4 ms·
> We want friction in communicating. Not only do we want it, we have to have it. I am uncomfortable with this, but I find myself agreeing. All the "problems" w
by forgottenpass 9y ago
> We want friction in communicating. Not only do we want it, we have to have it.
I am uncomfortable with this, but I find myself agreeing. All the "problems" with Twitter stem from liking low-friction communication in theory, but hating it in practice.
I think that in some way it is workable, but people approach it in a way that sets everyone up for failure. People want their phone to ding, then make them feel good because their friends are nice to them. Twitter is not that. Twitter can never be that. Twitter is the internet. If you apply the last 3 decades of common knowledge about interacting on the internet, it's fine. But it reduces the utility (and therefore engagement) of Twitter, so the marketed idea has to be that twitter is something more.
- dannykahneman 9y agoI understand the discomfort, I feel it myself. However, I believe that friction, and adding delays, makes it more likely that people engage system 2 thinking (slow). When communication is frictionless, we engage more of our type i system. See: drunk arguments.
- forgottenpass 9y agoYeah, but at the same drunk arguments kinda prove my case too. Drunk arguments are fun, but they're their own thing. People worth knowing, know how to have a drunk argument and still get along with everyone during and after it. It's an abnormal interaction, but as long as the participants know the different ground rules and constraints, you'll be fine. If you use Twitter like it's facebook, it's not going to be fun.