit Trump for it, I think the constant barrage in the news made them feel like they were missing out.
chisleu 9y ago
Reddit has become very much the same as Tumbler and Twitter became. It's no longer a tool for expression and conversation. It's an echo chamber with separate factions occupying separate areas... downvoting and banning every opinion that goes against the "reddit circle jerk". Hacker News has become the only place I can have reasoned conversations about science, politics, etc without so much of an issue. The requirement of quality comments eliminates the karma farming from memes and nonsense and the inability to downvote until you are somewhat established prevents mass downvoting of opinions. It's a quality model IMHO.
- MrJagil 9y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics has an interesting take on moderation.
- tyrust 9y ago
  Reddit is fine if you subscribe to small [0] or heavily moderated [1]. Default and large subreddits have practically always been as you describe. >requirement of quality comments Ha. You won't have shitposts or rehashed jokes, but you also won't always have quality. I'll refer to a past comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154688 [0] - Usually niche interest or specific geographic [1] - e.g. /r/askhistorians, /r/askscience, /r/neutralpolitics
  - IgorPartola 9y ago
    Reddit is insta-community. Here's how I use Reddit: I pick up a new hobby, say knitting. I go to reddit.com/r/knitting and suddenly I have a bunch of experts there who I can ask questions, exchange ideas with, or brag to about my accomplishments. There is an instant community already existing on Reddit for pretty much every activity I can think of. Where this gets dicey is politics. If you are suddenly a black libretarian baptist who believes in evolution, but not gravity, there's probably a /r/blbwbiebng already waiting for you. And if any of those gravity believing scum show up, the mods will ban them. My ex used to study these little fish from Alaska who evolved in basically tiny separated ponds as the water level dropped and they all got separated. This is what's happening with Reddit. Silos where evolution happens completely independently of anything in the outside world.
anonacct37 9y ago
> The social health issue is one for all companies that compete in the social media space to figure out. Our traditional media organizations haven't figured this out in millennia. I'm not that hopeful. It's a fundamental conflict of interest between selling ads and creating informed citizens. Some will tell you that's why they have the "church and state". I don't know. I'm not sure it's an effective policy and with native advertising the point is moot because they've given up on even the pretense.
jakubp 9y ago
This suggests Twitter is somewhat antifragile wrt controversy and events, perhaps more so than other media.
samstave 9y ago
Yep, and I have actually been wondering; Has anyone been able to determine if the Trump family has been investing-in or profiting-off of twitter? How much twitter does trump own? https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+stock&oq=twitter+stock&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.2723j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+stock&oq=twitter+sto... Certainly looks like this year has been an uptick for them...

trs80 9y ago

>Twitter loves Trump. Hidden camera investigations[1] into Twitter employees suggest otherwise. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ

Bulk70 9y ago
Twitter staff != Twitter Inc
orf 9y ago
Seems like a lot of out of context clips to push a narrative, standard project veritas stuff. Like the clip about banning certain groups of people: the engineer says "it's going to ban a certain way of talking". You might take from this based on the video that he's talking about inadvertently banning right-leaning users. Well, what if he's talking about banning racism or messages that use ((subtle dog-whistles)) instead of overt racism? Also, not many people like Trump, especially not in left-leaning areas (like where Twitter is based). Are employees not allowed to voice their dislike of a very dislikable man, while drinking at a social event?
- trs80 9y ago
  If you watched the whole thing you'd see the context of each interview.
  - orf 9y ago
    I did, and it's just longer out of context videos that cut off at convenient points: > Journalist: "Would you say the algorithms block liberal or conservative users?" > Engineer: "I would say the majority of it are for Republicans, because they are all from Russia and wanted Trump to win" > Journalist: "So you would mostly just get rid of Conservatives?" > Engineer: "Yes" > Immediate cut. Woah, what a compelling argument. The guy is saying they are using machine learning to block Russian bots masquerading as American conservatives that are influencing the narrative in favor of Trump (that totally don't exist btw because we love Russia now and they would never attempt to meddle in any other countries elections). The video attempts to twist that into him saying they block conservatives. This study is an interesting read: http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/ http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisansh... And an associated news article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford https://www.theguardian.com/technology/018/feb/06/sharing-fa...
toomuchtodo 9y ago
It would've been more accurate to say, "Twitter accepts Trump as a necessary evil." Conflict -> emotional human response on social media is good for business.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
blowski 9y ago
Unsurprisingly, Twitter is not a single person with a single opinion that can be reduced to a few words. Twitter’s shareholders love the fact that Trump uses Twitter in the way that he does. Many users love reading and discussing Trump’s tweets, precisely because they despise him.
Steeeve 9y ago
See... controversy inspires active discussion.
augustt 9y ago
Ah yes... this guy https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/30/james-okeefe-head-of-project-veritas-vows-further-undercover-operations-being-hated-is-a-sign-of-respect/?utm_term=.a105b5426472 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/3... Great source.
- trs80 9y ago
  Being hated on the basis of something one says is a good heuristic for me, as a free speech advocate, to decide whether or not I respect someone for their courage. So long as someone says something they think is important. Perhaps you do not agree with their journalistic methods but you're attacking the messenger and not the idea presented.
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    Their "journalistic methods" are fraud, full stop. It's fabrication. Nothing they've ever released has been true, it's all either lies or heavily edited footage that draws a conclusion that is the exact opposite of the truth.

4lch3m1st 9y ago

While I expect a lot of people to not agree with what I am going to say, I believe this is much more linked to the political moment than to Twitter having a problem with "handling controversy". This just feels like an excuse to find a way to filter human communication, at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Brazilian and the latest years' politics headlines have been flooding Twitter around here too, but spurious political tweets tend to be much more boosted by people who don't agree with them -- they just feel that urge to answer it or create a hashtag against it -- than by people actually supporting said tweets.

blauditore 9y ago
I think that's what the top comment was trying to say. High profile controversy like that prompts many people to react (either to disagree or to agree), which generates traffic and therefore helps the platform. In addition, just the huge media coverage of Twitter (in the slipstream of Trump) is like a massive free ad campaign.
Steeeve 9y ago
> This just feels like an excuse to find a way to filter human communication Interesting. I've modded a fair amount of communities and the censorship argument to moderated discussion comes up frequently as new rules are implemented. From an online discussion point of view I don't think it holds merit at all. If I run a football board and have a rule that says "no basketball talk" that's my prerogative. As long as it's not government driven, censorship is perfectly fine (if you don't like the rules of my service, you are free to use someone else's). When it is government driven, censorship is murky territory at best, but not immediately bad and illegal/unconstitutional. The FCC in some form or another has rules against broadcasting certain types of content. You can't swear, you can't show nudity (or certain types of nudity anyways). That's government driven censorship, and its largely accepted. Slashdot had a hands off approach for a long time. I couldn't go to their site without seeing a n-word reference in the comments because their approach was abused. If you go to reddit, facebook, twitter, snapchat, instagram, or any other major site you run into astroturfing campaigns. We've grown to accept that Microsoft is good at it and Sony is bad at it. But somehow when AT&T does it, it's evil. I don't know what the solution looks like. I just know that we need to evolve. Filtering communication is part of it. A bigger part of it would be finding ways to drive healthier habits.

cat199 9y ago

> The social health issue is one for all companies that compete in the social media space to figure out. The social media issue is one for all netizens that develop code and systems to figure out

Retric 9y ago

That line of thinking strongly reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc As a counter point, I think maximizing controversy is a short term optimization that reduces the number of users over time. Most people drop things at one point or another, and people are more reluctant to go back if their memories are stressful instead of fun.

CM30 9y ago
It's definitely a short term thing with unfortunate long term consequences. Indeed, I've seen tons of communities founded on drama and hate for something else, and the vast majority will die in a matter of weeks or months. That's because people get bored with bashing the same things all the time or trying to kill each in other in an online flamewar, and the community will need to either build a real focus or accept its defeat. Also, the more drama a site or service attracts, the more good members it'll inevitably lose. People with the kind of personality you want in a community aren't the kind to get into cat fights or attack people for months on end, and those you do attract with such 'content' tend to be the worst kinds of people. So yeah, it's definitely a short term optimisation which can blow up in their face further down the line.

brokentone 9y ago

I don't think this is an explanation for the current status and gains of Twitter. Trump has been president for over a year, and has been a prolific tweeter for far longer. If anything, Trump tweets are less novel and more common place then they've been to date.

pessimizer 9y ago
I think the activity on twitter being referred to is about Trump's presidency, not (mainly) about Trump's tweets. Same reason why cable news is raking it in.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ericmoritz 9y ago

I've pretty much dumped Twitter for Mastodon. My mental health couldn't keep up with the air of constant outrage on Twitter.

indigochill 9y ago
I don't really get this point about Twitter, as often as it's said. On my account I don't follow anyone I personally know. I only follow some infosec/tech people who consistently have stuff to say about infosec/tech that I find at least a little interesting. Maybe occasionally they'll make a slight political tangent, but a great majority of what I see is on topic because I only follow people who stay on topic (John Carmack for instance usually geeks out on there about stuff related in some way to VR).
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I only use Twitter for NWS and local news/government information. I don't see my local news/government on Mastodon, yet, unfortunately.
bdamm 9y ago
Does Mastodon solve the problem of migrating from one server to another? Without that I don't see how users have gained anything over, say, facebook.
- elago 9y ago
  How has it ever been a problem? Create a new account on a new server, post a message on your old account "hey I'm moving to <url of new account>". Conversations are usually only a day or two old before going stale, who cares whether or not toots from a year ago are linked to your account. What I gain over facebook: no ads, not being tracked across the internet via 'like' buttons, not contributing to a massive dataset exclusively available to potentially evil corporation, and interacting with interesting strangers.
bowlich 9y ago
I've been on Mastodon for a week now and loving it. But it's a different beast from Twitter. I find it much more socially engaging and interactive. On Twitter, I mostly just followed people and consumed their posts the way I consume an RSS feed. I re-tweeted, but never really posted much on my own or engaged in any kind of dialogue with anyone else. On Mastodon, I don't really follow anyone. I post a lot of random thoughts on my mind, watch the local timeline and jump into impromptu conversations with people about whatever is striking our fancy at the time. I use it more like an threaded IRC channel or a very ephemeral/rapid-fire bulletin board.

vermontdevil 9y ago

Reminds me of local news. "Could this drink be killing you? Watch at 10!" After a while it seems people have ditched local news save for weather. Now it's mostly "Will tomorrow polar vortex freeze your testicles? Watch tonight at 10"

rhizome 9y ago
Which is why they do "stay tuned" weather bits three or four times per newscast.

jedberg 9y ago

> The problem, or _a_ problem, is that people can only handle so much controversy. They have lives to lead. You're so spot on. You know how everyone says, "Seinfeld is a show about nothing!" It wasn't about nothing, but what did make it different is that the characters never changed. They didn't have these huge arcs and defining life moments. They just went about their lives and we watched. People say "it was about nothing!" in shock, as if its incredulous that a show without drama in the characters lives could be so popular. But that was why it was popular -- because most people's lives, most of the times, are not filled with drama. They just go about their day. And most people like it that way.

mywittyname 9y ago
> But that was why it was popular -- because most people's lives, most of the times, are not filled with drama. A lot of the story arcs involved situations that people loved to gossip about. Like the woman who wouldn't wear a bra, or the whole "regifter" episode.
- wickawic 9y ago
  Put another way; Seinfield was about how people react to a breakdown in social conventions, and really small ones at that. The types of things that happen in Seinfield were the types of things you would go home and talk to your spouse about. "Someone at work today was standing really close to me!" "I was driving through an exit ramp and two cars tried to merge into the same space!" etc.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    This is such a good way of putting it, and despite having watched every episode two or three times, I had never quite thought of it this way. I think this is best captured by the moment (which I think about all the time) is when George gets so mad at the person hogging the phone at a Chinese restaurant and yells, "you know we're living in a SOCIETY!". After reading your comment, I realize that complaint could be applied to most of the story lines in the show.
9y ago

zhte415 9y ago

Trump... Superbowl... Look seasonal, and more importantly seasonally adjusted. What do you see there? Anything underlying? [Not just seasonal events, like Easter, everything to adjust for, weather, etc...]

blowski 9y ago
Celebrities
- dootdootdoot 9y ago
  Is Trump not a celebrity?

md224 9y ago

I have a different perspective: Twitter is a digital Public Sphere, and Public Spheres are always noisy. "Controversy" is just another name for clashes of opinions that have occurred since the beginning of humankind and will likely continue to occur until the extinction of our species. These clashes occur within discursive spaces, and Twitter is one such space. This is why I'm bullish on Twitter. It's a space for conversation, and people want to converse. (Also, it occupies a unique middle ground between message boards and real-time chat.) The other two spaces I can think of are Reddit and Facebook, and there's enough differentiation to allow all 3 platforms to peacefully co-exist.

jmfayard 9y ago
The parent comment was not about Twitter Reddit Facebook coexisting or not peacefully, but about the logic of all of them competing against our public health. IMHO we should regulate the hell out of them each time a significant harm on society can be proved, like we did for any other things that humans ever invented. But tech evangelists will say that time is different because 0 and 1 are being exchanged
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  regulating speech is a practically and legally thorny issue not just because tech bros are dumb and lazy
  - iamdave 9y ago
    I'm not immediately seeing the connection between legal arguments of curtailing speech and "tech bros" and their intellect or work ethic. Can you clarify what you mean?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

mywittyname 9y ago

> Twitter loves Trump. A number of Twitter holdouts that I know finally created accounts this year. While they don't explicitly credit Trump for it, I think the constant barrage in the news made them feel like they were missing out.

chisleu 9y ago

Reddit has become very much the same as Tumbler and Twitter became. It's no longer a tool for expression and conversation. It's an echo chamber with separate factions occupying separate areas... downvoting and banning every opinion that goes against the "reddit circle jerk". Hacker News has become the only place I can have reasoned conversations about science, politics, etc without so much of an issue. The requirement of quality comments eliminates the karma farming from memes and nonsense and the inability to downvote until you are somewhat established prevents mass downvoting of opinions. It's a quality model IMHO.

MrJagil 9y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics has an interesting take on moderation.
tyrust 9y ago
Reddit is fine if you subscribe to small [0] or heavily moderated [1]. Default and large subreddits have practically always been as you describe. >requirement of quality comments Ha. You won't have shitposts or rehashed jokes, but you also won't always have quality. I'll refer to a past comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154688 [0] - Usually niche interest or specific geographic [1] - e.g. /r/askhistorians, /r/askscience, /r/neutralpolitics
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  Reddit is insta-community. Here's how I use Reddit: I pick up a new hobby, say knitting. I go to reddit.com/r/knitting and suddenly I have a bunch of experts there who I can ask questions, exchange ideas with, or brag to about my accomplishments. There is an instant community already existing on Reddit for pretty much every activity I can think of. Where this gets dicey is politics. If you are suddenly a black libretarian baptist who believes in evolution, but not gravity, there's probably a /r/blbwbiebng already waiting for you. And if any of those gravity believing scum show up, the mods will ban them. My ex used to study these little fish from Alaska who evolved in basically tiny separated ponds as the water level dropped and they all got separated. This is what's happening with Reddit. Silos where evolution happens completely independently of anything in the outside world.

anonacct37 9y ago

> The social health issue is one for all companies that compete in the social media space to figure out. Our traditional media organizations haven't figured this out in millennia. I'm not that hopeful. It's a fundamental conflict of interest between selling ads and creating informed citizens. Some will tell you that's why they have the "church and state". I don't know. I'm not sure it's an effective policy and with native advertising the point is moot because they've given up on even the pretense.

jakubp 9y ago

This suggests Twitter is somewhat antifragile wrt controversy and events, perhaps more so than other media.

samstave 9y ago

Yep, and I have actually been wondering; Has anyone been able to determine if the Trump family has been investing-in or profiting-off of twitter? How much twitter does trump own? https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+stock&oq=twitter+stock&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.2723j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+stock&oq=twitter+sto... Certainly looks like this year has been an uptick for them...